www.925-1000.com

Hello,

I have a pair of silver casters which are 5 inches tall and of a good gauge as each weighs a bit more than 4 ounces.They are quite simple in their shape and decoration: they are based on 3 legs looking like leaves and both are engraved with a lion crest on one side and a monogram MJB on the opposite side. The lids are pierced with the same pattern made of circular holes of different size and half moon like holes.They are in very good condition with no dings or dents or splits, except for a leg which has been resoldered, and light scratches commensurate with age.
They are both marked with 2 sets of 4 marks: one set on the bottom, and one set on the lid.
Here is a picture of the casters, and one of the set of hallmarks :


The marks are rather worn but they appear consistent among the 4 sets and hopefully each of the different marks appears rather correctly in at least one of the 4 sets. I guess that these marks are: a lion's head erased, a brittania, and a date letter. According to my documentation it would correspond to an assay in London in 1702-1703, at the beginning of the reign of queen Anne. Here are the best samples of each of these marks :


For the maker's mark, it is less clear but looking at 2 different samples of this mark I can conclude that the mark has a clover outline, with the letters C and A, a symbol below made of a dot surrounded by 6 other dots, and an undecipherable symbol above. Here are the pictures :


In my documentation (The book of old silver by Seymour Wyler, p141, 16th mark in the rightmost column), I find a mark which is consistent with this maker's mark but the only information available is that it existed in 1692-3.

Thus I would like to ask several questions:
- can we confirm that these casters are from 1702-3 ?
- can somebody identify the maker's mark, and give more details about the maker? Was he still working in 1702?
- what were these casters used for? Salt and pepper ? Or sugar?

Thanks in advance for your help.
.

Hi Dinio,

How does the dome connect to the body, a simple push fit or a slip lock connection?

Regards Trev.
.

Hi Trevor,

I do not know the english words, but I would call it a "slip lock connection". I took 2 pictures to show the dome itself and its closing system :



Hope this helps
.

Hi Dinio,

I must admit to having reservations about your casters. This is based mostly on the hallmarks, which to me appear somewhat dubious.
Casters of this period are usually found with a skirted base, although legged pieces are not unknown and I think this would be very early to have the Low Dome style of top, the dome at this time is usually much taller, and also early for the pear shaped body, but certainly not impossible. The bayonet slip lock fitting of the dome to the body would be quite correct for the period.
Casters of this period were often made in sets of three and sometimes five or more, a large one for sugar and smaller ones for spices or peppers such as cayenne and others are found with a blind (unpierced) top for mustard.
So if the hallmarks are genuine it would be an early example of this style.
I can find no trace of a maker to fit this mark and allowing for wear and distortion, the gaping mouth of the Lion Erased, the very angular Britannia, the erattic outlines of the cartouches and the inaccurate date mark lead me to believe the the hallmarks at least are not genuine.
My copy of Wyler is an ancient one, but I suspect the mark you speak of is the same one as in Jacksons' and found on a punch ladle, I know it is by no means conclusive but the making of casters was usually considered a specialist trade and it is rare to find a caster makers mark on any other item and unless it is a bad impression (possible) I would not say it was a good match.
This of course is only my opinion, hopefully others will have something to contribute as nothing I have said is writen in stone.
Could you post some pictures of the marks on the domes and how does the grouping of the marks on the two pieces compare.

Regards Trev.
.

Christopher Canner was a prolific caster maker of the period but I believe (from memory) that his mark was a large 'C' with an 'a' within it and no dots. Perhaps it is the photograph.... but the marks look somewhat contrived and not as crisp as they should be. Not saying that it is fake but I would suggest taking it to a silver expert at Sothebys/Christies or some other reputable auction house to ascertain if it is all it sort of appears to be.
Best wishes, Mike.
.

