Help With Marks On Silver Punch Bowl

Don't know if sterling. I'd think if British there would be a town mark.
Any idea?
Thanks

 

If I recall a comment by AF years ago on the ebay boards, when the town mark is missing, assume London. So I did that and looked for the serifed N in that shape cartouche. 1805. Hmmmmm. Now the question is, where is the Duty mark? I don't know what that means and hope that either Cheryl or AF will take a look.

 

L.P = Sterling.
N = Date letter (1805, did you say, B?)

Missing: Duty mark, Assay mark, Maker's mark.

That said, that's one seriously huge piece of silver!! How many souls did you have to harvest to get it??

 

That's what I got from the Silvermine London date charts.

The maker's mark is there - just seriously deformed/worn. I even tried looking at all the London registered makers with a 2 letter mark in script with L being the second letter - nothing conclusive, but also very little to nothing with a registration date and "seen on" date that would fit the 1805 date letter.

It's certainly not an "official" mark from another country. And not fussy enough to be Hanau.

 

Thanks for the replies. A pound and 12 ounces.
Do you think the maker will matter or not?
The last piece I sold recently was a sterling pitcher by Alvin, 1030 grams, and it sold at scrap value.
But I guess older pieces do better.

 

He's holding it in the palm of his hand......so it's not that big........but for sure...it's nice !!!

 

age.....and condition........I see no damage!

 

Just about every maker is what AF calls "some blokes in a shed." Unless it's a seriously big name.

 

these blokes ...did nice work !!!

 

I have a big palm
There are some small dings and dents but no major damages.

 

The closest I could come to the maker's mark with that script 2nd letter L was John Lampfert. Nowww he may be too early for his mark was registered in 1746 and found on 1763-1773 flatware. Also the shape of his punch as shown on the silvermakersmarks.co.uk website "London Assay Office" is a rectangle as opposed to a curved anything like on this bowl. No doubt af will say the bloke thingy, but as this dates to the early 1800s, it sure would be interesting to known the maker.
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/London-JL-JP.html#JL

BTW, Baker, I believe the date letter is for 1808 rather than 1805. The London date code charts on 925-1000, silvermakersmarks and silvercollection.it have this N in this punch for 1808. They have a "K" for 1805.

http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_london.html
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Dates/London.html
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Dates/London/Date Letters N.html
http://www.silvercollection.eu/englishsilverhallmarks.html

With the lack of the crowned leopard head for the city of London, I can understand, but with the sovereign head of George III, the duty mark, missing also seems unusual. It isn't like this is a small item with little room for the hallmarks.

--- Susan

 

oops. I counted wrong. That's the one thing about the Silvermine charts that isn't ideal. Having to count from the first year in the range.

 

I'm wondering if those marks may have been somehow brushed off.....filed down, or erased in some manner......?

 

As already said, looks like London 1808. Hopefully AF will come in with an opinion, but I am bothered, in particular, by what looks like erased marks on the base (where I would expect to see a full set of proper hallmarks), as well as by the incomplete marks that appear to be somewhere on a rim, since they are what I'd expect to see on secondary parts, like a lid, etc.

~Cheryl

 

The style is one popular in the late 19th C. It does not look Georgian to me. I have a vase in in a similar style with the swirling embossed lower part. Could be post duty mark era.

It could be a plain piece from an earlier era that has been clobbered (reworked) and repaired and re-marked.

Given the condition I'd see it at metal value. Prices may differ where you are.

 

I looked at this and kept coming back to see what you all would say about it. As to me the marks didn't make sense.

What AF says about the design being later 1800s, is what I thought too. The lack of marks bothered me.
The "L" looks more like part of another letter and not an "L" to me.

So I was wondering if Wong Lee ever did silver or if ceramics were the main focus.

I came across this on .925. Not Wong Lee, but maybe something else to consider.

http://www.925-1000.com/chinex_marks.html#M

Still a nice piece Kard.

 

I found both of these articles interesting. The NY times is from 1985

http://www.antiquetrader.com/antiqu...re-of-chinese-silver-made-for-western-markets

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/17/nyregion/antiques-misunderstood-chinese-silver-on-view.html

 

What are the chances that this is not an English piece?
I'd expect a Chinese silver, even export one, to have a bit of traditional motifs but turned out that some examples are purely European.
They used lion and date letter marks as well.

 

Chinese Export Silver pseudo-marks, like most all pseudo-marks, look 'off' compared to genuine marks (the CES 'date marks' usually relate to the maker's name, they do not actually indicate a date) - these marks look correct, but not for this piece. Would expect to see full marks on the base, similar to those below (there seems to be indications in your base pics that marks were defaced/removed).

~ Cheryl



Correct marks on the base of a teapot:


Correct partial marks on the lid of the same teapot (would also be correct without maker's mark):

Full set of correct marks:


Your marks:


Correct marks without London city mark (a few provincial offices also sometimes left the city marks off of smaller items during the same era):

 

I am not able to tell if there were marks on the base



Chinese export marks