www.925-1000.com

I have a large austrian bowl, which has a hallmark below. I always believed that this hallmark was used for small articles. Also, the other mark is unknown to me. Any ideas?

Thanks!

Hello

Well, of course it’s a mystery — it’s a bit easier to find maybe an answer, if shown marks were cleaned up: viewtopic.php?t=19420

Well, it remains a mystery why a bowl is marked with a mark for little items. It seems that it happen some times — but until yet I personally haven’t any clue of systematic in cases I know. So, I guess: »Monday strokes«?

As you know, this new Assay mark, which an indication of Assay Office include, was decided on 10 March 1872, to be used from 1 April 1872 Imperia wide. Vienna was indicated by letter A — as usual.

Choices of maker’s mark were 1867 free in shape of cartouches, letter types … But that has had as result that similar marks were in use of two, three or more silversmiths — especially thatch ones for Jacob, Johann, Joseph …

Usual was — and still is — to use first name and family name first letter; and something similar for companies as well.

Austro-Hungary Assay Offices Administration invented then begin of the 80’s of 19 century a system of seven principal forms of cartouches and 14 different possibilities of letters for indication = 98 basic variations for e.g. AA … Look here: viewtopic.php?t=19856

In Vienna Assay Office area after about 25 year later was also this ingenious system in his limits - »Regulation 2172/1907« was released. That made it easier to solve some letter combinations.

In Waltraud Neuwirth’s guide on Vienna’s mark for 1867-1922 are 2406 marks collected — included 24 sign’s of »Wiener Werkstätte« artist’s and 67 “free style” maker’s mark. An analysis of there shown “free style” marks let see that there are some “early” marks before 1907; but many of them were registered a decade after 1907.

Now let’s look to from you shown maker’s mark in a triangle cartouche:

From by Neuwirth shown 67 “free style” marks are only 3 maker’s mark in a triangle cartouche — all 3 don’t match.

If you hold in mind that letter system: First name and family name first letter. I interpret from your not very informative photo — yes, you must learn a bit, how to present a question for to get a sounded answer -, on top an A, and on base left a W, and base right a Z.

In the whole guide I find only one who could match, AS A GUESS ONLY! Further research is needed!

Anna Zischeck, Vienna VI, Barnabitengasse 10 — from 1895 on — no maker’s mark is shown!
Josef Zischeck, Vienna VI, Barnabitengasse 10 — 1878, 1881-1894 — maker’s mark JZ (type II/2)

It isn’t mentioned what kind of items they produced — maybe Anna was later retailer?

Widow’ when they made business after their husband deceased used most times only a short while husband’s maker’s mark. And later they’ve had an own mark.

It was usual to say: Anna, widow Zischeck — that is maybe signification of A / WZ ?

That result is based on that I’ve looked trough all with Family name beginning with Z.

(Source: Waltraud Neuwirth, Vienna 1867-1922; ISBN 3-900282-00-5; vol. II, p. 295).

For final let’s make a statement: »3 (greyhound head) A« mark from Vienna Assay Office for little objects — in use 1 April 1872 to 26 October 1921 (27 October 1921 = Vienna Assay Office indication letter became W).

“Maker” must be from Vienna too - for reason of Vienna Assay mark.

I suggest — if sounded solutions don’t come in — take contact to Vienna Assay Office.

Please, let us know that result.

Kind regards silverport

Dear Silverport!

Thanks for your answer. It is really hard to photograph as the hallmarks are well hidden in between the bowl's body and stand. Not easily reachable. Anyway, I can only see AWZ or AIIZ in a triangle.

Final note, the bowl is in no means small. it is well over 1kg.

Hello jack

It’s a real mystery — also for me from then on, when I’ve seen first time this mismatch between items “stadium wide” dimensions in relation to that of “greyhound” marks. In between of about 25 year of experience I’ve seen some equal “wrong punched” items — never these were in sale; so I haven’t equal examples for demonstration. There fore I’m really happy, that you have an example for this mismatch.

If you hold in mind the time frame of 1 April 1872 to 26 October 1921 — and also the bureaucracy of “KuK” Austro-Hungary -, then it seems to be unbelievable! But it has happen too; especially maybe during First World War period, to slip restrictions?

All mismatches I remember, to have seen them, don’t give me until yet any sounded or reliable clue of system — except »Monday strokes« possible?

On Maker’s mark, as that you’ve on your bowl:

From time before, when it was free to chose maker’s mark (from about 1867 until about 1882), is a time gap (from 1 April 1872 [begin of in fineness mark integrated A] until about 1882) of about ten year — and the time period from 1907 on, when »Regulation 2172/1907« was released, until 26 October 1921 [when in fineness mark integrated A has ended] isn’t mentioned in Waltraud Neuwirth’s guide on Vienna maker’s mark any similar maker’s mark. It’s also not mentioned for the interim period. Actually that remains yet a mystery!

Photo of Maker’s and other marks:

During “conventional” period it was necessary to have a Digital camera with Macro function, to get detailed photos of marks. But in your example, in shape of bowl sunken mark’s area, it is difficult to get to there sufficient light — solution was e.g. to have an expensive ring flash, as the Botanist’s use.

I use now — and advise too — to use a cheap and “normal” Digital camera, which has about 5 Million pixel or more; actually my there fore used camera has 12 Mio. Distance between object and camera is sufficient for to place striking light etc. to get photos in relief. Photos from marks, which are difficult to interpret, should be made several photos with different directions of light.

Later you make a clip from mark’s area. Clips are often informative enough; if when enlarged, there don’t dominate the system of pixel. I’ve e.g. enlarged your marks photo by 400 %; later reduced to 200 % of screen. But my result was more guessing then confirmation.

Now you write that there (could) stand: AWZ or AIIZ

I had before interpreted: AWZ

You’ve the object; maybe it’s AIIZ too? But actually that doesn’t change my result — after I’ve spend hours of research, doubts and guess’. In «925-1000« is »buckler« an example of how to look to micro details of marks.

Actually I haven’t any reliable or sounded clue of maker’s identification. Well, that’s a pity for you, for me, for all of us.

Again, my advice is, to take contact to Vienna Assay Office — to get an answer, maybe it need a while of time?

Kind regards silverport

Hi Jack,

You say the marks are between the bowls body and stand. Is this where you would expect to find the marks on a piece such as this? I'm wondering if there's any possibility of transposed marks taken from a smaller item.

Trev.