www.925-1000.com

Hello. I'm trying to match up this maker's mark with the date mark. I believe it is William Sumner I mark, but from what I've found in my research, the date mark does not match up. Perhaps It's not WS, but SM? Any help is always appreciated. Thanks.

It`s cut glass inkwell, right? Where are the marks? Excuse me; I cannot understand the last picture. The top, but not hinged ?

The hallmark date appears to be 1777 (no duty mark). I am a little suspicious at the lack of a crowned leopard's head mark - omission of the mark was common later around the turn of the century, but perhaps not at this period. I agree that it looks like the mark of William Sumner I, but in 1777 he was in partnership with Richard Crossley and did not register his own marks until later, WS in an oval dating from 14 December 1784. Let's see what other people think.

Phil

Are we not looking at a secondary set of marks from Rawlings & Summers (William Summers), 1897?

Jackson can you post some more images of all of the marks and showing where they are placed?

Trev.

1817? Looks it a little...

I don't think it can be 1897. Although the punch shape for the date letter looks a little like 1897 the lion passant punch should have a wavy top border:



Phil

Sorry for causing confusion everyone. I admit to have gotten lazy with the pics, as my computer is very slow, and it can take me forever with sometimes. Here is what I should have posted the first time. Thanks.

So we're back to 1777 and an unknown WS...

Hi Jackson,

Please add large close-ups of the Leopard's Head and Lion Passant marks taken from the base plate.

Trev.

Here you go. With and without flash. Hope they're clear enough. Thanks.

I think the marks are faked; lion passant has too many flaws. It`s overall aspect and very disproportional parts of the body, particularly the legs, tiny hind legs and huge paws. The same in every picture.

Fake marks are certainly a possibility, but before we condemn this piece we should also bear in mind that there was no set pattern for the assay marks. All of the punches were hand-made with a new set every year and variations are to be expected.

Phil

I'm really not sure what to make of the marks, but do note that in the Charles Twinam case, the seizure included ink stands dated for 1777. Twinam was also noted for using a 'WS' stamp, albeit with a central pellet.

Jackson, sorry if I appear over-critical, but can you achieve some sharper images? Those shown do not appear to be made with a camera using a macro feature. Really sharp images are essential if we stand any chance of cracking this riddle.

Further information regarding Charles Twinam can be found at:

http://www.925-1000.com/a_OB_Twinam1899.html

http://www.925-1000.com/a_Spurious1899.html

One detail that goes against any involvement with Twinam, was that much, but not all, of his forgeries contain a Leopard's Head mark with a flatter base than those shown. But of course, there were many other counterfeiters around besides him, but let's keep an open mind in the hope of clearer images.

Trev.

Here are some more pictures. I hope these are better.

On the Base:




On the Inkwell Holders:



On the underside of inkwell Lids:

Lions are resized and rotated to horizontal position for adequate comparison.
Left; lion passant on the base
Right: lion passant on inkwell holders.
Not the same mark,the most important differences being the shape of the mark and lion`s body,the position of the lion within the mark etc.The mark on the base is spurious for being faked, possibly assembled piece.