posted 06-02-2006 05:03 AM            

The first problem is . . . someone stole the hallmarks from the body and patched it back together blank. This makes it something of an illegal object in its home country, I believe (the lid, which is a perfect fit for the pot, is hallmarked for English sterling with a date letter for 1816). It would be wasteful for me to speculate on the reason why the marks were stolen, which is irrelevant. What is important to me is . . . I have an illegal sterling pot which I impulsively bought as a long-term investment over the internet from a person who professes to know nothing about marks and did not mention that the pot lacked marks. I lost my usual caution re asking about marks because I was overcome by the beauty of the pot. But now that I have it in my hands, and see the situation with the marks, I had decided to return the pot for a refund.

Now, the REAL problem . . . if I return this gorgeous piece of silver art to the former owner, who will want to immediately sell it to someone else, she might eventually sell it to someone whose only plan is to hoard it as silver bullion and then sell it to be melted down. I don't like that idea. But . . . if I keep it to protect the silversmith's legacy, and pay that high price for an illegal piece of silver that should never have left England, am I contributing to the trade in illegal silver? Am I a criminal or a historian? At this point, I don't know, and I would appreciate feedback from people who have pondered this sort of thing far longer than the four days I have been stewing over it.

posted 06-02-2006 08:11 AM            

This way you could insure it's safety and not put it back in the hands of possible danger.

posted 06-02-2006 10:56 AM            

Good luck,
Tom

posted 06-02-2006 02:47 PM            

I shall consider all points carefully. The seller has offered a complete refund but will not go down on the price. She truly does not know anything about antique silver. She was lied to by the English dealer who sold it to her, and she has gone to two "appraisers" who were not even able to figure out that the fairly clear date mark translates to 1816 -- she was selling it as being post-1850.

I think perhaps her idea of an appraiser is someone who works the floor part-time in a junk/antique store. I do not trust this seller with the fate of this pot. I bought it because my first impression upon looking at the photo was that it might be an unimportant but still wonderful little piece by Paul Storr. When it arrived and I saw the hallmarks had been removed after the mad fad of duty-dodging had lessened, I thought it was possible that someone took the marks because this was a small private piece (a heavy-gauge tea pot with a lot of handwork, made for one person to use alone -- holds only 3 cups) by an excellent maker not made for show and the marks could be used to greatly increase the value of a large showy piece by a non-famous maker. This is complicated!

I do so appreciate all your advice, and I will continue to consider all comments from the members.

Perhaps selling it honestly with all details exposed to someone who absolutely will not ever have it melted down is the best solution for me and the pot. I will take this to my favorite silversmith today to get his feedback as well as yours regarding whether or not silver collectors should consider themselves bound by moral duty to preserve fine pieces with uncertain futures and shaky market values.

posted 06-02-2006 11:46 PM            

How do you know a mark has been 'stolen'? Is there a hole in the pot, or some blurred area where one might have been? Is it not possible that some multi-part tea pots only had one mark? For reasons we can not be sure of, it is entirely possible that this is the original marking put on by the maker. There are enough anomolously marked items floating around to make this a possibility, IMHO.

If indeed the mark is gone, it could have been done almost anytime in the last 190 years. And by anyone, for any reason. Perhaps the original owner did not want a conspicuous mark. (My mother always said that showing labels on things one owned was 'vulger' and 'tasteless'. There have probably always been a few people who felt that way about English silver marking.)

Could you post pictures of the pot and the missing mark spot? Then we could come up with better advice. A real teapot is always more discussable than a hypothetical one. Especially for holding tempests.

If it were my teapot, I would put the kettle to boil, measure the tea into it and enjoy the teapot. Mark or not. Those responsible for enforcing the Regency era regulations are long gone. I can see no particular reason to worry about the issue.

posted 06-02-2006 11:55 PM            

But then I really don't care about marks. One group that has always mystified me are collectors of Arts & Crafts ware. I would have a really fine piece without marks, and they would turn their noses up at it. The remark was always that certain marks, especially of the larger factory type makers made items more desirable. What is the point of collecting factory made handicrafts? These collectors mystified me. What I always wondered: what drugs are they on.

posted 06-03-2006 02:56 AM            

This is the 21stC. It could happen.

Dale: You are right. I should keep the pot and enjoy it. And yes, I can see where the marks were removed from the pot, and it was done quite some time ago because the patina is exactly the same as the rest of the piece, which was hand-raised quite beautifully. The hallmarks are not the only things which were pinched: my expert silversmith, who does silver restoration for museums and has 40 years of experience, says the ivory insulators are not original. That's interesting, because before I spoke to him, I kept looking at the pot and thinking that the very old bits of ivory did not measure up to the quality of the rest of the pot. I suppose the maker might have forgotten to properly mark his piece, but it seems unlikely considering how much silver and handwork went into making it.

