posted 07-12-2005 07:37 AM            

I tell my son constantly that just because something is published on the Web it is not necessarily correct!

I was guided yesterday to: an online site for marks.

On the first page I found a number of mistakes or omissions before my glasses were so steamed up that I could no longer read it; starting with the banner set of hallmarks which are for 1789 and NOT 1809.

Above is 1789
(The marks are taken from a spoon and in 1809 the marks would have run in a vertical sequence, not horizontal; a difference introduced with the K of 1805-06.



This 925-1000 sort of well-meaning but bad web page is so unfair and unkind to new enthusiasts - I thought that we might play 'spot the mistake or omission'
It is good practice as well as educational!
If all also fails, I will try, where appropriate, to illustrate the points.
Have fun!!

By the way, the o date letter for 1789 and 1809 on TEASPOONS and other small items are horribly similar as the small marks don't become vertical until the P of 1810 - see below. The easiest difference to spot is the blip at the bottom of the lion passant mark. - you can see this better on the 1810 teaspoon (below)

The WE WF WC makers mark is 1809; GS WF 1789

posted 07-12-2005 02:09 PM            

I am not sure this is noted in the usual books or in a pamphlet from the London Assay office c. 1975. Does it only apply to London? Out of curiosity do you know if the marks were stuck with a composite punch or individually?

Much thanks for all your efforts and
I lookforward to the sleuths efforts on your challenge!

posted 07-12-2005 05:53 PM            

With the introduction of the King's Head duty mark, this is struck separately until the oval cameo punch is introduced in 1786 when all four marks are struck in one stub (as in the 1789 example above) on larger flatware and just the three, missing the leopard's head, on teaspoons etc.

Sadly the rules above only apply to London.

posted 07-12-2005 07:37 PM            

Tongs aren't quite the same as spoons, however I have London tongs from 1811(Q) and 1812(R) which follow your vertical pattern rule, but my 1805(K) and 1806(L) tongs are still horizontal. Do you really believe this is a hard and fast rule, or is there room for variation? Thanks - Oops, I see further down in your post you state the vertical pattern began in 1810(P). It's getting a bit confusing now - what is the basis for believing the 925-1000 photo is for 1789, not 1809, the shape of the lion passant? As far as I can see from everything posted here, 1809 is being confirmed, not refuted!?

Perhaps I'm confusing two issues. Is this the point being made here? -

1. The 'vertical' pattern for items on which the crowned head is retained started in 1805(K). 2. The 'vertical' pattern for items on which the crowned head was omitted began in 1810(P). 3. These 'rules' only apply to items which were marked with a stub. No, I still don't think I've gotten the gist of this matter.

In any case, since Jackson's (2nd Ed.) lists the mark most similar to the "TW" in the title example as having been entered in 1792, it seems not unreasonable that this particular 'error' occurred. Hey, you get what you pay for (and 925-1000 is a free site)!

posted 07-12-2005 08:48 PM            

Thomas Wallis II registered his first script mark on 6th January 1780 - in my experience it is, however, only commonly found on spoons and forks from 1786 onwards. He is essentially a buckle maker who becomes a spoon maker in order to survive as buckles fall out of fashion.

Although his mark is occasionally found on other items, they are rare 99% of his post 1786 production is spoons and forks.

When you have a horizontal set of London marks struck in a straight line, all together on one stub on a dessert or table spoon or fork it MUST pre-date 1805. Likewise, if the marks are vertical it MUST be 1805 or later.

The shape of the lion punch (particularly the bottom of the punch) is relevant here ONLY for the teaspoons. In 1789 your tongs have not yet acquired date letters, which come in 1791, so this is a problem you don't have.

I am trying to help and make it easier to read the marks here, so if it is not crystal clear what I am saying, please say so!

I think that FREE offerings still come with responsibility to get it right.

posted 07-12-2005 08:59 PM            

I agree any promulgation of information should be verified for accuracy. However, even the best (and most expensive) reference works contain errors and omissions due to the normal and acceptable limitations of human effort, as well as the desire for offering something now, even though limited and error prone, rather than indefinitely later! We have to get people into the ballpark before they can watch the game.

One last item - I'm not understanding the lion passant "blip" at all. What is it I'm looking for in these photos? There's quite a bit of interesting information here, I want to comprehend it all if I can.

posted 07-14-2005 12:30 AM            

Would the crescent moon and star be the mark of the journeyman that made the spoon?

posted 07-14-2005 07:00 AM            

There are two theories for the little additional marks; the first is as you state that they the 'tally' marks of the actual workman in the workshop; the second is that the represent a die or punch identifier so that pieces can be made from the same die or punch at a later date to match.

Maybe neither is exclusively right...

posted 07-17-2005 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Hello Silver Lyon,

My apologies for the error in date letter identification, the mark image came from a 12 inch Wallis stuffing spoon and is indeed 1789 and not 1809. I took the liberty of flipping the maker's mark and removing the tally mark for the web page version for the sake of clarity. I will, of course, edit the text to the proper date.

The whole concept behind 925-1000 is to provide a simple guide for those who are not about go out and purchase the necessary references to accurately describe the origins of their silver. I believe it has had, some, at least minor, positive impact in the spread of silver marking knowledge and has inspired many to dig deeper and acquire some of the more necessary reference works.

Thus far, I've documented some 7,000 marks online and although I strive for accuracy, I know there must be plenty of errors, some propagated from incorrect references, others generated by my own time restrictions. It is a one man, 'off hours' project and I cannot devote the time I'd like to it.

I would like the site to be as accurate as possible, a vehicle for reliable information. Clearly it can benefit from the expertise of you and many others here at the SMP Silver Salon Forums. Please feel free to write to me with any corrections and suggestions.

Best Regards,
Tom Guarrera

---

posted 07-17-2005 03:02 PM            

It seems laudable to me to make hallmark tables available on-line IF and only IF they and the information given with them is correct (and not breaching anybody's copyright).

Incorrect or incomplete information from any reference source is a menace to good scholarship and causes all sorts of problems for the poor individuals who believe that what they have been told is accurate.

(Think of Messrs Bush & Blair and the misinformation, provided by Iraqui exiles, that there were weapons of mass destruction lurking in Iraq!).

A slowly constructed website with easy to read tables and carefully checked information would be a very good thing.

I just cringe to see half-tables and incorrect information on a site that looks so authoritative to the uninitiated.

What does anybody else think?

posted 07-18-2005 07:41 PM            

The web, just like the best of reference works, is filled with errors and omissions. I once read a 'definitive' reference work stating that human blood has the same specific gravity as iron!

posted 07-19-2005 10:55 AM            

Your pointing out errors on this site is important, but I think you are a little harsh in your criticism. There are mistakes in every endeavor of this kind. For example Rainwater's Encyclopedia Of American Silver Marks in its various incarnations is filled with numerous mistakes, yet it is considered a vital resource if you are involved with 19th or 20th century American silver. The efforts of Mr. Guarrera are to be commended.

P.S. What's the old saying, "Believe nothing you read and half of what you see."

posted 08-08-2005 07:38 AM            

Thanks to all,
Tom