Hello,
I’m a new user and I greet all forum members.
I would like to know if it’s possible to identify the period and the silversmith in the hallmark photo.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Renny
Whole item photo, please. Hallmark is illegible.
This is almost certainly a London hallmark. It has a George III duty mark placing it in the period 1786 to 1821. Unfortunately I cannot see any immediate possibilities for a matching maker’s mark within that period. If you had the other bottles and the stand from the cruet set we would have a full hallmark with date letter and, probably, a legible maker’s name.
2 Likes
Thank you, Silvermakersmarks.
I purchased the set without the stand, but I doubted it was from the same period, as the marks are not the same.
The mustard jar appears to have a mark from 1845, while the other flask has no mark at all…
I’m a beginner and believe the set was completed with different objects, although the crystal design is the same on all the flasks.
1 Like
L = 1846.
Given this is a two-letter makers’ mark prior to 1821 and the first letter is Roman capital “R” and the second letter has a straight-sided support staff, I suppose Robert Hennell I deserves a second look?
(I know the support line for the second letter looks concave but since there are no concave letter supports its next most likely option is straight).
And Hennell made cruet sets
So this may be bottles from a Charles Lias cruet set made after Hennell’s death “married” to a Robert Hennell piece both using the same London glass blower/cutter.
Here’s a seven-bottle Charles Lias Cruet for 1846 sold locally. It has a number of missed stoppers and cracks so I avoided it.
Christopher
Guildhall Antiques Ltd
Toronto
2 Likes
The 2014 sale post didn’t show so try it this way
CRWW
2 Likes
Robert Hennell was the first one that came to my mind.
1 Like
Thanks Bartholomew.
1 Like
Hi Guildhall,
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking something similar, too. I still have one last question: why doesn’t a vial have any hallmarks on the silver? I tested it, and it turns out to be silver.
Renny
Most silver doesn’t have any hallmarks on it. Less than 2% of silver mined today is used for anything decorative at all.
Provincial silver often avoids tax collecting squeeze points, The Scots and the Irish seem to have been particularly prone to not letting their colonial masters from Westminster anywhere nears their goods.
Items made for private sale, smith direct to user, often lack assay marks.
Southern or Confederate silver where everybody knew the local smith almost never marked items sold locally until the 19th century
Vials were very often "de minimus-ed. Too small – don’t bother.
Then there are the silver marks which are there but really should not be A certain German town, Hanau, became notorious for fake marks.
It’s probably rank heresy to say so in this august company but looking at silver marks before looking at the item itself is nearly always a mistake. You should be right about silver 80% of the time without a magnifying glass after a year or two at it.
Finally, to demonstrate my last point, so many over stamps occur quite legally, that it is a sometimes a complete waste of time looking at marks all.
The Batemans, for instance, who used the Boulton mill rather than the hammer for much preliminary process, became victims of their own financial success.
Remember these marks were there to collect tax, to prevent fraud and to identify those abusing the system who might qualify for a free trip to Tasmania or a permanent manicure.
They were never intended as something to aid collectors. Indeed collectors were never intended. If you were rich you dined off silver, if slightly less you got by with pewter and if poor, dining wasn’t an option anyway.
CRWW