I will not post pictures of the pot because the subject of this topic is clearly spelled out in the title: Hallmarks, Ethics and Philosophy. It is not entitled, "My Pot." I do very much appreciate your interest but I wish to observe the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines and stay on track with the subject. This topic is here to elicit lively discussion about how collectors are taught to always be investors first and how that idea makes us not collectors, but a whole heap of Shylocks. Not PC, I know . . . please forgive the reference but I can't think of a better one right this second.

I hope this interesting tempest won't fade away into a boring puddle.

"Factory made handicrafts"? What in the hell are those? My guess is their drug of choice was Kaopectate.

posted 06-03-2006 09:24 AM            

quote:

---

This topic is here to elicit lively discussion about how collectors are taught to always be investors first

---

Says who? I (and I suspect many here) have always valued quality more than monetary value. And I've had similar experiences to those described by Dale with idiots who understand only 'name brands' and not quality in its own right (remember the old saw about knowing 'the price of everything and the value of nothing').

And I'm a relatively poor academic. Sure, I get a kick out of being able to buy something for far less than it's worth now and again, and I have been known to sell items on occasion, but that's not the name of the game.

Heck, even most of my dealer friends are collectors first! There's a motto often used in the trade, at least in my circles: 'Keep the best and sell the rest.' You fund your collection by selling off other pieces that are of less interest (to you, that is -- and that may mean selling great pieces that will be centerpieces of someone else's collection, just not yours). I do know dealers who don't collect anything, but that seems to be very unusual.

The market, at least here in the US, is strongly dominated by name-brand-ism. A 'name' fashion designer can charge outrageous prices even if the pieces would fall apart on a single wearing. People buy Tiffany telephone dialers just to have a piece with the Tiffany name. A bad design by Hector Aguilar or William Spratling will sell for far more than a great piece of Mexican silver that doesn't have a name. Ford drivers wouldn't touch a Chevrolet, and vice versa. We've been educated to be consumers, to recognize brands but not quality, and even worse, to not know the difference.

posted 06-04-2006 07:46 PM            

I had no idea that silver dealers used to remove or deface marks to cover the trail back to the silversmith. Fascinating!

I have realized that if there was any crime associated with this pot, it was not one that requires the destruction or isolation of this piece. And it would be a crime not to enjoy it! I'm looking forward to taking it to the appraiser Friday, not to find out its monetary value, but to see if the two of us together can figure out who probably made the pot and also who did the wonderfully vital engraving of the family crest. Perhaps a hammering style can be like a fingerprint, or the repousse work as recognizable as a signature? I love the research aspects of this pastime.

posted 06-05-2006 12:20 PM            

When considering hallmarking laws, it is useful to remember the original intent. In the medieval, Renaissance, and early moder periods people "stored" their wealth as silver items. They converted the items to coin as needed, so the crown had to make sure that silver content of pieces was clearly marked. That is why the crown appointd assayers.

posted 06-06-2006 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

Good Morning
Are there any hall,arks on the teapot, where are they and what are they?
If you can absolutely prove provenanace that the teapot is 1820 (I used 1820 as I did not remember your date) then it can be sold in the UK as unhallmarked silver.
You could have it hallmarked as new silver.
Ihope this helps.
Regards
Lyn Mills
Secretary to the Deputy Warden

---

posted 06-07-2006 01:13 AM            

I have no trouble seeing where the marks for the body of the pot once were. This is a very heavy-gauge piece despite the fact that it is a pot made for one person who was maybe not showing off for the servants, and there are no dents or deep scratches anywhere except where the marks should have been. I can see signs of soldering near this area, though it looks as though a large patch containing the marks, rather than a small rectangular area, was removed in a crafty attempt to hide the act. I cannot see the interior of the pot on the ghost side of the marks as I would need dental equipment (mirrors and lights) to get a clear look inside there.

I am interested in getting this hallmarked as sterling, but could find no way to do this in my home location. It's nice to think it might be possible somewhere out there.
Maybe on Friday after I present this pot to a pair of knowledgeable live eyeballs, I will be able to give you more information.

posted 06-07-2006 10:10 AM            

As for the patched area you are seeing, if it is a piece of metal patched in I would think the more likely explanation is simply to repair some damage rather than anything so convoluted as removing markings. After all, why would anyone go to all that trouble and expense of a professional cutting out hallmarks and patching it up on just a plain small teapot, especially when they left other hallmarks on another part of the pot? It doesn't meet the common sense test to my thinking.

If indeed some markings were removed, another explanation that makes more sense to me could be that the top and the pot are a marriage and the person who removed the markings from the pot was covering up their deceit by trying to make the whole teapot appear to be subject to the markings on the lid alone.