Posts: 336
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 04-21-2005 09:20 PM            

---

I purchased these 6" tongs recently and they are marked as follows:

- Maker - "WPC" for W. & P. Cunningham
- Location - Castle for Edinbourgh
- Standard - Thistle for sterling
- Date Mark - "(" for 1820? [could be o or c, but the the bottom frame shape of a horizontal "}" suggests the "o" mark for 1820, as the "c" in Jackson(2) seems to have a 'v' bottom]
- Duty stamp - George III? [superimposed on the date letter (also half obscuring it)]

Was this badly positioned duty mark a likely error, or is there something fishy here? The 3 center marks are all fairly worn, but the maker's mark and the duty mark are impressed much deeper, giving rise to my lingering doubts.

I found the maker in Jackson(2). If my attribution is correct, where might I find more information on this maker?

Living in Hawaii makes for great weather, but poor prospects for the silver collector.

Thanks all.

IP: Logged

Posts: 125
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 04-22-2005 02:10 PM            

---

Hi there,

I did a search in google and found a cream jug by this maker marked for 1838. Also, in my copy of Jackson's I can find the maker back to 1797. I would agree that the date is 1820 by the shape of the shield the letter is in. They look fine to me for that period, don't know why the duty mark is obscuring the date letter though.

IP: Logged

Posts: 166
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 04-23-2005 02:01 AM            

---

It was probably just a bad day at the (assay) office! I'm not sure just how many of the marks were incorporated into the same punch, but the duty mark was applied separately as can be seen by the fact that it is not always perfectly aligned with the other marks; and the maker was responsible for applying his own mark.

So I don't think you need to be suspicious.

Phil

IP: Logged

Posts: 935
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 04-25-2005 06:38 AM            

---

I have seen this before on Edinburgh pieces. The duty mark was definately applied separately. I had a spoon from Edinburgh (somewhere around 1790) and it also had the duty mark applied separately.

asheland

IP: Logged

Posts: 336
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 04-25-2005 04:29 PM            

---

Thanks, Jackson (2) states that the 3 center marks were often well aligned and close together, suggesting they were combined on a single punch. Here's the better photo (in the initial post) - does that worn 1st maker's mark stamp under the "relatively" crisp overstamped mark suggest anything?

[This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 04-28-2005).]

IP: Logged

Posts: 935
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 05-03-2005 09:58 PM            

---

From what I understand, the mark you see is the retailer. They would buy the silver from another silversmith and strike their own mark over the other guy's mark. I see this sometimes on Bateman silver.

asheland

IP: Logged

Posts: 336
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-06-2005 05:12 PM            

---

Yikes, everything seems to be slipping away on this one. I'm beginning to believe that it is possible the date letter is a "c", due to the shape of the castle tops in the town mark - Jackson's(II) has them changing in 1820 to triangular peaks from crenelated (as in this piece). I wonder which aspect might take precedence, castle shape or date mark frame? Without a maker's attribution, I suppose I'm left with "Early 19th century Edinburgh tongs" as the best description of this piece. It shall be enjoyed, no matter.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 05-06-2005 06:23 PM            

---

I would agree that the date is probably 1808/9; although the letter looks more like "e" (1810/11) than "c" in the photo, the bottoms of the castles are even until 1810/11, when they became uneven, so unless the office was slow to change dies, the earlier of the two must be correct. The double lobed reserve around the soverign's head is correct for this series.

IP: Logged

Posts: 336
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 05-09-2005 10:49 PM            

---

Thanks Swarter, although the photo is the best I could capture, no matter what angle I view the mark, no trace of a crossbar for an "e" can be discerned - leading me directly to the "c" as more likely. I'm glad the castle bottoms help confirm that opinion.

[This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 05-09-2005).]

IP: Logged

Posts: 640
Registered: May 2003

posted 05-10-2005 12:36 AM            

---

I may be way off here - probably am! But, I looks to me as if the original stamp contained Castle, Thistle, Date Letter and one further stamp - likely impressed from one block, and possibly the original duty stamp? Over this is a very crisp duty stamp which is impressed much more heavily and in a more restricted area.
Given that old George III finally lost his marbles in 1811 and was replaced by the Prince Regent, could this be an over-stamp to indicate this change?

IP: Logged

Posts: 963
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 05-10-2005 06:29 PM            

---

I doubt this on historical grounds. George III had an earlier bout with insanity in 1788 when the first Regency Bill was introduced. I am not aware of any change in silver markings. The legal precident going back to the reign of Edward III and Richard I (14th c.) seems to have been that the monarch still reigned even if he did not rule. I doubt anyone changed the duty mark when George went permanently "ga-ga", as the Brits say, in 1811.

Tom

IP: Logged

Posts: 363
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-12-2005 01:34 PM            

---

I think that I am right in saying that the Duty Marks in Edinburgh were applied at the 'Stamp Office' where the duty was collected, and not at the Assay Office - This may explain the often eccentric placing of the Edinburgh King's Heads.

This also applies in other places, so check your spoons and post what you think!!

It even applies to 1784-1786 London, but it became too laborious for the poor lazy people at the Stamp Office so was incorporated in the hallmarks.

IP: Logged

Posts: 363
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-12-2005 01:35 PM            

---

I think that I am right in saying that the Duty Marks in Edinburgh were applied at the 'Stamp Office' where the duty was collected, and not at the Assay Office - This may explain the often eccentric placing of the Edinburgh King's Heads.

This also applies in other places, so check your spoons and post what you think!!

It even applies to 1784-1786 London, but it became too laborious for the poor lazy people at the Stamp Office so was incorporated in the hallmarks.

IP: Logged

All times are ET