Featured Are these real silver & who might've made them ?

It’s a stretch to look at Gorham’s mark and pretend that it’s was completely organic. To me, it clearly mimics the English Birmingham mark with a G date letter. Cartouche shape generally varies by date letter but not always. Nobody has the entire system memorized and furthermore, consider the lack of online resources at the time. IMO, they intentionally copied the English mark at a time when English silver was a prized possession. They even used a LEFT facing Lion until 1868

gorham followed by 2 English Birmingham marks for comparison:


Gorham did not always clearly differentiate between coin/sterling and plated. Though it’s true that the Lion-Anchor-G (LAG) would always be accompanied by the words “sterling” or “coin” on silver pieces, they also produced plated pieces with the LAG marking omitting the purity designation. The only indication was a zero (0) to begin item/pattern number stamp. Not exactly an advertisement of composition, and easily mistaken for English silver.

eBay, Etsy and an endless list of auction houses are chock full of Gorham items that are being bought and sold as Birmingham Sterling. I would guess that 99.9% are cases of innocent misidentification, but that is kinda my point. Gorham intentionally used a mark similar to an established English mark, so similar that it continues to fool people even today.

the fact that Gorham renewed an established 137 year old (in 1990) trademark is not relevant because…well… it had been established for 137 years. I was speaking about trying to register a NEW mark that so closely mimicks and it could be argued, is intentionally deceptive. I understand the British hallmark system is likely not covered by US trademark, but I believe a new mark would be challenged

when Gorham devised their mark, there certainty would have been 2 lines of thought:

“Wow, that looks too close to an English mark”
Or
“Wow, that looks just like an English mark”

There was nothing innovative or new about its design, it was an intentional copy of a mark known throughout the world and regarded as the highest of quality

 

I think you misread Cheryl's post. She said exactly the opposite: "symbols as silver marks, whether official or the makers' trademarks, were and are extremely common".

Anchor marks are among those common symbols. On silver they are also known in Germany, Sweden, and France, for instance.

Since the anchor has been a symbol of Rhode Island since the 17th century, as Cheryl said, there is logic to Rhode Island-based Gorham using an anchor mark.
And yes, there is a resemblance between the Birmingham and the Gorham silver marks.

 

My mistake

 

Bit of scholarship and nuance in the study of silver as in all art & antiquities.

 

You are mistaken - it is not true that Gorham's "Lion-Anchor-G (LAG) would always be accompanied by the words “sterling” or “coin” on silver pieces, they also produced plated pieces with the LAG marking omitting the purity designation." Again, as previously stated, and as indicated in the 1869 advertisement posted, as well as numerous other ads over decades, their lion-anchor-G mark is an indication and guarantee of solid silver, the anchor on its own indicating silverplate - there are quite a few Gorham silver pieces without indication of fineness, especially in coin - those with knowledge of Gorham marks are likely snapping up all those silver pieces dismissed as silverplate.

If sellers and buyers are mistaking Gorham for Birmingham silver in this age of easily accessed information, it's just an indication that they've not done their research. Gorham was a prolific manufacturer that advertised their trademark heavily, and the form resembling British hallmarks was certainly a respectful nod, but no need or intention to deceive, frankly their silver was highly regarded, their mark well-known, and they were primarily wholesalers to the trade, so they certainly weren't trying to 'fool' their retailers. Might also keep in mind that British hallmarks required a fourth mark, the maker/sponsor mark - Gorham's various versions of its 'lion-anchor-G', was their maker's mark.

Gorham was not the only maker to use marks that resembled British hallmarks, they were commonly used by 19th century American coin silver makers (well before Gorham's mark), along with later silver and silverplate manufacturers (well into the 20th century), quite a few Canadian companies also used pseudo-marks, like P.W. Ellis' 'anchor-maple leaf w/E-lion' mark, and even English silverplate manufacturers used pseudo-marks, not to cheat or fool buyers, whether at wholesale or retail, but they might fool those guests who flip a piece over for a peek...

Eh, believe what you like, and I'll do the same.

Would suggest their possible imaginary thoughts might have been, "This is a common form for an American mark, we'll use a lion for silver, because its a known symbol, an anchor for Rhode Island, and a 'G' because, well, we're Gorham."

Nope, "nothing innovative or new about its design" - just a basic manufacturer's trademark that served them well, regardless of your opinion...


~Cheryl

 

Bosko - I like your Swedish candlesticks very much, Scandinavian silver is one of my weaknesses (Gorham another)...

Your date code 'X9' is for 1972, the maker is Markströms Goldsmiths Ab in Uppsala, Eric Löfman was the designer, his signature should be stamped along with the other marks - regardless, it is one of his designs, showing the marks on the same pair from 1978 and a 1972 bowl with a slightly different stamp







~Cheryl

 

Thanks for nailing it down Cheryl-we like 'em too.

 

You found treasure! Lol I love the pieces

 

Thank you Mr Nate,high praise my friend.

 

Mr Nate-You honor me.I'll never forget your 'Hayden & Wilden' Bowl and this horde you found !

https://www.antiquers.com/threads/w...you-have-ever-gotten.13971/page-5#post-273067

 

Sorry-Double post.