With all due respect, to me, some (much) of this sounds "iffy."
Saying Tiffany has always done something is a pretty long stretch.
How would someone, other than a Tiffany historian, know that? That
they wouldn’t have evolved in their materials and practices in 100
years seems unlikely to me. “Umbrella” statements like that always
make me suspicious.
As our friend Al in Australia has pointed out, the silver/copper
alloy is the traditional definition. How long have these non-copper
alloys even been around? I would make an assumption that at least in
the first half of the century, Tiffany was using the traditional
I don’t believe Tiffany does its own casting… or at least not all
of it. I know a caster (possibly lurking here) who tells me he has
done a significant amount of casting of Tiffany work while in the
employ of a casting house. I suppose the company (Tiffany) could
specify the alloy to be used by a contract casting company. If he
doesn’t respond to this question himself, I’ll inquire offline for
If the alloy is resistant to tarnish, as compared to the
copper/silver alloy, doesn’t that make it de-ox? I supposed we need
to define the term “de-ox”, but to me it has meant an alloy with a
reduced or eliminated copper content to minimize susceptibility to
tarnish. If not, what is the definition of de-ox you folks are using
that would eliminate this magical Tiffany alloy from the category?
I wouldn’t spend too much effort trying to track down a rumor, if
that’s what it is.
All the best,
Sebaste Studio and
Carolina Artisans’ Gallery
Charlotte, NC (USA)