CHARLES II TANKARDS. 1684.
Maker, George Gibson, York.
Maker, William Busfield, York.
(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)
“When any calls for ale,” says Swift, “fill the largest tankard cup top full.” But silversmiths and collectors have their own nomenclature apart from poets, and the tankard belongs, in spite of literary proof to the contrary, to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is the poet, again, who has continued the use of the word flagon, regardless of the anachronism. Be it a tankard, a mug, jug, can, pot, bottle or glass, such prosaic terms are swept aside in verse to figure as the “flagon” or the “flowing bowl.”
The tankard of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries becomes more utilitarian, and more national in character. The body is drum-like in form, and the cover is flat. In order to show how little the form differed from Charles II to William III, the examples illustrated on [page 111] prove this point. The earlier example, on the right, is chased with acanthus and palm leaves. The beaded ornament on the handle is a feature in both.
Two other specimens are illustrated on [page 111], both with the York date letter B for 1684, the year before the death of Charles II. One is made by George Gibson and the other by William Busfield. The taller tankard has a flat two-membered lid, and the other has a flat one-membered lid. In both these examples it is observable that the scroll handles have an extension of no utilitarian value. It is not beautiful nor useful. In comparison with the William III example illustrated on same page, the difference will at once be seen. In these examples a noticeable feature is the moulded base. Gradually the spread foot became of diminished size. It was of no practical use. Later forms show a restraint, almost a poverty of symmetrical design, by the absence of the foot. The form becomes more squat. We are accustomed to it in English plate, but it compares slightly unfavourably with foreign plate, where the balance is more sustained. The massive handle really demands a more solid base. In the York examples, where the finials of the handle trail on the ground, it is especially noticeable. The billets or thumb-pieces are evidently designed for ornament, and follow earlier examples of greater proportions. If they err, they err on the side of strength.
In the Exeter example illustrated on [page 115], the maker’s mark is
