Talk:Sterling silver: Difference between revisions

This page really needs some cleanup, but I'm not the expert to do it. I did do some research though in the hopes we could get this article out of dispute:

( http://www.chicagosilver.com/story_of_sterling.htm ) The word 'Sterling' is believed to be a contraction of' the word 'Easterlings,' which was the name of a band of traders of the twelfth century, during the reign of Richard l. They came from the eastern part of Germany and in trading with the English offered 'tokens' (pieces of metal corresponding to coins) in exchange for goods. These tokens were made of a silver alloy which was noted for its purity and the uniform high standard of 925/1000 fine, and were adopted by the English for use in commerce.

( http://www.aldertons.com/money.htm ) Coinage was originally transacted in weights. Often a mixture of coins did not weigh exactly a pound or half a pound, in fact they often had to split a coin to make the mixture of coins weigh exactly what was required. To make the splitting of a coin easier, certain coins were stamped with a smiley face. This enabled a coin to be split easily in half or quarters. This cross was likened to a star, the coins where soon nicknamed 'starlings', this word eventually evolved to what we now know as STERLING. English coins where split into four, each quarter was nicknamed a fourthing or fourling, this word evolved into FARTHING. Many foreign coins had more elements to their stars and their coins where split into eighths, hence the term PIECES OF EIGHT. A lot of these coins where of Hispanic origin and the term associated with these coins developed in the American version of English which is where the Americans get the term 'TWO BIT THIS' or 'TWO BIT THAT' from. Many people think the term 'wedge' is a recent slang term or relatively modern term, this is not the case. When a coin was split into quarters or eighths the shape was of a wedge and this is where the term comes from.

--Xephael 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. I dont know how to report this.. But there is vandalism recently on the page. -- pimpstate

Is this where the term "pounds sterling" comes from? -- Zoe

Sort of, only the other way around. Coins of this form came first - particularly if we are looking at where they were minted - and later on, that purity of alloy was used for jewellery. PML.

We do not know whether the Easterlings or Stirling Castle drove this - it could even be "double etymology", like "Maria" from Latin and Hebrew. PML.

I would be interested in hearing the etymological background for the supposition that Stirling castle had anything to do with either sterling silver refining or coin minting. -- Octothorn 12:41 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in hearing a source for this theory. A preliminary check found nothing (even at www.stirling.co.uk). - Hephaestos 06:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

I have done considerable research into this issue today, and I hve only unearthed more evidence in opposition to the Stirling castle theory, which I have included on the page. It could be trimmed considerably, but I will give it some more thought later.

The major issue I find concerning is that if the origin of the term Sterling Silver were related to the Stirling Castle site, then it ought to be a major and well-known location of silver refining or coin minting.

However, there is no evidence of any sort that any operations of this type have ever occurred at the Stirling Castle site, much less that it was the seat of this type of operation! The Stirling castle site appears to have functioned principally as a fortress in times of battle - not the type of place you would expect to house industry. - Octothorn 07:51 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that a source for the "Stirling Castle theory" would be extremely helpful. Logically, if the theory had any weight at all, some mention of it would be made by the owners of the castle itself (who, while noting there "may have been a mint" there make no such claim that I have been able to find).

If no citation is forthcoming (aside from "out of PML's head"), I'm sorely tempted to remove this material from the article altogether (moved to the talk page, so Octothorn's work won't be completely wasted. Hephaestos 18:33 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[Moved from article.]

One possible derivation of the term is the possibility that "Sterling Silver" was minted into coins at Stirling Castle in Scotland in the Middle Ages, though this theory seems rather unlikely.

Noting only the similarity between the name "Sterling Silver" and "Stirling Castle" it would seem, at first sight, reasonable to conclude that that the castle may have been used to protect the operations and the storage of precious metal — in much the same way as the Tower of London was used as a mint and armoury. If this were the case, then one would naturally expect that the principal location for refining or minting the first Sterling silver coinage would be well known to be the Stirling Castle, but this is clearly not the case.

If the theory of the name "Sterling Silver" emerging from Stirling Castle has any credence, then one would expect there to be some evidence, whether archaeological or otherwise, of minting or refining operations having existed at the Stirling Castle site.

