When a British silversmith made a piece, did he apply his own mark to a piece on his premises, or does the assay office keep the maker’s die and apply it themselves when assaying an object?
If the maker stamped the piece with his mark on his premises, would this have been before or after he sent the piece to the assay office?
The assay office sites are not clear on this subject, and I just wondered… It would seem to me that the maker applied his mark himself, to judge from the Silver Collector Forums title illustration above, which shows the very common occurrence of the maker’s mark inverted in relation to the hallmarks.
The silversmith applies his own mark, then sends the piece off to the assay office. He wants to make sure the piece is correctly identified as his. Too many chances for mistakes or skullduggery if it were the other way 'round.
Modern paractice allows for sponsors’ mark to be retained at the relevant Assay Office. It the hallmark and sponsor’s mark are applied at the same time a more consistent result can be achieved.
Well Jeff and Phil seem to say different things, but I suppose that Jeff’s account belongs to the past and Phil’s to the present. Many thanks to both of you.
1 Like
Yes, there have been several changes in recent years. Not sure when assay offices starting applying makers’ marks, or how common it is. And then there are the 1999 changes, which made the numerical purity indicator mandatory, but made the lion passant and date letter optional.
I think that not having mandatory date letters is a change they’ll live to regret. A century from now, someone will post in a forum like this, asking, “When was this made?” And the answer might be, “Sometime after 2000, but that’s as close as we can come.”
Oh absolutely. I believe we are the envy of the silver collecting world, with the precision of our marks, both place and date. And why change something that has worked so well for so many centuries? And don’t get me started on this…!