Thanks a lot for all these comments. I am also a bit surprised by these marks and I would like to find good matches. I tried to take better pictures of all the marks on the bodies and on the lids. Firstly I show the location of the marks on both bottoms:



Then here are the marks on the lids:



Nothing seams abnormal to me in their disposition, except on the first lid where the maker's mark is in between the letter date and the lion, which could be possible if the maker's mark where struck before the assay marks, and there were not enough room to put the three assay marks close together. Was is the rule at that time?

For the different marks, I have taken pictures of their 4 versions and they are presented from left to right: bottom1, bottom2, lid1, lid2:









It happens that the maker's mark is rubbed on the left side of the 4 versions, but I believe that it is rather close to the one given in Wiley's book. I have only a very bad print of this book :


and I would like to have confirmation and information on this maker.

Finally I have taken some pictures showing the details of the legs and of the dome which could be the interesting parts of the item if I understand well, and also showing the interior with the hammering marks as well as the soldering of the bottom part of the caster which was made with a separate hemisphere:



I am interested in your comments on this new pictures, and I will also try to send the same pictures to an auction house in UK (I am afraid we have not so many auctioneers specialized in english silver in France).

Thanks again for your great expertise which is very valuable.

Dinio
.

I have to agree with Trev, the stamps do appear very spurious at best. The outlines should be much crisper and regular, they all look very crudely made, especially the date stamp. Punches that were that badly damaged would have been retired and new punches would have been used, especially ones where the edges of the punch had flaked off, as they would mean the punch was faulty, especially for the London Goldsmith's Hall. Several of the stamps show signs of looking cast (the small raised round spots, one to the bottom right of the far left pictured date stamp and one on the far right edge of the second from left "lion rampant" stamp, appear to be raised dots formed by bubbles in the investmant of a casting.) Lastly the preforation pattern on the covers is somewhat sloppy. One would have expected a London based silversmith to produce better work.
.

Hi Dinio,

This is the mark shown in Jacksons', which I guess is the same one as shown in Wylers' as the dates correspond:



On every source I've checked the Date mark is as shown:




Your mark appears to have no continuation of the central line below the circle, but appears to have an additional stroke at the top of the central line.
One interesting thing I have noticed though, is that the makers mark looks like its been made by another hand and of better quality than the others.
Please keep us posted as your investigations continue.

Regards Trev.

Hi all,

Following georgiansilver's advice I contacted Christie's and Sotheby's silver departments and submitted them the above pictures. I had no answer from Sotheby's but a Christie's senior specialist answered some days ago and he has the same judgment than those given by dognose and JLDogget: 'Unfortunately the shape of the casters is not consistent with those made in the early 18th century. The marks are also not exactly as one would expect. With that in mind I would suggest that the marks on the casters are fake and most likely put onto casters that were made in the late 19th or early 20th century.'

Can someone argue about the practice to put fake marks on rather usual items as these casters? I know examples of other fake marks with large pieces but not on smaller ones. Where these casters made by intention to put fake marks on it? Or had they true hallmarks before? Or isn't silver at all? I would appreciate your opinions about that.

Thank you again for this very helpful forum.
Dinio
.

Marks can be faked in several ways:

1. Use the marks cut from another piece and solder them into the body of the new piece. I believe this practice is what lead the hallmarking of flatwear to be changed and the marks turned so they read vertically rather than on the horizontal plane.

2. Make punches that look like Hallmarks and apply them to your piece. This is how I think your your piece was marked. The punches on your piece are so crude and poorly struck that it sent off a red flag for me.

3. Take a piece that has been hallmarked and hammer it against a piece of soft silver and create a mirror transfer of the marks.

These processes are done for several reasons:

1. So that a piece does not go to the guild hall for assey and taxation. If the alloy is known to be sub-specification and submitted for assey, it would be a problem for the maker. Not to mention some folks just hate paying taxes

2. So a piece can be claimed to be older than it is. A complete fraud that preys on the unknowing.

As for your pieces:

I would have the metal tested and if the alloy is up to standard, I would submit them for proper marking. I they are sub-standard, I would suggest contacting the seller.
.