There is no archaeological evidence of such operations ever occurring on the site. There is no archaeological evidence of the buildings that may have housed such operations. There is not even any archaeological evidence of a stronghold on the Stirling Castle site prior to the 12th century, nor of any archaeological remnants that one would expect to find of an established minting or refining operation of this type. There is also no written evidence of these operations having existed at the Stirling Castle site at the time. Indeed, there is no recorded history of silver refining or coin minting operations of any sort going on in or around the Stirling Castle site at any time, not even in folklore.

Numismatic evidence is one other way this kind of information may be found, but none has ever been discovered or indicated for refining or minting operations at Stirling Castle.

While most older coins lack separate documentation trails, all minting operations themselves, due to their importance to the crown, have a well recorded history in England and Scotland (see English Penny - Re: location of mints) throughout the period from 1066 onward.

This period from 1066 onward commences well before the recognised period of establishment of the Sterling standard - sometime during the 12th century. In this way the first sterling coinage was certainly the product of a known mint. In the records of minting operations there is no indication that the Stirling Castle site was ever used for silver refining or coin minting.

As background information, the earliest known history of the Stirling Castle site is in 1110 when Alexander I dedicated a pre-existing chapel on the Stirling Castle site. This chapel is no longer standing. Except for the battlements, the building of the existing castle was not started until around 1370.

By 1340, which was prior to the construction of the existing Stirling Castle, the silver coin of England was no longer "Sterling silver". The grade of silver in the coinage continued with a declining purity until Elizabeth I reinstated English currency to Sterling grade silver.

Crucially, however, during the 12th century the Stirling Castle site could not be considered to be a stronghold in the same way that the Tower of London has historically been. If there were any structures on the site that may have been considered sufficiently robust to constitute a stronghold they have left no archaeological evidence of themselves, and were certainly not in any way similar to the Tower of London.

Another principal difference between Stirling castle and the Tower of London is that Stirling Castle's location and physical geography have made it a strategically desirable place for fortifications in active battle. Consequently, the history of the Stirling Castle site is a particularly turbulent one. It has changed hands twice in the 12th century alone, and has changed hands no less than 16 times in its history. This has been the result of battles and negotiations between the English and the Scots. It would seem, therefore, to be foolish for either country to store, refine, or mint the silver coins of their nation in the Stirling Castle area during a period when it may be attacked and taken by an enemy army at any moment.

The tower of London, by contrast, has been maintained in a geographically powerful position with the proximity of the might of London to defend it, and was consequently not vulnerable in times of war except if London itself had already fallen. Unlike the Stirling Castle site, The Tower of London has never changed hands in all of its history.

A not exactly reliable source this, I realise, but I was taught at school that the term "Sterling Silver" related to silver mined at Alva, Clackmannanshire and assayed at Stirling. I must stress that this was according to the teachers at Alva Academy, and therefore is most likely a mixture of myth, locl legend and supostion. However, the fact of silver mining at Alva is undeniable (the mines being closed these days due to radioactivity)

I removed this sentence: "Unfortunately the plate made from this grade of silver was too soft to use for the then current style in plate, so a simpler plate styling had to be developed." which is completely incorrect - this period saw the arrival of elaborate Huguenot silversmithing styles, and in 1719 silversmiths petitioned parliament for BS to be retained as it was "better adapted for curious work". The reintro of sterling was due to a perception that BS was less durable. Probably better for this explanation to be on the Britannia silver page rather than under Sterling silver. --mervyn 07:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I've only lived in the UK all my life, but I thought the pound sterling was still the currency unit used in the UK and that it wasn't withdrawn in the mid 20th century!

11/27/2005 - As a collector of antique sterling silver, and one who spends half of her life (it seems) polishing the stuff, I wanted to amend the section on tarnish removal. I mean no offense to whoever wrote the original (which involved boiling in a pan with foil, bicarbonate, etc.), but this is not the preferred method of care used by collectors. Hand polishing with a gentle silver cream or paste is definitely the polishing method of choice, and is the method which best preserves chasing and repousse. --Mrs. Rockefeller

11/28/05 - This page was sorely lacking a good section on hallmarks. Therefore, I wrote one, and also removed the mention of hallmarks from the first paragraph of the page, since it is now covered in more detail in the 'Hallmarks' section. --Mrs. Rockefeller

11/28/05 - Wrote a section about the sterling silver craze in dining accoutrements, which went from approximately 1840 to 1940. It was during this period that sterling silver items flourished. --Mrs. Rockefeller where did you put the Hallmarks after you fixed the page? You did not correct the Hallmark spot. Now we can not fine the Hallmarks. I am sure this is in error but please fined them and correct tnanks, Dummy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.171.120 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11/28/05 - Added a photograph of the hallmarks on the bottom of a piece of antique British sterling silver. Also added a photo of a Tiffany & Co. pitcher to illustrate the type of sterling silver decoration that was prevalent during the late 19th century. Photos always add what is hard to provide with the imagination. --Mrs. Rockefeller

2-11-06 I have read on several sites that storing silver in plastic bags or wrap can cause corrosion/tarnish unless the plastic is of a higher quality such as polyethylene (ziplock). I am no expert and initially was going to leave it up to those with more experience to edit the storage paragraph if needed but fearing no one would read this part of the discussion, I've taken the plunge and added a paragraph to the end of the article. See

1. JBSilverware
2. Goddards
3. JournalTimes

Per JBSilverware: Storing silver in plastic bags and cardboard boxes and tissue paper, unless they are archival quality products, will do more harm than good due to the aggressive acids and gases released by poor quality papers and plastics. But, silver wrapped in acid-free tissue and placed in silvercloth and/or a sealed polyethylene plastic bag (e.g. Ziploc type) will be well protected.

(LAH)

The section in this article on removing tarnish is a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. Wikibooks however has a How-tos bookshelf. I suggest that the main points of the how-to are summarised into an encyclopaedic section and the rest transwikied to Wikibooks. There are prominent tags that can be used to link to the content on Wikibooks (see WP:SISTER). Thryduulf 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 63.194.246.108 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement from the article, Fine silver (99.9% pure) is generally too soft for producing large functional objects, and in Sterling the silver is usually alloyed with copper to give strength (...)

is in flat contradiction to the statement from the German wikipedia article,

(...) läßt sich gegenüber reinem Silber leichter bearbeiten oder prägen, weil der Kupferanteil in der Legierung das Metall weicher macht. (which translates to is easier machined and embossed because the copper content of the alloy makes the material softer.)

I've posted this some weeks ago on the German article but apparently nobody felt able to resolve the issue yet.

So which is it? Harder or softer than pure silver? --RGrimmig 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I know are in agreement that copper makes the silver harder and more durable, (just like when copper is alloyed with gold). Must be a prob with the German article. --mervyn 12:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Sterling: A Century of Dining Regalia was added virtually complete in its current form in one edit from an IP which has some history of copyviolation[1] and the Hallmarks was added by same ip here[2], although it has been edited a wee tad more. I have not been able to identify the source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the aforementioned sections. They are virtually complete because I wrote them in Microsoft Word BEFORE adding them to the page. I did this so that they would not have to be tweaked a "wee tad". Since when is being organized a sign of copyright violation? That is a patently ridiculous statement.

I haven't been active because I have been sick with cancer, NOT because I am hiding.

I can assure you that I opened a blank page in Microsoft Word, and began writing. The pictures were also added by me, taken with my own camera.

I do not have a "history" of copyright violations. I added a comment to a genealogy page for my sister's married name. I had been reading a fiction story, in German, a language in which I am fluent, and saw a German verb that was quite similar. I recall adding a statement that the family surname may have been a modification of that particular verb. Why this comment would have been labeled a "copyright violation", I have no idea. My statement or statement(s) are no longer available, apparently removed, along with any statement explaining the reason for this action.

According to information for my IP address, the accusation of "copyright violation" was made concerning this one comment, and by one individual, who states on his page: "I would like to be writing great articles, but actually I'm an inveterate "fixer" of anything that I see that looks wrong - mainly links and copyedits." He defines himself as a "Perl hacker".

Wikipedia has allowed this person to remove information about the origin of a name in MY FAMILY, labeling it, for some unknown reason, as "copyright violation". Meanwhile, a page next to it has only a list of rock musicians, and no useful genealogical information.

Wikipedia apparently has very low standards in whom it allows to "police" its website. But it's a public domain, so those of us who actually DO spend time adding valuable information will just have to live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsrockefeller (talk • contribs)

Hi. I'm sorry if it seemed accusatory. We did leave the text in while trying to determine its provenance, so no harm done. The other seeming copyright violation was at Boger. The article there did have the look of a direct copy from a dictionary; apologies if someone got that wrong too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Sterling Silver, Sterling silver or sterling silver? Clarityfiend 09:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Sterling silver#"Easterling" theory section currently seems to be treating theory as fact. I think it needs to be edited for clarity, while being careful to avoid weasel words. --Kjoonlee 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David F 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC) - When I looked at the Sterling silver#"Easterling" theory section, it seemed to me to contain an obvious vandalism: "...but then later changed because of the romans and is now called Glutius [sic] Maximus." The term gluteus maximus is an anatomical term referring to one of the muscles that forms the rump. In the context of coinage this is nonsensical. I deleted the whole phrase.[reply]

David F 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC) - After completing my 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC) changes, I looked at the Wiki style manual section on punctuation of quotations. I saw that I'd "fixed" the punctuation of the quotations so that it no longer conformed to Wiki style. I reverted the changes I made to the punctuation of the quotations. It now conforms to Wiki style again[reply]

David F 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC) - Regarding the Wiki style for punctuation of quotations: although the Wiki convention "makes sense," - oops - "makes sense", it ignores the conventional difference between North American and European punctuation of quotations. In North America, sentence punctuation such as a comma or period that is not part of the quotation goes inside the quotation, to the left of the closing quotation mark. Sentence punctuation such as a question mark, semicolon, or colon not part of the quotation goes outside the quotation, to the right of the closing quotation mark. The Wiki convention and the European convention are similar: sentence punctuation not part of the quotation goes outside the quotation, to the right of the closing quotation mark. I submit that the Wiki convention constitutes a trap for North Americans contributing Wiki text. It would be good if a clear and highly visible warning message appeared on Wiki edit web pages, stating that Wiki quotation punctuation conventions differ from North American quotation punctutation conventions.[reply]

The ultimate in sumptuous dining was to include a fork for eating endangered turtle species!

It seems to me that such comments are not needed in an encyclopedia.... Josh Thompson 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notes in that sentence. Next time, why not be bold and remove them yourself? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was on my way to bed.... I've done slightly more cleanup now. Josh Thompson 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some very old silver given to me that have markings. I am trying to figure out how old, where it orignaited and what the symbols mean.

The markings I was able to make out 'on the back' were as follows:

Starting near middle back of spoon handle working towards tip of handle the markings are as follows:

(small) s / (small) r in circle / (what looks like) and anchor in circle / (Capital) JG in circle / (Capital) M in circle.........then at top of these markings (capital) E.P. in circle

On the front of the spoon the is a bird of sorts. Almost looks like a stork. Looks as if it is landing or taking off as legs are visable. It also has etched in the sliver what looks like it could be a bit of land. Almost like a line.

This Silver belonged to a Captian Michaelson of the Royal Navy. I can only assume he was from Europe as this was given to us by inlaws and they are both from England. The silver was brought over in a truck on his ship.

This is about all the information I have. If anyone has anything information that may be able to help me find out more about the above, it would be appreciated. I have never had to look for anything like this before and really do not know where to start.

Thanks so much Lynne Parker lynne.parker@shaw.ca

I don't think a talk page on Wikipedia is your best bet. Might I suggest contacting a curator for a museum housing similar sorts of items? Best I can think of. Antique appraisers are also usually a source of bountiful knowledge about such objects, and typically do not charge for identification services. Hope that helps! --63.166.226.83 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dear, I second that opinion. I would love to help you, but then we would have a million people wanting the free service. My suggestion is simply to use Google to search for websites that help in the identification of silver hallmarks and/or makers' marks, both American and foreign. Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some independent searching (googling) is best for what you’re trying to do also. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Easterling" section seems to suggest (a) that the Easterling silver was chosen for its hardness and suitability for coinage, and then (b) that this silver was eventually reblended to reach... the same purity, for what seems to be inflation reasons?

