Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Ladybranch, post: 189753, member: 44&quot;]According to the info on the following page it appears you are right when it says &quot;Statue 47, Geo. III, c.15 (1807) that required the additional stamp of the King&#039;s Head Duty mark on Irish silver.&quot; It seems there were problems with the provincial (not Dublin) silversmiths of Ireland of not officially registering with the Dublin assay office and having their silver assayed and hallmarked.</p><p>About the 6th paragraph down, paragraph starts with &quot;It was until 1784...&quot;</p><p><a href="http://www.925-1000.com/IrishProvincial_OV.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.925-1000.com/IrishProvincial_OV.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.925-1000.com/IrishProvincial_OV.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>As to looking left or right, I couldn&#039;t tell for sure. I was just going on a possible?? shape of the punch.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another thing that helps back up the date of 1809 with James Scott as opposed to 1785 with John Stoyle is on the following page with the mark &quot;LAW&quot; for the retailer William Law. It lists &quot;Corresponding Silversmiths.&quot; &quot;James Scott&quot; is listed and not John Stoyle.</p><p><br /></p><p>No doubt you already saw all of the above that brought you to your conclusion - the right conclusion of 1809 &amp; James Scott.</p><p><br /></p><p>--- Susan</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: Just now seeing the latest pics. Good show S_I_S![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in