Gold hallmark question

I posted some photos in the jewelry forum of an early fusee movement watch by Joseph Johnson of Liverpool, and some one commented that the hallmark looked "bent as a nine bob note". Here is the photo of the marks. Is there something wrong with them? I know the watch has been in my family since before the ACW, can it be dated by these marks?

 

Yes, there are several things wrong with these marks. To help you understand, it would be a good idea for you to read this page about British silver hallmarks.

https://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html

The same general requirements and concepts apply when marking gold. You need to see a valid "fineness" mark, a valid City mark (where it was assayed and stamped), and a date letter from the assay office chart of letters and fonts for the year in which the item was marked. In certain periods a "duty mark" was also required and consists of the head of the reigning monarch. If the case is original (and from some time before the US Civil War) it should have either George IV or Victoria - neither of which is there.

I see a Lion passant (the mark for Sterling Silver) that looks more like the ones used in Canada than in England. On the right what is trying to look like a "crowned leopard" (for London, but not valid after 1822) does not look anything like the real one. In the middle the crown over the number 18 looks like somebody's idea of what a mark for 18 carat gold should look like (I'm guessing.) But as far as I know gold was marked with the decimal system and not the carat/karat system. That lonely F at the bottom should be the date letter. That particular F would have been valid for London in 1801 and 1881 only. And over on the left, the elongated shield shape with mostly illegible letters is unreadable, but might be intended to be the maker's mark - but this shape is very unusual for a maker.

 

I must confess to being too tired to explain all that..

 

Thank you for this information. It seems that the marks on the watch case are not genuine. According to some people at the NAWCC forum, these movements were often shipped to the US uncased, to avoid the duties on finished items. Cases were made here, and even high quality cases were frequently given fake "hallmarks" to help them sell for a better price. So, yes, there are indeed several things wrong with these marks. The movement dates to the 1830's or '40's, while the case is only slightly newer.

 

I'm glad you got the full story you needed to understand the watch.

 

I do believe I used the bent as a nine bob note term.

 

You did, and you were right! Thank you for the opinion, and thank you for the new expression!

 

I like to corrupt the use of the English language by those outside the UK.

 

Oh, you don't think that it is corrupted already?

(Not a serious question -- I think I understand some of your sense of humor after all of this time!)