Salad Servers - what is this cupid mark? And strange scratchings?

Good Day

I have these salad servers (see below) and am curious to know the meaning of the cupid with bow mark on them. It is the only hallmark on each of the servers. In particular are they sterling silver?

As you will see someone has also scratched some figures below the hallmark on each server. It is so faint that one doesn't really notice it but it shows up in the photographs. Can anyone suggest what this might have been about?

Thank you as always for your advice.

 

http://www.silvercollection.it/ENGLAGRINSELL.html

According to this site they are silver plate

 

those scratchings are typical of a dealers numbering system..nothing more.
and the makers mark, trade mark, or plate mark , is not called a hallmark.

 

A hallmark is only a hallmark if it comes from an assay hall. If it doesn't, then it's a maker's mark or something like that.

 

Could you two please repeat this every time someone calls any mark a hallmark? Us unsuspecting innocents from hallmarking countries expect an official mark on a tested item, whereas it is often just a maker's mark or production code.
I've even seen marks on studio pottery referred to as hallmark.

 

Unfortunately AJ, people don't understand what a HALLMARK actually IS.

A hallmark is a mark stamped on a piece of gold, silver or other precious metal (platinum, for example), which was sent to the hall for assaying (testing and certification).

It's called a HALL MARK because the system which originated in England was started at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths and Silversmiths at GOLDSMITHS' HALL. That said, systems of hallmarking go back CENTURIES all around Europe, and even the Middle East. The English system is by far the most well-known.

 

Exactly!

 

Sigh! Perhaps I should simply have referred to the cupid device as a "mark" but at the time of posting I was hoping that it was an assay mark from some jurisdiction indicating .925 or similar. Sadly, that is not so. Heaven forbid that every inaccurately worded post should be side tracked like this into a pedantic discussion of terminology.

 

When it comes to searches, calling a cat a cat and using the proper terms is the ONLY way to get infos.
It is rather wrong and unfair to call pedantic those who know (and are willing to help)

 

Thank you, kyra.

And many of us have done our best to help silver in the past, in spite of his sometimes not too nice answers.

 

I am very grateful for the help given on this wonderful forum, and I didn't call anyone pedantic. I merely suggested that to correct terminology every time it is wrongly used (which is what had been suggested) would be pedantic.

Unless it is crucial to get the terms right in a particular case it leads to an otherwise interesting discussion being sidetracked. To illustrate my point, my query was about a particular mark, and yet we have two posts about my mark and I think seven about terminology, and related replies.

There is nothing to stop someone who is concerned about misuse of terminology from starting a dedicated thread about it.

 

[QUOTE="Any Jewelry, post: 321155, member: 2844"
many of us have done our best to help silver in the past, in spite of his sometimes not too nice answers.[/QUOTE]

As far as I am aware this is the only post of mine in which someone has been offended by my response. I have no intention of offending anyone, in this post or elsewhere, and as I have indicated I am most grateful for the help given on this site.

 

Thank you for finding that.

That is rather disappointing - I was hoping the mark was some sort of foreign silver mark. But I like the servers nevertheless.

 

And there is nothing to stop them from mentioning it here either.

The Egyptian marks thread comes to mind, in which your reaction to my question was rather prickly. Something which I didn't address at the time, but didn't appreciate either.

As far as I'm concerned, enough said about the matter.

 

Thank you.

Armed with Ratsy Brown's identification of the mark I did a bit more ferriting around on the internet and found a site with a photo of the mark in which scratched numbers in what looks remarkably like the same handwriting were also visible. I can't remember which site it was but it may have been 925-1000. It does seem a bit off-sides for a manufacturer or retailer to scratch the product in this way!

 

It was't intended to be prickly at all. I apologise for inadvertently causing offence. I was merely trying to clarify an aspect of the information you had kindly given because it seemed crucial to what I was trying to work out. I find that forums are a very imperfect method of communication.

 

"be side tracked like this into a pedantic discussion of terminology."

you called all of us who commented, pedantic........

"it seemed crucial to what I was trying to work out"

so is getting the terms right so we know what to help you with....!

& you're not the only one who reads this thread.....so the Hallmark vs Trade Mark information is valuable across the board....for everyone looking in..

No one posts in a bubble here.!

 

Could be pawn shop marks. Also...since all replies are given with the best intentions I feel it is unfair for any recipient of comments to take umbridge with a correction when offered. Facts are facts.