Collecting as a Pastime

by Charles Rowed

BRITANNIA METAL

This name puts me on my mettle, and as the uncertainty of what is the difference between pewter and Britannia metal has not to my knowledge been clearly explained I intend to deal with this question somewhat didactically.

I was so struck with the effect of turning my 70th Regiment pint pot from a dirty disused mug into a pleasurable thing that I visited all likely shops for some few miles round and bought up everything I thought and was told was old pewter, and I soon had more than would fill a corner cupboard, which I had lined with blue velvet to show it off. Then I bought “Marks on Old Pewter,” by W. Redman, which was the only book bearing on the subject I could hear of, and in it I read:

“The manufacture of goods in Britannia (white metal) was an important 18th century addition to the Sheffield industries. Whether James Dixon or James Vickers commenced first to make this kind of ware we are not able to say. It is said that James Vickers bought for five shillings from a sick man whom he happened to be visiting a recipe for making white metal. The experiment turned out a great success, and for years both these firms were kept busy making all kinds of articles of what was called Britannia metal. Now these old articles are often called pewter, which is a mistake; neither of these firms made any pewter ware. Alloy: 80 per cent. tin, 10 per cent. antimony, and a little copper.”

This was rather a blow, as some of my purchases were stamped “Britannia Metal” and a few others “B.M.E.P.,” although the electro-plate was mostly worn off, giving the things a pewter-like look. Next I obtained a short history of the firm of James Dixon and Sons, and found they did make pewter in their early days. I also learned from a history of Sheffield in the 18th Century that Vickers started making money and Britannia metal at the end of that period, so this stuff seemed ancient enough.

I now had the pleasure of obtaining “Old Pewter,” by Malcolm Bell, and found among the illustrations articles of which I had duplicates, one of which was a pepper-pot, and this reminds me that when I went in for this and inquired the price, and was told fourpence, I repeated the word “fourpence!” which immediately drew the rejoinder “Yes, fourpence, it’s half full of pepper.” From the trouble I had in getting out that solid pepper, I rather think the pewter must have been built round it.

I opened a correspondence with Mr. Bell, and he most courteously and kindly gave me every assistance. In one of his letters he wrote: “I must confess that for my own part I could not pretend to draw any hard and fast line between pewter and Britannia metal, for though one can tell the difference between the extreme types by the eye the varieties merge so gradually into each other that the boundary is indefinable. In fact, hard metal pewter with 96 parts tin, 8 of antimony, and 2 of copper is practically identical with the Britannia metal containing 92 parts of tin, 8 of antimony, and 2 of copper,” which was what I expected. Consequently I have among my lot many pieces which may have been sold as Britannia metal in the old days, but I would defy anyone to pick them out and prove them not to be pewter.

I asked Mr. Redman to come over and see me, and he readily did so. After he had gone, and from remarks he had made, I gathered he had been more impressed by the kindness of my partner than with the quality of some of my pewter. The result of this interview was that I never refused anything in the pewter line of mature age, and came to the conclusion that the difference in the names was a clever move of cute business men to enable them to charge something extra for their wares which were made of somewhat harder metal than was being generally used at the time. I have frequently come across early plates and tankards that differed materially in their hardness.