www.925-1000.com

Hello friends!.

I have a Dublin dessert spoon from 1804, but It is without duty mark. Is it usual? or may be, the spoon is a fake?. On the other hand, the maker mark is Michael Keating. I have read he was a controversial silversmith (He was some time in prison for selling below standard silver) Could have this, connection with lack of duty mark?.


http://es.geocities.com/gruporameja/cuc ... hspoon.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you in advance and I'm really sorry for my bad English.
.

Hi Fer,

Your spoon looks OK to me, the Duty mark was not applied to Dublin silver until 1807.

Regards Trev.
.

Thank Trev, I apreciatte your help.

Perhaps, someone can tell me something about Michael Keating. I would like to have some information about him.

Thank you in advance.

Fer.
.

Sorry if this is bad news for you and please check with a reputable auction house to verify...don't take my word for it.... I think by the quality of the stamps and the lack of duty mark, that your spoon is probably from 1949 rather than earlier.
As I said..do get it checked. Best wishes, Mike.
.

Hi Fer,
The marks look legitimate to my eye. Could not find much on Keating, just this one reference, "...in 1777 it is entered that one Michael Keating, whose mark was MK, was convicted of counterfeiting marks, and sentenced to a fine of 50 pounds and six months' imprisonment"
from http://books.google.com/books?id=lF9X3t ... =html_text" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect that, after his experience in 1777, he would have been very careful to adhere to laws governing the trade.

Regards, Tom
.

Hi Fer,

Michael Keating appeared in court in 1776, accused of a counterfeiting a Duty mark. The Duty mark at this time in Ireland was the figure of Hibernia, it was introduced in 1730 following an Act of Parliament in 1729 that imposed a Duty of 6d. per ounce on gold and silver. In reality it was not a Government mark, but a mark used by the Dublin Company to denote that the Duty had been paid, but it would appear that as time passed the Revenue Commissioners believed it was their mark and bought about the prosecution. This was a very important difference, and it was this technicality that Keating's defence worked on and got him acquitted although the entire Hallmark was a forgery, much to the fury of the Revenue Commissioners.
The following year, 1777, the Commissioners acquired another example of a Keating forgery and this time they tried him for counterfeiting the Harp Crowned and were successful getting the result that Tom has posted above.

Regards Trev.