Damaged or pseudo marks?

PHOTOS REQUIRED - marks + item
juantotree
contributor
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:17 pm

Damaged or pseudo marks?

Postby juantotree » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:31 am

Hi

I have posted here as these marks are London marks or purport to be so, I would welcome any opinions on whether these are genuine but somehow damaged London marks, or are they pseudo marks?

Many Thanks
Martin


Image

Image

Sasropakis
contributor
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:01 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Damaged or pseudo marks?

Postby Sasropakis » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:45 am

The shape and orientation of the hallmarks look right to me but the date letter is a bit problematic. The duty mark looks more like William IV than George IV if you compare the shape of the king's head. Then the year could be 1834 with "t" but the problem is that I can't discern the cross bar. But there's some consistent damage to the hallmarks which could explain this. Also the style of the laddle would be appropriate to 1834 so I would say that these are genuine albeit damaged hallmarks.

dognose
Site Admin
Posts: 40652
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Damaged or pseudo marks?

Postby dognose » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:28 am

Agree with Sasropakis. It would appear likely that someone has attempted to clean the ladle with a mechanical wire brush or such like, and then buffed it up afterwards? This would have removed much of the resulting damage on the higher points, but left the evidence on the lowest points, such as the marks.

Trev.

juantotree
contributor
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:17 pm

Re: Damaged or pseudo marks?

Postby juantotree » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:28 am

Thanks guys, supports my initial feelings.

Martin


Return to “London Hallmarks”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest