Author Topic: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.  (Read 1386 times)

justinmcroteau

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« on: May 24, 2017, 06:08:30 pm »
I was using another site but i heard its a big family over here and hopefully more traffic...  u guys should start your own appraisal site, i feel like i already owe Marthahill a few bucks..

anyways, came across these today...  spent 2 hours all over the web and now i have to defer to the experts.  Thank you in advance.  I would only ask if i really had done my due diligence..  its just hard to find the name of a make when you done have any letters to go off of on their stamp.

Anyway, all help is appreciated..

Justin
 

Rauville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • Karma: +109/-0
    • View Profile

mart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19849
  • Karma: +122/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2017, 08:03:37 pm »
http://corbellsilver.com/pages/About-Us.html

Excellent Rauville !!  Brownie point for you !!  He got it !!

KC

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11661
  • Karma: +93/-0
  • Forever Blessed!
    • View Profile
Re: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2017, 08:14:45 pm »
Have an important question for you Justinmcroteau....i s the top threaded to stay on?  In order to be a good shaker it would be threaded or have "notches" to fit tightly!

Corbell & Company made many reproduction items and their muffineers (aka sugar shakers) and castors have been popular over time.  Believe it or not, owl items like this were used in 1700's for wig powderers, talc shakers (because men wore wigs and it was more manly).  You can find they were popular for pepper pots and/or pepperettes.  Just search "owl" with some of the names I have given you and you will see original antique items made like this.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 02:11:48 pm by KC »
I'm from the South - but please don't mistake my Southern Manners/Accent/Charm as a weakness!

Rauville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • Karma: +109/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2017, 07:33:37 am »
Corbell & Company made many reproduction items and their muffineers (aka sugar shakers) and castors have been popular over time.  Believe it or not, owl items like this were used in 1700's for wig powderers, talc shakers (because men wore wigs and it was more manly).  You can find they were popular for pepper pots and/or pepperettes.  Just search "owl" with some of the names I have given you and you will see original antique items made like this.


Plus "Pounce Pots and Sanders" for yet another name / use. My Aunt collected Owls for years, and She said that to find one made with holes in the top with any description other than "salt shaker", She couldn't afford it.

Check towards the bottom of the following page: http://www.arianantiques.co.uk/stock.asp?t=category&c=Pounce%20Pots,%20Sanders,%20Parchment%20Runners

KC

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11661
  • Karma: +93/-0
  • Forever Blessed!
    • View Profile
Re: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2017, 08:30:36 am »
Rauville, thanks for me learning something new!  I knew of a pounce pot...but never heard the term "sander".  That site has some VERY lovely items!  (much to hubby's dismay...now may have a new item to be on the look-out for!)

"FORUM POINT" to you for knowing it could be something besides a sugar shake and sharing your tremendous knowledge.  Privileged to have you here on the forum!!!!! 😃
I'm from the South - but please don't mistake my Southern Manners/Accent/Charm as a weakness!

mart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19849
  • Karma: +122/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Vintage Owl Salt shaker w 4 markings. Trying to identify.
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2017, 08:33:54 am »
I had not heard of either one !!  I second that thank you !!