|
In this Forum we discuss the silver of the United Kingdom, as well as British Colonial silver and Old Sheffield Plate. Past British - Irish Sterling topics/threads worth a look. |
|
|
How to Post Photos | Want to be a Moderator? |
SMP Silver Salon Forums
British / Irish Sterling No town mark and no maker's mark!
|
SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Author | Topic: No town mark and no maker's mark! |
Leo Passant Posts: 24 |
posted 01-15-2007 06:48 AM
[26-1316] I have a couple of English casters c1797 that have extremely clear and well defined duty, year and sterling marks yet they bear no town or maker's marks. The lack of town marks isn't of great surprise as I have many small items and pieces of (mostly provincial British) flatware without town marks. The casters show little sign of use with little wear. They are London made and of very high quality and I was wondering why the maker wouldn't want to add his (her?) mark to such fine pieces. On such relatively large items with abundant space, why would the assay office not strike the town mark in sequence with the other marks? What would be the possible reasons for a silversmith not marking their wares? IP: Logged |
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 01-15-2007 08:32 AM
In order to help you we need to see pictures of these pieces and their marks - also thge marks on their lids, please. IP: Logged |
Leo Passant Posts: 24 |
posted 01-15-2007 02:03 PM
The point is, the marks I'm interested in are non-existent. Actually, the lack of duty marks isn't really a concern for London pieces of this date, but I don't understand why the maker's mark is absent. The marks on the tops and bases are the pre-1822 lion passant. The bases also have duty marks and the letters B for London 1797. If you're still insistent on photos, I'll borrow a camera this evening and post the photos tonight. IP: Logged |
Leo Passant Posts: 24 |
posted 01-15-2007 07:21 PM
Pictures! The first is of the mark on the top and the second picture is of the marks on the base.
IP: Logged |
Clive E Taylor Posts: 450 |
posted 01-16-2007 12:36 PM
I personally have a doubt about these marks. The George Head Duty Mark looks as if he's had his neck bent backward and the Lion Passant looks if it is Passant, not Passant Guardant as it should be if the piece is pre - 1822. The date - letter "B" is appropriate with a George Head without cusps in London only for 1797. The dateletter looks as if it has been struck twice- one element being perhaps a "P". I may have misread the photos - which often can mislead but I think this may perhaps be - an odd provincial mark - an early 19th century psuedo mark - or worse. IP: Logged |
doc Posts: 730 |
posted 01-16-2007 12:47 PM
I tend to agree with Clive-the shape of the cartouche around the Lion Passant is also strange-the lower "tail seems exaggerated to me. A photo of the entire piece would be helpful. IP: Logged |
Leo Passant Posts: 24 |
posted 01-16-2007 04:12 PM
The second caster shows a perfect, more defined B, and the lion's cartouche isn't as distorted. The marks fall right on the ogee part of the foot, so they appear somewhat mishapen. The striker obviously had problems getting clear imprints, as there's the feintest outline of the exact same punch just visible around one of the lions. I have no doubt the date Bs are OK. One of the duty marks is slightly distorted, but the lions passant are odd and can't be explained by double striking. IP: Logged |
salmoned Posts: 336 |
posted 01-16-2007 05:26 PM
The problem with the lion passant is that it appears not to be guardant. The missing city mark was not uncommon for London during that period, especially for small work. The missing sponsor's mark can be caused by numerous events - lightly struck and worn off, worked off after assay, etc. It is a bit odd that both sponsor's marks are entirely missing, but not extremely so. [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 01-16-2007).] IP: Logged |
vathek Posts: 966 |
posted 01-18-2007 09:08 AM
would like to see photos of the entire piece. May be Chinese export. IP: Logged |
Kimo Posts: 1652 |
posted 01-18-2007 03:25 PM
The marks do not seem to be quite right for what they are purporting to be. Whenever this is the case, it is important to keep an open mind about exactly what you may or may not have given the sad situation these days that there is no shortage of spuriously marked pieces of silver floating around ranging from ones created long ago in an effort to get around hallmarking requirements of the day to ones done more recently to give an object a greater value. IP: Logged |
All times are ET | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums. 2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development). 3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post. |
copyright © 1993 - 2022
SM Publications
All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices |