posted 08-02-2016 11:14 AM            

The marks might be better considered in different orientations:

posted 09-28-2016 09:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gobus:
In the General Silver Forum, 08-02-2016, there is a posting by Wev titled “What do we have here?” As a new member I can’t reply on that forum, so will post my suggestion here.

In deference to the various opinions in this thread, I believe that Wev’s friend has a genuine George II cream jug. Here for comparison is a jug by William Smith I, dated London, 1760-61:

It has a similar acanthus on the handle:


The legs are on the same principle, except that yours has a trefoil top and a hoof foot (exactly like no. 887 in Peter Waldron’s “Price Guide to Antique Silver”), while mine has a round top and a duck foot:

The marks on my jug won’t help with the comparison, because it’s of a later date cycle. But consider these marks from a caster of 1749-50, by Samuel Wood. An uneven strike, subjected to centuries of polishing, could account for the absence of the crown in your jug’s mark. Notice that our leopards have the same bulgy eyes, and that your lion’s paws are rightly placed on the wavy bottom frame.

Asheland suggests that the date mark is the letter “q” for 1751-52, which is right for the period and the shape of the shields. Here are the marks for the relevant cycle, from Jackson’s “Silver & Gold Marks”:

As for the maker, a better match than any “W” may be “M” for Thomas Moore II, mark entered as largeworker 1750. Here is his mark from Grimwade’s “London Goldsmiths”:

Here it is again, from Jackson, this time conveniently next to William Woodward in case you prefer to see a “W”:

---