www.925-1000.com

That means the lid is correctly marked if it was assayed with the teapot and if the teapot was also made by CG. The pot itself should have should have full marks with part marks only on the subsidiary pieces. As the pot shows a different maker, the lid must have been taken from another teapot or, mo...

If my eyes and my fading familiarity with German do not deceive me, the inscription translates as "A memento of the time in Cologne- Karl Moll and Wife - in May 1937". And 1937 seems a likely date for the item to have been bought new.

I would not want to rule out the possibility of a greater fake with the 1751 marks taken from another damaged item and inserted to portray a late Victorian item as 18th century rococo.Do the scratches run right to the edge, i.e. do they look as if they were acquired before being inserted as a base p...

Looks as if somebody tried to wire the candlestick for electric light.

The engraving appears to be a crescent within a wreath with an earl's coronet above. It is not in the normal form of a family crest. If it is nonetheless meant as a crest one either needs to plough through the many families with a crescent as a crest and check whether any of them held an earldom at ...

You do need to look at all the marks, not just the date letter. Earlier Gs are accompanied by the monarch's head duty mark or if still earlier by a different town mark, for example.

And I just see a series of question marks.

1821 would require there to be a king's head duty mark as well as a different shape of cartouche for the date letter, so yes, you are right about the style and 1901 it is. Maker may be William Harrison Walter (see silvermakersmarks.co.uk site).

The extra photos are helpful. No duty head means your marks must be prior to 1784. If you do not have Grimwade, the reference book for London marks, you can go to the invaluable silvermakersmarks.co.uk site to look up the RH marks of Robert Hennell I and see how you think yours compares after allowi...

I should have added a question. Is there any sign of a repeat maker's mark on the central column/handle?

I would have thought that stylistically the silver belonged more to the 1780s than the 1820s. I cannot make out whether the marks include a King's Head duty mark. If not, 1780 is a possibility for the lower case e. I cannot suggest a likely HH for that date. If RH is as likely a reading, Robert Henn...

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1352/13610430/24396422/412221525.jpg The larger spoon is unmarked but probably dates from circa 1730. Spoons in a similar pattern have been noted bearing the mark of Paul de Lamerie. That does not have to mean the this spoon comes from him, but it is a heavy, well m...

I am not so sure. I think the disinfector had a flat wick of impregnated cotton rather than a round cord and was something of a rarity so I would go with Goldstein on this. Of course, since we all make mistakes, I may be wrong!

The u is thought to be a date letter but we haven't cracked the code, see http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=24149 Princes plate seems to be an earlier trade name, probably first half of 20th century and pre WW2, but I cannot help with the pattern name or more accurate dating. I ...

I should have added that I can't say whether or not Vander was actually the firm that made your owl.

Tiffany have had a London branch since 1868, with a gap around the time of WW2. Their first mark entered at Goldsmiths Hall in 1892 was A.W.F. - the initials of their London manager. I think the T&Co mark probably replaced this somewhere around the 1930s. Tiffany items made and marked in England...

Thanks, Silverly. It was good of you to go to the trouble of checking this.

David

I should also have added that the box appears not to have sold at the auction. Perhaps just an over-ambitious reserve, but perhaps a lack of enthusiasm among potential buyers. I must say that the more I look at the pictures, the more I doubt a 17th century English origin. The decoration seems wrong ...

I should have added that the auction house read the mark as IF but did not identify a maker. Neither can I.

When this item, or its identical twin, came up for auction on 9 December it was described as a late 17th century silver counter box. Such boxes are regularly so described and I assume the counters were normally for gaming. Therefore I would have thought it was a fair description though I did wonder ...