Danzig / Gdansk Baroque Silver Box

[legrandmogol]

I recently acquired this beautiful silver box and believe it is early 18th century Danzig. I don't know who the maker is though. The initials seem to be IBH inside of a trefoil / clover. There are also two sets of latter Austrian marks on the lid and base. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The box measures about 4" in diameter and stands 2.25" tall

[AG2012]

Hi,
It is Neresheimer & Sohne,Hanau.
See here:
https://www.925-1000.com/Fgerman_hanau_marks_01.html
Marks npr and s497

The style is typical Hanau.
Regards

[legrandmogol]

The mark you are referencing is actually an Austrian Duty-Free mark (the other mark is for Lemberg). I believe the ones you are referencing are copies of this mark. Notice how the ones you are referencing are part of the whole scheme of pseudo marks. The Austrian marks on mine are far from the original marks and placed on the lid and box.
The style of this piece is indeed what the latter Hanau makers were copying and the original seller sold it as Hanau but I don't believe this is. If you look at early 18th-century Baroque silver boxes you'll see the similarities. The main difference is the repousse work on the side of my box which was not often mimicked later on.
I am open to other proof that this is actually a Hanau piece but I would need a better match.

[Sasropakis]

The style of the lid doesn't quite look like it's from the baroque period. I tried to search Google for references and if you make a search "hanau neresheimer dresser box" you can find about similar box which is dated 1903. Unfortunately the page where it's found doesn't open (and I can't give the direct link anyway) so I can't see a closeup of that box and it's hallmarks.

[huszas76]

My opinion: the shown marks aren't austro-hungarian tax marks, only just the copy of these marks.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[legrandmogol]

The box you are referring to is this exact box. I have no idea where they came up with the 1903 number. The faces have actually been polished so often they are no longer discernable as faces. Her hand (The highest point of the box) has been polished so much a split has developed. I've attempted to attach some additional pictures

I appreciate everyone's input and opinions. If anyone has a book on Gdansk/Danzig silversmiths I would appreciate it if they could just check for this maker's mark and if they could let me know what book they used so I can try to acquire it

[AG2012]

That`s the same box with the same marks identified by Sasropakis
That`s exactly the definition of pseudo marks; ``Austria - Hungary empire tax free with N`` and ``Lemberg mark`` for medium items. They are NOT genuine marks; the first mark always appears with Neresheimer, well documented Neresheimer pseudo mark. What else is needed?
There is no need for further search; It is screaming Hanau ! Both the marks and the style.
This time we have quite the opposite situation; a honest seller and a buyer who thinks he outsmarted the seller and bought XVIII silver from an ignorant seller.
Attribution to year 1903 makes sense because the same set of marks is often seen on Neresheimer silver imported to UK by Berthold Muller.
Regards

[legrandmogol]

You need to relax because you're not even making sense anymore. How are these marks 'The exact definition of Hanau marks'? Only one mark lines up to the ones you're pointing to and it's based on an actual Austrian mark. None of these markings point to 1903 just because some pieces have London import marks as well. If you can show any of the other marks on a Hanau piece I'll take you more seriously.
In the meanwhile, I don't know what I am doing to get under your skin but I am genuinely not trying to do so. So please RELAX, you'll ruin the site everyone if you take that attitude to all your posts.
Now if anyone has any literature they could recommend on Danzig or Prussian or Polish Silver marks I would be grateful.

[AG2012]

The book is:
Die Danziger Goldschmiede in den Jahren 1700-1816
Jacek Kriegseisen

(Danzig silversmiths in years 1700 – 1816)

There was no need for harsh words; I have always been benevolent and helpful here.
Unfortunately, enthusiasm and wishful thinking do not make silver 200 years older. I cannot help with that.
Again: those pseudo Austria- Hungary Repunzierung marks are well documented Neresheimer marks, and they are not genuine tax marks (see what Krisztián wrote – he knows everything about Austria-Hungary silver marks).
When referring to 1903 I used the word attribution, meaning it was just an idea how the seller might have connected Berthold Muller import dates he was familiar with and his Neresheimer box.
Besides, if you are not the buyer of the box Sasropakis found online offered by an ignorant seller, was it not suspicious to see identical XVIII Danzig box with exactly the same marks ?
Finally, Repunzierung marks are well documented Neresheimer pseudo marks.
Have a nice day and I will relax as suggested.

