Dish cross 1764 - 1765

Editor: So this delicate silver object is called "Dish cross," made around 1764 or 1765. It's attributed to Samuel Herbert, and it's crafted from silver. It looks surprisingly fragile for something made of metal! What aspects of its making or purpose particularly interest you? Curator: I find myself immediately considering the labor involved in creating this object. Think of the silversmith, Herbert, the hours spent hammering, engraving, and assembling this 'dish cross'. It begs the question: who commissioned it? And what does its materiality—this precious silver—reveal about their social status and the values of the time? Editor: It's intriguing to think about the societal implications. What purpose did something like this even serve? Curator: It elevates a seemingly simple object—a dish. This suggests the elite desired to aestheticize and differentiate their daily practices. Think of the table as a site of display, demonstrating both wealth and taste through objects like these. Do you consider it functional or symbolic? Editor: Perhaps both? Functional in its purpose, but symbolic of something beyond the purely practical? Curator: Precisely. Furthermore, the material choice itself, silver, points to trade networks, mining labor, and colonial extraction that funded its creation. By considering the supply chains, we confront the complex social realities inherent to its making. What might this piece tell us about wealth distribution at the time? Editor: It speaks volumes, doesn't it? The intense labor, the valuable material... It certainly places it in a specific social sphere. Thanks, I'll certainly never look at a 'dish cross' the same way again. Curator: Indeed. By focusing on materiality, we can expose the complex histories embedded within seemingly simple objects, moving beyond aesthetic appreciation towards critical understanding.