Danish Beaker

[eva]

Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions.
I am curious about a maker named Gottfreid Bolch.
If anyone has any information they can provide, that would be just great!
There is a URL with a picture of his mark and others.
I am also curious about the mark in the centre of the set.
Thank you in advance for your time.
[/img]

[Hose_dk]

Something is wrong. Guardein CL you find under danish marks.
the 3 towers - there should be 1708 with 4 numbers - is there 4?
Maker GB is Gottfred Bolch (my spelling is correct) born approx 1675 citienship 7.10-1702. He is mentioned 1710/1711 dead after 1711 - when unknown.
930 is completely wrong. It is not 930 but 844 silver and that is 13½ lødig. So the purity is definetly wrong. They worked in 13½ lødigt.
Silver contenth in 1000 is used AFTER 1893, and therefore also wrong. So either it is tested again - and why do that in case it is marked?
Or it is a copy. But why a purity NOT used in Denmark?

4 mark in case it is original should be tax mark - zodiakal sign. And that one is missing.
Theoretically it could be tax mark - but tax mark is in a square. And this has not originally been a square.

Most likely (in my opinion, from what I see) it is a later copy where old marks have been re-used. Try to post a picture of the item.

[Hose_dk]

When I say - to often say:
Yes it is possible - but...
When i say that more than once - I start thinking. Could it be because it is not correct.

The price of your item is 80% for the raw material.
20% of the price is manufacture, sales & promotion, tax ans asseyer.
80% is approx used for the silver - only 20% goes for everything else.
That being the case - and law stated purity=13½=the coins circulating. Always use silver purity so items could - in case of crises - be converted directly into coins.

When the situation is that silver circulating and ready for manufacture was in 13½ - why should any silversmith use another purity?
The silver in 13½ accounted for 80% of the expence - in case purity was higher - then material would be much higher.

But let us see the item.

[eva]

Hello again. thank you for your response. I have made a webpage with several photos. These should help. In the markings, it looks like there are indeed 4 numbers in the date. The last number appears to be a 5, but is not raised like the rest. Could this piece be a special order item?
Also, I am curious about the center mark. Is it a tax mark, date mark or import mark? Also, thank you very much for the info about Gottfreid Bolch, would you happen to know where he is from? Perhaps the purity has something to do with that. Here is the URL:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mrbeeps

[blakstone]

The center mark is not Danish, but Dutch.

It is a script “I” (“inlandse” = “domestic”) and was used in the Netherlands 1906-1953 on newly-manufactured domestic (i.e. Dutch) items which: 1) were below the legal standard; 2) had non-precious metal additions; 3) were so heavily plated that their total weight was at least 25 % precious metal; or 4) failed to meet minimum fineness at assay. (These latter objects were, at the discretion of the manufacturer, either struck with this mark or destroyed.)

Confusion as to the purpose of this mark did sometimes lead to its use on old or foreign items. But its presence here strongly suggests that your beaker is a 20th century Dutch reproduction of less than .833 silver (the Dutch minimum standard).

[Hose_dk]

I fully agree. This is not old danish.
The marks can be reused. The numbers in the 3 towers are then destroyed to create confusion about the mark.
The G.B over 08 is corresponding to the one in Bøje.

So conclusion marks used at a later date - before Bøje published his book, at that time there was lots of uncertainty regarding the marks - and at the same time a large demand for old items. So they "produced" them to meet demand. They where sold as copies - but after a few years as a copy in third or forth time sales - they "became originals".

[eva]

It is one number that is not clear. Who should we look at to test the purity
can it be done in Canada and Denmark? Is there any way of finding out about the age 100 vs 300 years when Item is tested for purity? Is there any know old silver 930 purity in Demark arouned 1670-1725 at the king court? Maybe some? In a book? under very rare? The king or court ? I think the Dutch is out if the Item is 930 in purity? did any one use 930 in 1675-1725? or 1900? would there be any recored if made in 1900? and can we fined out when tested? Thank you very much this is so much fun.
The Itme name is Hope it has been in sweden for 100 or more years, the famly go back to 1642. Have a great day! Eva

[eva]

What do you think if Hope purity is 930 vs 1708 to 1900? there must be a way to date Hope when test for purity? If 930 I would think this large Item
is very rare 1708 or 1900 purity at 930 If know one was useing 930 purity in 1675-1725 vs 1900. thank you Eva. 10 years off and on trying to find out. It time to test her. Thank you all. Eva

[Hose_dk]

no no no - noone use 930. Danish standard was 13½ lødigt - 844

In 1491 until 1486 and 1515 until 1537 standard was 15 lødigt = 938 but in no period has 930 been standard.
And you forget the standart in 1000 is new. In Denmark it was introduced 1893. Before every record of silver purity is in parts of 16. Where 10 is pure silver - what we today call 1000.

You can have the silver tested at an expert. In Canada - but testing will not say anything regarding age.

I am sure that they used the marks from an old spoon. Cut them from the spoon and reused the marks in your item. So hallmarks are proberly original 1708 - rest is made around 1900. That was a commen practice around 1900.

ps especially the king would NEVER use/order another standard than the coin. The hole idea of standard is that items could shift from coin to silverware to coins. Thats the hole idea in demanding a standard.

[Hose_dk]

sorry "Where 10 is pure silver - what we today call 1000" not 10 but 16 is pure silver.

[Bahner]

Hello, this is a Dutch forgery, most likely from the 20ieth century. Citroen in his book on forged Dutch marks ("False Zilvermerken in Nederland", quoted here from the second edition of 1985) documents all marks on this beaker: the Kopenhagen Ludolf mark (CL over MW), the Bolch mark (GB over 08), the 930 mark and the Kopenhagen tower mark (year according to Citroen: 1709). Best wishes, Bahner

[eva]

The marks are to big to fit on a spoon. I do not get the 16 is pure silver 16 to what part? and what aloyed would they mix with. I will be looking at some books to try to get it. The Best for 2009. Yes A new bee. Please for give my not knowing.

[Hose_dk]

I am sure that Bahner is correct. Bahner is very competent - and my knowledge regarding dutch/german silver is limited.

16 = pure silver. Today we call it 1000. So pure silver is 16/16parts.
Pure silver is not pratical for use - it is to soft. So you add copper. When part of it is copper it becomes harder and can be used daily.

The price of silver was 30times higher than the price of copper. Therefore a silversmith could se an advantage in adding copper. But how much copper? The more the cheaper.
Remember an item had a price - 80% of that price was the silver. Only 20% for everything else.
Therefore the crown stated that silver was 13½ part of silver and 2½ part of copper. Then everybody knew what was what.
In times of depression as after 1813 - the crown accepted use of 11lødigt silver. I.e. 11 part silver and 5 part copper. This should be clearly marked so that everybody knew.

before that (1813) silver not containing 13½ part was called "evil silver" the use of that was heavely punished. So by setting his mark the silversmith guranteed that purity was OK. When going to a guardein for controll - if the guardein observed that 13½ was not the case - he took the silver as it now belonged to the crown. So do you think that they used lower silver contenth? NO.
Did yhey use higher? NO because why pay 30 times more for silver when everybody knew that this was 13½ - they where not completely fools.

[eva]

The forum has been help full thank you all for your time and have a great day The lesson was good. I do get it! wish you the best Eva