One would think it would be easy, after all virtually every manufacturer has made a version of the famous Regency pattern. NOT!

The key to the difficulty is in the word "version". There are four major variants and often differences within those vairants that make an assembled set look like what it is; a hodge podge. A visit to the homepage of famed silversmiths and silver sellers, James Robinson will be instructive but the simplest explaination of the differences is as follows.

The handle can either curve up or curve down.

The pattern is either concave or convex.

There are four combinations of those two variants alone. Then there are little flanges right before the business end; sometimes they are there (most Sheffield, Reed and Barton) sometimes they are not (International). So now we have eight variants and it gets even more confusing. How many loops/lobes does the shell at the top have? Does the shell create a major bump at the top, a medium bump or no bump. How about the central, honeysuckle pattern. How large is it? Where on the handle is it? You begin to get the picture. Then there is the issue of the Queens pattern and the use of Queens features yet still calling the pattern Kings. The easiest set to assemble is the way the pattern originally looked as done by Paul Storr, for example. The handle curves up mildly, the pattern is concave, it has the little flanges before the actual tool and has what is considered the "normal" number of loops (either 10 or 11). Here is a picture of an early Storr piece.

But even that isn't easy. Storr later made pieces with an odd number of loops with the one central loop the largest. He also made services that were handle down, as did famed silversmith George Adams. Storr and Adams always had the flanges which are obvious in the following picture of an Adams place setting.

Most of the Sheffield silversmiths and plate manufacturers followed the early Storr and it is that relative abundance of material that makes assembling such a set easier. Tiffany also made a true Kings pattern but it was essentially special order. Their normal kings pattern was far more ostentatious than the earlier Kings. Picture below.

The recent short lived Ralph Lauren pattern was more like the Tiffany pattern than early Kings, as were Dominick and Haff and Caldwell.

Gorham made 3 variants of the pattern, the second of which was the close to Storr (Kings II), the third of which was close to Tiffany (Kings III). The Gorham plate patterns lean more to the side of the Regency silver (Storr, Adams).

As you can see, something that seems as though it should be an easy matter is actually Byzantine beyond all reason. Even so, a Regency style service (Storr, Adams) may be assembled in Sterling or Plate if one understands the differences and pays attention.

Of course, the modern practice of mixing and matching may be used if one wishes. I certainly hope this clears up a bit of confusion or that it at least adds enough knowledge to enable you to see through the glass darkly.