posted 10-03-2005 04:15 PM            

Also, on the 1930 piece, I'd IDed the crowned-M mark as Anton Michelsen, but that was years ago and now I can't seem to verify it. Can find the crowned-AM-in-triangle and crown-over-MICHELSEN, but not this one. Must have found it in some reference book, since it was before I was online.

Cheryl

posted 05-26-2006 07:06 AM            

Cheryl

posted 05-26-2006 10:17 PM            

I'm hesitant to ascribe the anomaly to a interim or substitute assayer. Given the long tenure of Danish assayers and the abundant silver trade there, I think it would be impossibe for one man to have tested and marked every single piece. I expect that a good amount of silver was, in fact, tested & marked by a subordinate. In other words, the mark represented the chief assayer's aegis and not his personal hand. If that is the case (and I think it is), there would have been no need for a special "substitute" mark.

My gut instinct tells me that there is no anomaly and what looks like "30" is actually "32", with the top curve of the 2 completely closed up. I'm not from Missouri, but until I can see for myself, I'm trusting those dutiful Danes. (Forgive me, dragonflywink, but doubting my own instincts and trusting another's eyes got me into some trouble in the "faux Minerva" thread.)

But I can confirm that the "crowned M" is Michelson's, at least according to A. Krekel-Aalberse's "Art Nouveau & Art Deco Silver" (New York: Abrams, 1989).

posted 05-28-2006 03:11 AM            

I don't have any 1932 pieces either, but the apparent anomaly is in the 1930 piece, so not really sure that would have anything to do with the Siggaard mark on a 1930 piece. Since virtually all references show 1932 as the year Heise's term ended and Siggaard's started, wouldn't be surprised to find pieces from that year with either assay master's mark (would that be a reasonable assumption?). Never even occurred to me that the assay master personally tested and stamped every piece of Danish silver, seems pretty unlikely. Just found it odd to have run across two pieces from the same year marked that way and was trying to find a reason.

Thanks so much for confirmation on the Michelsen mark!

Cheryl

posted 05-28-2006 02:26 PM            

I still think the answer is that the 1930 punch bears a strong similarity to one of the later ones used during Siggaard's tenure, with 1932, 36 & 39 being the likeliest possibilities. I, too, was able to rule out the latter two, which leaves 1932.

Which begs the question: if neither you nor I can produce an example of the 1932 mark, just what did it look like? This is why I keep going on about the 1932 mark; I am not yet convinced that what appears to be "30" is really that and not "32", and until I can see both marks side by side, I doubt I will be. How about it, folks: can anyone post good, clear photos of the Danish state marks for both 1930 and 1932?

Like I say, dragonflywink, I hate to doubt you. If you are right and the mark is without question the one for 1930, then I say what we need to find out is why Siggaard was using the wrong date mark in 1932 (or later), not why he was using his assayer's mark in 1930. [Ut humiliter opinor]

posted 05-28-2006 03:14 PM            

Curiouser & curioser . . .