posted 06-26-2006 06:34 PM            

Thanks,
Tom

posted 06-27-2006 04:25 PM            

I can only speak properly for buckles (and at great length usually) but the situation in the late 18th early 19th was SHEFFIELD and BIRMINGHAM. Usually a full set of marks for virtually every thing. After their founding in 1773 they knew London was looking for any excuse to criticize their behavior and hence they were usually very good. Having said that my wife has just bought a pair of top hinged tongs by Matthew Boulton and John Fothergill which we reckon are around 1773/4 (earliest for Birmingham) and have Lion Passant, Anchor, and makers mark only.

LONDON. Buckles virtually never had a date letter or leopard head prior to 1784. Very large buckle with silver chapes have been noted with a 1787 "O" but generally the earliest regular use was from 1791/92. Leopard Head appears post 1822 in general. I have never seen a buckle pre 1800 with a Leopard head.

EXETER- much as London
OTHER ENGLISH OFFICES- not enough data.

Reason for the absence is believed to be the playful habit of makers utilizing marks from small items on bigger ones to avoid duty and weight related assay marks. Bucklemakers were generally regarded as crooks (often with good reason).

Sugar tongs follow the same pattern but I do not know enough to comment on spoons.

posted 06-27-2006 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

So it seems to be down to London vs Exeter. As far as the date goes, the point is almost moot since the capital "I" for Exeter is 1805-6 (1804 for London). However, I noticed that not only does the date letter punch on my spoon look more like that of Exeter, but so does the punch for the lion passant. If you were a betting man, Clive, would agree that my spoon was probably made in Exeter?

---

If so, who would the maker have been?

posted 06-27-2006 08:44 PM            

"On some articles dating from 1784 to 1830, the shield enclosing the date letter has a rounded base, and the lion passant is sometimes found in an oval stamp."

This note explains the atypical nature of the shields on my spoon, which appears to be from London after all.

Does anyone know how common these "exceptions" to the typical shield shapes were?

Any more ideas on resolving the maker's id?

posted 06-28-2006 06:16 AM            

Your spoon is LONDON 1804.

The reason that the King's Head duty mark is in an oval is that this was the normal mark, as used from 1798.

On October 10th 1804 the duty on silver was increased from 1/- (one shilling) to 1/3d (one shilling and three pence) an ounce. (Ref: 44 George III 98)

In London in order to be able to determine which pieces had been taxed at the higher rate (for instance when paying BACK the tax when pieces were exported) the shape of the King's Head duty mark was changed by forming the 'blip' on the bottom of the oval.

So your spoon was assayed between 16th May and 10th October 1804 !

posted 06-28-2006 07:48 AM            

Wow, I have never had the origin of an item narrowed down to a six-month window! Something you said piqued my curiosity as a British historian. Are you saying that the duty was collected when the piece was assayed and stamped and then repaid to the maker when it was exported?

So, does anyone have any idea about the maker IF?

posted 06-28-2006 07:54 AM            

Your spoon is LONDON 1804

The mark is that used on smaller pieces,as Clive describes.

The Oval King's Head duty mark is the one in use from 1798 and was used in 1804 from 16th May when the date letter changed from H until October 9th 1804.

From October 10th 1804 the duty payable on silver was raised from 1/- (one shilling) to 1/3d (one shilling and three pence).

To show that the greater duty had been paid, the duty mark was altered - gaining the 'blip' at the base - The was important as pieces that were exported could have the amount of duty paid reclaimed by the maker!

So your spoon was assayed between May 16th 1804 and October 9th 1804.

posted 06-28-2006 09:55 AM            

At the provincial towns, the duty was collected and at least to start with the Duty Mark applied at the Stamp Office, not the Assay office.

This is most easily demonstrated in Exeter where it is quite easy sometimes to see that the Duty Mark was applied separately to the assay marks (lion, date letter etc.)

For convenience the task was soon assimilated into the Assay Offices, who were then give the job of collecting the tax.

There was a special procedure for reclaiming the 'drawback' of duty that had been paid.

For a short while, 1784-85, when the King's Head mark was first introduced, a special mark was used to show that the 'drawback' had been paid.