Postby Traintime » Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:48 pm
That would definitely be the norm we would expect in most cases. And there are plenty of examples bearing only the retailer mark, sometimes coupled with a "guarantee" mark (for coin or sterling). Also, threads indicating what may have been central sources supplying various retailers (Chicago and east of there being one example). However, effectively cancelling out the maker mark with psuedo-symbols is less common. I would suggest that a post-colonial American maker mark is not only a guarantee of responsibility, but also a method of claim identification should items be stolen or not fully compensated for by a sales source. Hopefully, no re-seller of illegitimately acquired items would be dumb enough to place their own name-mark on such, so we can rule that out. However, a group of wares might be obtained (new as found) as a result of liquidation during a bankruptcy, either from a sale or from the supplier who have recovered the items. In this case, striking the name might make some sense for either the provider (discounting?) or the buyer (removing any further potential claims after he has paid in full). Wouldn't want anyone to know this stuff was in another store's stock would we? And we are talking America, land of the quick-buck method of getting wealthier by whatever means are necessary...aka free enterprise.