Help Needed with Breslau Spoon

[dognose]

Hi,

I could use some help with the marks on this spoon.





So far I've concluded that the second mark from the left is the mark for Wroclaw/Breslau for 1848. The next to the right, faded and upside down, is the maker's mark of Carl Julius Gottlieb Weiss, who was working 1841-1873.
My ancient copy of Tardy does show a similar 'T' mark with just 1849/61 underneath it, but no explanation of what it is meant to signify.
The other marks have got me stumped, although I'm guessing that Markfeldt was the retailer.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Trev.

[blakstone]

Hmm. Here’s a perfect example of how sometimes identifying the marks can raise more questions than it answers.

The city mark with the date below it was introduced in 1843 and was used to distinguish items of 12 Lot (.750) silver from those of 13 Lot (.813) silver, which were marked without the date below. And I agree that the dates looks like “48” for 1848, so the faint mark which resembles Carl Weiss’ (1805-1873), Master 1834, could indeed be his. So far so good.

However, the “T” is the mark of Breslau guild assay master Friedrich A. Zimmerman, who served in the post from August 1849 to January 1861. So either the mark is really “49”, or the 1848 mark was used well into the following year.

However, “Moritz Thuns” is Moritz Rudolph Alexander Thuns (1815-1880), who did not become a member of the Breslau guild until 1852. And odder still is the “R. Markfeldt” mark, that of Robert Markfeldt (1831-aft. 1898), who didn’t become a guild member until 1859.

So even if Thuns was the retailer (he was a citizen of the city in 1842 and may have had permission to work as a retailer before he became a full member of the guild), I think this spoon must’ve been re-marked at least once during its history; I can't imagine that Markfedt would've been using his own mark at the age of 18.

Interesting piece.

[dognose]

Hi Blakstone,

Many thanks for such an interesting analysis. I've looked at the spoon again and cannot see the date as being anything but 1848, perhaps the date that the year mark changes (like English date marks) was late in the year?
Your thoughts of later re-marking by Thuns and Markfeldt seem to be the most logical outcome.

Thanks again for your imput.

Regards Trev.