www.925-1000.com

Hello,

Could anyone kindly please shed some light on the age of this item, I believe an ale jug. When I checked the on-line marks, it seemd somewhat like Thomas Tearle's, but I was told it could possibly be from the 17th century or earlier. Given its rather un-sophisticated design, I am led to believe that it could possibly be older than early 18th century.

http://img31.imageshack.us/i/dsc04468b.jpg/

http://img84.imageshack.us/i/dsc04466p.jpg/

http://img600.imageshack.us/i/dsc04470f.jpg/

It is 6" tall and weighs aroun 13 Ounces.

I appreciate your expert opinions, as usual.

The date letter looks like a B to me and looks like it could be 1639, but I could be wrong, as it slightly rubbed.

I have not got my makers mark book handy, cannot help with the maker at the moment.

It certainly looks like the mark of Thomas Tearle, the date letter however looks more like an M on its side to me, in which case it could be 1727 and this would fit in with Tearle's mark. Also a B from this period would mean it would have been Britannia standard, this is clearly marked as sterling.

Well l must admit l am confused, the handle does look very similar to a G 1st mug l have a photo of, my first impression of the jug was early 18th c with maybe rococo decoration which because of the influence of the Huguenot craftsman was in fashion, and not "victorianised"
As for the hallmarks, yes it does look like Thomas Tearle, although the top of the mark is rubbed, the date does appear to be early 17th c !!
Come on Trev et al love to hear more opinions
Nigel

Where abouts on the jug are the hallmarks placed?

Trev.

dognose wrote:Where abouts on the jug are the hallmarks placed?

Trev.

The hallmarks on the ale jug are placed on the side of the rim, an inch away from the spout.

Thanks,

Fred

Hi,

I'd go along with techsol's attribution, Thomas Tearle, 1727.

Trev.

Hi all,

Take a look at the far left mark in the mark image in this post: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=24196&p=58288#p58288

Curiouser, and curiouser!

Regards Trev.

Both the marks for comparison:






So, perhaps on the first example it was not the dateletter. If so what is it? Unlikely to be a journeyman's mark due to the position, perhaps a personal inventry mark, but if so, an amazing coincidence to happen within a few days.

Any thoughts?

Trev.

dognose wrote:Both the marks for comparison:






So, perhaps on the first example it was not the dateletter. If so what is it? Unlikely to be a journeyman's mark due to the position, perhaps a personal inventry mark, but if so, an amazing coincidence to happen within a few days.

Any thoughts?

Trev.

Interesting observation indeed.

Hi - great pieces - both of these - and an interesting riddle. A thought, is the mystery mark on the chocolate pot not a very rubbed second striking of the maker's mark. There seems to be an extra stroke on the mystery "M" which could be a down stroke of the P. Why the maker's mark would be struck twice I am not sure. That and the fact that the m on the ale jug was struck sideways makes for a most interesting co-incidence. Or was it? Now do we believe in co-incidence, that's the question. Regards Frank

rat-tail wrote:Hi - great pieces - both of these - and an interesting riddle. A thought, is the mystery mark on the chocolate pot not a very rubbed second striking of the maker's mark. There seems to be an extra stroke on the mystery "M" which could be a down stroke of the P. Why the maker's mark would be struck twice I am not sure. That and the fact that the m on the ale jug was struck sideways makes for a most interesting co-incidence. Or was it? Now do we believe in co-incidence, that's the question. Regards Frank

Hi,

As this puzzle is getting more and more interesting, I am adding two clearer pictures of the sideways-struck 'M' on the jug.

Thank you all for your input and look forward to more of your opinions. Regards, Fred.



http://img830.imageshack.us/f/dsc04662tv.jpg/

http://img716.imageshack.us/f/dsc04661y.jpg/