www.925-1000.com

A nice problem.

Clasps come in two halves, male and female. Usually marked on both halves .
This I R mark is on the female part of the clasp, the male is missing
Nice distictive mark, and even a dateletter. If London, the dateletter is either 1783/84 - which the style suggests, or 1823/24 which the presence of a date letter on so small an item indicates.

But I cannot trace the guy.

Is it an unrecorded mark of John Rich ?

Forgot to mention - the "I R "and the " h " are the only marks on the clasp. No Lion Passant or Duty marks - probably on the missing male bit . Size of clasp is 18mm by 24mm.

Have you considered Grimwade's #1628 mark for John Reily (smallworker), entered 13.6.1823?

Phil

Many thanks Phil
How I missed it is a mystery - must be old age and stupidity.
Probably all three .
Clive

Now , thanks to Phil, I am happy with the date of this clasp, I have a clue as to the use of these clasps.

Normally found in pairs (ie. four pieces) they are known to have been used as clog clasps in Victorian or later times, normally slightly bigger versions of the ones found on silver in the late 18th to early nineteen centuries. And much earlier in base metals.

From the naive nature of the engraving - my 1823 specimen looks to have engraving of around 1730 - 1770 - I think they may well have been for baby and infant shoes.

Much as we put "cute" pectures of Victorian or Twenties scenes / figures on our kids belongings.

Just to back up the dating and the likely location of the missng marks, here's an example from Peter, Ann, and William Bateman:





Trev.