Seeking info on the date and maker of this brooch

wsk · Post by **wsk** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:12 pm

Found this brooch at a jeweler in Salt lake City, Utah. The appraisal that accompanied the brooch indicates that is arts and crafts period circa 1900, is sterling, has four colors of enamel, and that the stone is a 17.3mm amethyst. In sunlight the violet or purple enamel is actually blue. If possible I'd like to confirm the date and learn who the maker is. The mark "R.B s" does not appear on the any of the 925-1000.com lists - at least I was unable to find them.

Here is the brooch:

and the hallmarks on the reverse:

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:30 am

Is it Birminghan 1877 ???

But I didn't sure it.

nigel le sueur · Post by **nigel le sueur** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:49 am

The makers mark is Robinsons Bros from Birmingham who worked from 1896-1924, this makes it confusing as the date letter possibly could be 1893/4 and l would not say that was a good match

Maybe the Robinson Bros worked earlier than what l have written down, any one any ideas ?

Nigel

Post by **dognose** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:13 am

This one does seem a little strange, the date punch for 1893 is shown in all the guides I have checked so far as being in a oval punch, and although it appears to be well struck it does not match well, also I would have expected the anchor to be in the upright position, but I am not sure if this was a hard and fast rule, regards Trev.

Post by **Granmaa** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:03 pm

I have an 1895 spoon, and the anchor is lying down. The order however is maker's mark-anchor-letter-lion.
I'm confused by this letter as well.

Miles

Post by **admin** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:44 pm

Hi,
I've had a variety of Birmingham pieces from this time period with the marks ordered and oriented in different ways, so the order and orientation of these do not strike me as odd. However, there are a number of other things that seem strange to me.
Firstly, the letter seems a better match for the "L" of 85/86, the light highlight down the right side of it indicates no break for the stubby crossbar of the "T". The cartouche shape is wrong and it should have a duty mark if 85/86, nonetheless I still think it is the "L".
The lion seems a bit strange with his nodding head, looks a bit like a ram getting ready to butt something.
Oddest of all is the use of a chipped punch for the town mark, with not one, but two chips out. I've seen this on American pseudomarks and, on a few rare occasions, with British maker's marks, but never have I seen it on any stamp out of an assay office.
Could it be a set of duty dodging stamps?

Regards

emperorsnewclothes · Post by **emperorsnewclothes** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:32 am

I couldn't put my hand on heart but they look like fake marks to me. The punches have no detail and aren't convincing. Just an opinion of course, but I wouldn't buy this if I was offered it.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the article is not genuine, but that it is probably of american or continental manufacture and has been marked with fake english punches to increase the value. It is still a nice thing as far as I can see, and I don't see why it shouldn't be of the period you mention.

wsk · Post by **wsk** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:23 am

Thanks all. What an interesting array of opinions. Yet no apparent consensus.

If I understand emperorsnewclothes' position, the brooch appears to date from circa 1900. Right? Then does it follow that the economics of the time were such that manufacturing "off shore" could be done for significantly less cost than in Birmingham? Even today when off-shore manufacturing is common, a prime underlying requirement is huge volume. Was there call for such volume? If so, wouldn't we expect to have found many more pieces with "interesting" hallmarks? What were the economic condition of the times?

Supposing that this set of stamps is "duty dodging", surely there would be more evidence of that happening than just this single piece wouldn't there? After all, that anchor punch is quite distinctive. Criminals are stupid. Were the maker to successfully dodge the duties once with this particular piece, it seems to me highly likely that he'd do it again. And again. And again. Eventually he'd get caught but all of his dodge-em work would still be out in the market.

I thank you all for your replies and encourage you to continue to "work, work your thoughts" on this puzzle.

-- The quote is from the Prologue to Act III Shakespeare's King Henry V.

Gerryl · Post by **Gerryl** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:42 pm

Just a piece of information to help clarify a point that seems to puzzle people. Bradbury's Book of Hallmarkks clearly states that the date letter marks on Birmingham silver items between 1872 and 1894 can be in either an oval or a rectangle with cut corners.

Gerryl