[legrandmogol]

Harsh words? I merely told you to relax because you were text screaming at me. Second, as I stated I am the buyer of that exact box. Not a similar box but that box. That's the original listing that I bought it from. Third, the original seller probably came to this website, like you, and saw that one mark, made the attribution and placed the earliest date he could based on the information provided, and moved on. Fourth NONE of the other marks are well documented Hanau marks. If there is documentation, please show me ANY of the other marks listed as Hanau marks. Another difference between my marks and most Hanau marks is my marks are spread throughout the piece. Hanau marks are usually just slapped in spot altogether (such as your examples). The Danzig marks are on the bottom, the Austrian punches are on the lip of the box and the underside of the lid. Fifth, are you not the same person who just immediately agreed with someone that their clearly 18th century Danzig spoon was mid 17th century? Also in another response from March of this year, you call this exact Lemberg mark correct viewtopic.php?t=58097 and in 2019 you called the duty free mark correct viewtopic.php?t=52970. You even said in 2018 that it's not profitable to fake Tremolierstich on pieces when Hanau and fantasy pieces constantly have added Tremolierstich because it's incredibly easy to add viewtopic.php?t=52224. Your answers are all over the place. I think you are in such in a rush to answer first that you aren't properly researching things.
I've also attached some pictures of known early 18th-century baroque silver boxes that are stylistically very similar to my box. These are pics from trusted sites like Dorotheum, Bukowskis, and others specialist sellers. This is one of the reasons I believe my box is authentic. I think you've forgotten that all Hanau/fantasy pieces are pastiches of originals.

[Aguest]

If the Gdansk book exists, why not use that book to try and match the makers' mark and town mark stamped together on the bottom of the piece in question? ::: If I had the Gdansk book, I would search the book, but I don't have the book but if someone does have the book that would be the correct way to carry out a proper investigation ::::

If the tax-mark is having its authenticity disputed, why not find a genuine example of the tax mark so a genuine example can be compared to the mark on the rim of the piece in question? ::: I see enough differences between the Hanau tax mark & the tax mark of the piece in question such that it would be more help to find the a genuine example of the tax mark :::

Unless these 4 hallmarks are found on a known Hanau object, I don't see how this is obviously a Hanau object unless there is something specific about the construction of the box that points to Hanau, and if that is the case, then it would be helpful to know what that would be because it would not only help the owner of this object but other people who are interested in collecting this type of object. :

[Theoderich]

for me the importmark
[CD] looks very unusular. I am not sure whether this mark is right.
But the other marks looks very OK.
About the style.
It is true that the can looks like Hanau, but Hanau's work was inspired by such objects.

Now: I think it is OK.

[huszas76]

I'm not familiar in the german marks as Theo, but agree with him.
On the other hand, I don't think to pseudo marks the austro-hungarian tax marks.
I think these fake marks are contemporary false marks, the owner tried to evade the taxasion.
It's rare but not without example.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[AG2012]

I think these fake marks are contemporary false marks, the owner tried to evade the taxasion.

The owner faked Lemberg mark for medium sized objects in 1806 to avoid taxation (because Lemberg mark is obviously faked).
Then, in 1809/1810 the owner added Freistempel N "FR" S to avoid delivery of his box to the redemption office.
Hopefully, more light will be shed on 1806 and 1809 marks, the latter being extremely rare because a large number of silver objects of historic and high artistic value were melted down.
(Not to be confused with fairly common "TF" mark used in 1810).

The question is why the Freistempel was so popular with Neresheimer.
Regards

[blakstone]

Interesting conundrum, with persuasive arguments on both sides. I can add a few observations.

First, the two Austrian tax marks, to my mind, are of little help in judging authenticity. If both the marks and piece are genuine, their appearance arouses no suspicions, as they would very properly appear on a baroque piece which survived through the Napoleonic Wars in Austria. If the piece is authentic but the marks are not, it could be explained that, as noted, these marks might well have been falsified to avoid the tax on (and later confiscation of) the piece during the era the legitimate marks were used. If neither the marks nor the piece are genuine, then there, too, the marks may have been added for verisimilitude, as indeed we know at least one was in Hanau. (Karl Knies' book Die Punzierung in Oesterreich describing and illustrating these marks was published in 1896, so their form and function was known to Hanau makers - and outright forgers - at the time.) So these really are a moot point to my mind, since they can be explained in every scenario.

Second, if genuine, the maker's mark is that of Jakob Beckhausen, master 1678, died 1705. (See maker/mark G472 A in the same reference I cite in this recent thread: Old Spoon from Gdansk). That would make the box last quarter 17th century (or the very first years of the 18th). Stylistically, the box is certainly consistent with this.

Third, while the galants scene very much looks like Hanau historizmus, I do notice that the man's costume is remarkably accurate. Oddly enough, men's costume is much more easily (and narrowly) dated from about 1650 to 1790 than women's, changing more rapidly and with much less subtlety. The hair, the coat, the hose and (especially) the square-toed shoes with "cupid's bow" tongue are all spot-on correct for the last quarter of the 17th century. This meticulous attention to period detail is not a feature I associate with Hanau makers.

On balance, I lean towards the box being authentic late 17th century Gdansk, but I would not say more without being able to examine the piece in person. Thanks for the interesting and intriguing post!

[legrandmogol]

Thank you for your help with this. I know without an object in hand (and my less than stellar pictures) it is not easy to accurately age an item. I am esppecially grateful for the info on the maker. I tried looking for a way to buy the book you mentioned online from a source that will ship to the US but that's not so easy. I already have a few reference books coming from Germany that are in shipping limbo sadly including 'Danziger Silber. Die Schätze des Nationalmuseums Gdansk. Ausstellung Bremer Landesmuseum Focke Museum'. I am not sure how much help that book will be but it was the only slightly accessible Danzig book I could find. Thank you again for your help.