The spoon is almost certainly made by the workshop of the notorious forger of marks, Paulus Arnoldus van der Beek and assayed in 1853.
I can’t tell you I know a great deal about silver made in The Hague but, while the van der Beek partnership may have made the majority of 19th century forgeries, it is difficulty to understand, given this is contemporary marking, why he would forge his own mark, assay stamp and date?
We know he forged earlier material to avoid paying duty on items which would otherwise be tariffed as new but there is no logic for this being a fake.
https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56948
Indeed if you punch your own name/ mark on it, get it correctly assayed and probably correctly date stamped then what’s to be gained by faking all that?
I suppose you might get out of paying the assay fees but on a spoon or even a suite of cutlery the fees are relatively small compared to the potential financial loss courted by the possibility of a passing off. Even today the assay fee is only .94 Euro.
But, and this is where things get odd, the market for known fakes of the 19th century today is stronger than the market for the genuine product,
Remember these tediously ordinary pair of salt and peppers that came up for auction earlier this summer:
They came from the workshop of Lyon and Twinam and were scrupulously correctly listed by Wilkens as “an uncommon example of the work of these known forgers”
I took the liberty of writing about it in this forum at the time:
CRWW
.