Edinbrough hallmarks but American maker’s mark B.Pitman

[s.nsw]

We inherited a porringer that belonged to my husband’s grandfather. It has his birth year of 1884 inscribed on it. The maker’s name is B.Pitman. This can be one of several American silversmiths called Benjamin Pitman. The lineage appears in the entry of the last of them https://www.americansilversmiths.org/ma ... 160700.htm However, the last had retired before 1884. There are several very similar porringers ascribed to the first Benjamin Pitman (1728-Bef 1814), who did use the same B.Pitman mark as the last, however these items are coin silver and have only his mark. It seems conceivable that the porringer was already in the family and was then later inscribed in 1884. There was an earlier Royall Tyler in the family as well, but born in 1757, which is too early, and his son, born in the time of the hallmarks, and Royal Tyler (one L). May I ask if anyone could help with this puzzle? The American silver part of the forum doesn’t seem to have a category for this, so I’m sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have been able to identify a French item through this site and have identified the marks on this porringer as Scottish. I am unsure of the duty mark. I read that after 1800 false British marks might be added to American silver but these are quite clear, and even if that were the case it is still puzzling. (I have never posted images this way. Apologies if it doesn't work.

[silvermakersmarks]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Your images are not showing as you appear to be trying to show pictures which are resident on your own device. Before using the image tags you must upload the pictures to an online picture hosting site. https://postimages.org is recommended as an image host (after uploading your picture/s click 'Share', then copy and paste the 'Hotlink for forums' code to embed your images). Do not use Photobucket or Dropbox. Please ensure that you embed your images rather than posting links and remember to use the 'Preview' button before submitting your post. If your images don't show up there we won't be able to see them either.

Phil

[s.nsw]

We inherited a porringer that belonged to my husband’s grandfather. It has his birth year of 1884 inscribed on it. The maker’s name is B.Pitman. This can be one of several American silversmiths called Benjamin Pitman. The lineage appears in the entry of the last of them https://www.americansilversmiths.org/ma ... 160700.htm However, the last had retired before 1884. There are several very similar porringers ascribed to the first Benjamin Pitman (1728-Bef 1814), who did use the same B.Pitman mark as the last, however these items are coin silver and have only his mark. It seems conceivable that the porringer was already in the family and was then later inscribed in 1884. There was an earlier Royall Tyler in the family as well, but born in 1757, which is too early, and his son, born in the time of the hallmarks, and Royal Tyler (one L). May I ask if anyone could help with this puzzle? The American silver part of the forum doesn’t seem to have a category for this, so I’m sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have been able to identify a French item through this site and have identified the marks on this porringer as Scottish. I am unsure of the duty mark. I read that after 1800 false British marks might be added to American silver but these are quite clear, and even if that were the case it is still puzzling.

[silvermakersmarks]

I am not convinced that the "Edinburgh" marks are OK as there appear to be some inconsistencies in the punch outline shapes. There are also problems with the lack of a date mark and the lumpy duty mark lacking any detail. However if they are genuine they would date from around 1810 which is consistent with the working period of Benjamin Pitman. I would have to ask why an established silversmith would suddenly resort to forged marks; it's certainly a mystery.

Phil

[dognose]

I wonder if the piece has been altered/repaired? Could a missing mark be within the red circled area?



Trev.

[s.nsw]

Thank you. May I ask, why 1811? The smudgy duty mark doesn't help.

I think alteration or repair sounds likely, being as it is older than the date inscribed. I was hoping there might be some common practice to do with imported silver at an early date. The duty mark is under where one might hold it, and the porringer is worn, as though used by more than one child though I don't think it was used after 1884.

I've attached several more photos in case you notice something, particularly where you indicate with the arrow.



[url=https://postimg.cc/ygGtK4dQ]

[s.nsw]

I posted and then realised that I made a mistake with the photos--duplicated one and didn't add the right one anyway. I did preview it but then I did something wrong but didn't realise. Then I posted it and found I couldn't edit it. I will from now on save a draft, Apologies.

[Aguest]

::::::: The Edinburgh hallmarks......is it possible they were not stamped using a traditional punch tool.....is it possible these hallmarks were "cast" as part of the design of the handle? The hallmarks look "cast" to me.....very strange......am I right that these hallmarks appear cast and not punched? :::::