POSSIBLE CHINESE EXPORT SILVER PSEUDO-HALLMARK?

[Adrien von Ferscht]

The following mark has been shared with me. In Crosby Forbes' work in Appendix III he lists ACAO as a Canton maker, yet gives no mark. This mark for AKOW potentially be the same, but I've never seen a so-called pseudo hallmark with a tree symbol impress. I also do not recognise the first character mark [or what could be a character mark]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw1adrgw8ns97 ... 5B1%5D.JPG

Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks
Adrien von Ferscht

[dognose]

Hi Adrien,

I see a pseudo 'Lion Passant', 'Crowned Leopard's Head', 'AKOW', and a 'Duty Mark'.

Trev.

[Adrien von Ferscht]

Hi Trevor

Do you really think the first mark is a "pseudo" lion passant?

As for the duty mark, what do you think it's trying to emulate?

I've never seen a Canton mark like this

[dognose]

Hi Adrien,

Yes, albeit with a rather huge nearside rear leg! The "Duty mark" has a very slender neck, one would presume representing a woman, but many CES makers, as you know, show similar detail.

Trev.

[Adrien von Ferscht]

You've solved it!
I was so fixated on the fact the last impress looked like a tree that I couldn't see anything else but a tree!
Thanks Trevor
Another one for the new edition cataloguing
Regards
Adrien

[davidross]

I agree with Trev, what I see in the photo are typical Chinese pseudo marks. The lion rampant here reminds me of regional British marks, such as those seen on Exeter flatware of the first decades of the 19th century.

The "duty mark" is a bit warped and misshapen, but similar grotesques are not uncommon on 19th century Canadian silver. my guess is that the AKOW duty mark was not copied from the most common and plentiful source, the George III mark in use from 1786 to 1821, but probably from the duty mark of George IV, in which the draped shoulders almost do look like tree roots or tentacles. If this AKOW pseudo-duty mark represents George IV, then obviously the earliest possible date for the item would be 1822/23, and most likely ca 1830-1840. Would that seem correct for the piece in question?

Regards,

DR