If not contradictory, this section is certainly confusing.

I have added the contradict template for now. I don't know enough about the subject to do anything more here, just ran across it.

--209.159.64.4 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the middle of rewriting the standards section, and other changes, but am taking a break for dinner, etc. I wrote most of the original part of this.

Will explain changes made in a bit, hopefully later this evening...

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking much longer than I thought. I am still working on a major rewrite. I think this article now verges on sprawling, with much of what is on the page not really relating to sterling silver, which is, after all, what the page is really supposed to be about.

I'll also explain some of my edits in the morning. I've been working on this for probably four and a half hours, and need to get some sleep.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that I was writing a major edit, and would explain the rationale behind it.

Originally, I started to make a minor edit, but the more I read over the page, the more I thought that it just rambled, and parts of it had nothing to do with sterling silver, which this page is supposed to cover.

I didn't think that listing a big long list of "Other silver standards" had any place on this page, which is about sterling silver. Therefore, I have created a separate page called Silver standards. The edited first paragraph makes mention of this page.

There were two problems with the "Hallmarks" secton:

• the information was getting too lengthy

• there were descriptions of hallmarks on silver that were not used to mark sterling (silver of the 925 millesimal fineness)

Therefore, I moved this information to a separate page titled Silver hallmarks. This page now has a short description, and provides a link to the new page. I plan to improve this page, as time permits.

First, about the photograph. Whoever uploaded this misspelled "sterling" as "stirling" repeatedly. I changed the spelling in the file's description and in the text under the photo, but, the filename still retains the misspelling.

Incidentally, I should state here that I checked several reputable sources containing the capitalization of the word "sterling" when it is used in reference to the silver standard. All of these sources agree that it is not capitalized. Therefore, as I was editing, I also lowercased everywhere that I found an error in capitalization. This included the above-referenced photograph.

I decided to try to research some references for the origin of the term sterling silver, because we haven't gotten very far with that. I found numerous articles on the web. However, most of them are derived from THIS PAGE. Meaning that if we use any of them as a reference, it would end up that we are using ourselves as a reference. That would not be good at all.

There were a couple of references to uses of silver that were inappropriately placed. I decided that there should be a separate section for these.

These sections were combined into one. Why were they separated in the first place?

"An easy way to shine silver is to take some dry baking soda and rub it on the metal with one's fingers, then to rinse it with mineral-free water." I challenge this sentence. You must be so careful when dealing with antique silver! I would NOT apply something that could end up scratching the finish and ruining the patina.

Whoever posted the message that there were no references was correct. We did need references. Although I originally wrote the "Hallmarks" and "History of sterling silver and dining regalia" sections straight from memory, and did not have any particular book in front of me as a reference, I know that I did not obtain this knowledge by osmosis. Therefore, I assembled a list of the books I have on hand, from which my knowledge was likely to have come.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the text for the photo of the center bowl, I happened to notice that whoever posted this photo had, through the larger version of the photo, been using this encyclopedia as an advertisement to bring visitors to a commercial site for the sale of expensive silver pieces! At first I thought that this link was to a museum-type site, but when I visited the site it was obvious that we have been "used" to draw traffic and increase sales. This made me pretty angry.

The second photo showed hallmarks, but didn't say who the maker was.

Not only this, but the text and file names were horribly misspelled, something that we don't have control over and can't correct.

I went as far as to remove the two photos.

I'm sure that one of us has a photo we can use from a private collection. In fact, I have an idea in mind.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Wiki looking for info on the numbers 925 that you find stamped on jewelry and other silver items. A search on the number, 925, referred me to this article for Sterling silver, but the 925 stamp itself isn't mentioned. Could someone with more knowledge than me add that to the article, please?

I know what the stamp means, and was once told by a jeweler-friend to look for it, but I was wondering what the origin is, whether it's an official thing, if it's an international standard of some sort (as much as that sort of thing can be) how reliable it is, etc.

Zdsowg (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site offers some good information regarding the 925 stamp and its market meaning: http://www.manyhorses.com/sterling_silver_quality.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcgraham (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]