New to silver collecting, help please.

[jbaldam]

Hi, First post, new to silver collecting.
I'm specializing in Victorian silver jewelery and have bought this piece but on examining the marks I am thinking that it may be later.
Could anyone please identify the year for me please and give me any information as to the maker.
thanks for any help you can give.



john

[dognose]

Hi John,

Welcome to the Forum.
Can't help with the maker but your brooch was assayed in 1887 at Birmingham.

Regards Trev.

[jbaldam]

hi Trev, many thanks.
That's good news, I thought it was 1912.
cheers
john

[buckler]

Can you check if , in addition to the marks shown on your photo, there is a Victoria Head. If there is no Victoria Head, which was used as a duty paid mark up to 1890, then I think your original diagnosis of 1912 is more likely.

[dognose]

Hi,

You would not expect to find a Duty mark on a broach like this as they are exempt from Duty under the 1790 Plate Act, indeed there was no legal requirement for an item such as this to be Hallmarked at all. Manufacturers opted for optional marking to enhance their products and achieve higher prices.
Arthur Westwood, Assay Master at Birmingham stated in 1922 that 75% of the items Hallmarked at Birmingham were exempt from Hallmarking requirements.
Wilfred Cripps stated in 1883 " Manufacturers are now obliged to get all sorts of insignificant articles stamped that are legally exempt from liability to marking, owing to their small weight; for example, the corners of pocket-books and purses, articles which twenty years ago nobody would have thought of Hallmarking, now command a better price for being so guaranteed".
The advantage taken by the trade of optional marking is afforded by the figures returned from 1880 to 1890; 4,750,000 oz. of gold and silver wares were voluntarily marked and 6,600,000 oz. were compulsorily marked (Horol.Jor., 1890, p.142.)

Trev.

[buckler]

Dognose is correct in saying that items which were exempted from the assay requirement were also exempt from duty.

However any exempt item which was sent voluntarily for assay was then charged with duty (see Forbes page 229).

Hence it would received the duty mark. In 1854 this was changed (Gold and Silver Wares Act , 17 & 18 Vict, s3) in respect of GOLD only to allow exempted items sent voluntarily for assay not to be liable for duty . This relaxation did not, I understand, apply to silver

So any silver object with an assay mark during the duty period would have a Sovereigns Head .

Thus the 1912 date is probably correct .

[admin]

I can't provide any relevant information regarding the fine details of British mark exemptions, everything I've ever read has been unclear and confusing, so I will leave that subject to the better informed.

There are other aspects of the piece that should be addressed. Stylistically, it does not make any sense for a 1912 date, the style was already on the wane by 1887.
As to the marks, the calligraphic font of the "n" was not used in the latter sequence that includes 1912, but is the font used in the sequence of 1887.

The maker is likely Sydenham Bros., do not know when they first registered the mark.

Regards, Tom

[kerangoumar]

buckler may be right in what was required to be done, and what one might infer from that. but people don't always follow the rules, as we all know when we look at silver that is missing one mark or another.

there is no way this piece was made in 1912 unless someone went to the smith (or jeweller) and asked for an exact replacement to be made.
of course we don't know that is the case, but it seems likely, if one needs to explain the presence and absence of marks on this brooch.

[jbaldam]

hi all,
Many thanks for all your replies, you all seem to know the silver market.
These are the only marks on the peice and hopefully it is Victorian as I wish only to collect from this era.
Thanks for the makers Tom, I'll try to research them.
cheers
john

[dognose]

Hi,

I sought clarifiation on the matter of whether or not a Duty mark should be present from the Curator at the Birmingham Assay Office, who was extremely helpful, and I'm pleased to say it looks like we were all right.
Buckler was correct when he said that an exempt item voluntarily sent for hallmarking would have been charged with Duty and should have been, as confirmed in Law and Practice of Hallmarking Gold and Silver Wares. J. Paul De Castro, but on the seven brooches in the silver collection at the Assay Office, all hallmarked of a similar period and pre-1890, none were stamped with the Duty mark.
I think Kerangoumar hit the nail on the head when she said people don't always follow the rules!
The Curator also confirmed Tom's attribution that the maker was Sydenham Bros.

Regards Trev.

[jbaldam]

hi Trev,
thanks for the follow up.
I've looked ontinternet for info on the Sydenham Brothers but have drawn a blank 'cept for several pieces for sale.

cheers
john

[admin]

Good work Trev! glad this mystery is solved, have always found this duty mark anomaly irritating.

Thanks, Tom

[buckler]

Thanks to dognose for clearing this one up.
Looks like the human factor again.

His evidence from the Assay Office at Birmingham makes it certain that they were breaking the rules at that period. Being more used to the 1773 - 1830 when Birmingham were being watched by London very closely ( so they could try to have Birmingham closed down) I am somewhat surprised. Living in the Midlands I'm rather pleased that Brummie commonsense prevailed over the law !

Looking at the dateletter more closely on the piece under discussion it does not look like the 1912 "n" , and opinion is strongly that the style is not 1912.

If something is legally not a duck, but has webbed feet, feathers and goes "Quack" - it probably is a duck !

[MCB]

Hello John,

George, Robert & William Sydenham traded as Sydenham Brothers from 54 New Edmund Street Birmingham from around 1875 and from Tenby Street Birmingham from around 1900.

They registered a mark at Chester office in 1878 which is very similar to the one on your brooch.

No evidence found to indicate they made ducks!

[jbaldam]

hi,
just caught your reply.
Thanks for the info, I presumed two brothers, not three.
Very interesting.
cheers
john

[dognose]

Hi,

Advertisment for Sydenham Brothers from 1880.



Trev.