Crossley pitcher?

[houston]

I'm new to this forum and silver hallmarks so thanks in advance for any help you can offer. I'm trying to figure out the hallmark on this pitcher which I'm attributing to Richard Crossley and George Smith IV based on the RCGS mark. I'm trying to reconcile that with the "B" date mark which references decode to the years 1797-8. My understanding is that Richard Crossley’s partnership with George Smith IV and the use of the RCGS maker's mark ran from 1807-1812. What am I missing?

[dognose]

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

I'm afraid, to me, the marks appear spurious. What they purport to be is what you have correctly identified, but the mark of the Crossley and Smith partnership was registered on the 9th April 1807 and I do not recall anything of their production but flatware.

The marks themselves appear to be of poor quality and I would not be surprised if the piece was actually made at the end of the 19th century, when demand for old silver was at its peak. This is not to say that the item is not silver, it likely is, but as to whether it is sterling or not may be in doubt.

It would be good to hear the thoughts of other members.

These articles may be of interest: https://www.925-1000.com/a_Spurious1899.html

and: https://www.925-1000.com/a_OB_Twinam1899.html

and: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=36614&hilit=forgery

Trev.

[silvermakersmarks]

I agree with Trev's analysis of this mark. The lion passant and duty mark look particularly suspect to me.

Phil

[houston]

Thanks so much for the info and especially for the links to the articles about forgery in the 19th century. The apparent anachronism between maker and manufacture date had raised my suspicions even with my almost total ignorance on the subject of silver. I thought the articles were fascinating and read them from beginning to end.

--Houston

[Aguest]

Perhaps there is no interest in this object now that the hallmarks have been deemed a forgery, but does something about this pitcher not seem a little like a Colonial Indian silver pitcher? ::: I'm trying to remember a story about a shipment of silver from India reaching an English Assay Office and because the silver did not meet the sterling standard of 92.5% the shipment was destroyed (I really hope I am remembering this story correctly- I will try to find it). ::::: I believe the story mentioned the destruction of the inferior silver as the assay office was not obliged to return it? :::::

If this pitcher does happen to test lower than the sterling standard of 92.5% (which could be done with an XRF testing device) then that would be interesting and it could support the theory of Colonial Indian origin. :::

[Aguest]

This is the story I was trying to remember:

"We extract the following correspondence from a recently issued Parliamentary Report which has been forwarded to us. The "Revenue
Act of 1883," sec. 10, a copy of which we published in our December number, provides that imported plate, if found to be below standard, may be returned to the owners or agents for re-shipment, so that the grievance complained of by Messrs. P. Orr & Sons, is to a certain extent modified.

Statement made by P. Orr & Sows, Silversmiths, of Madras, regarding their attempt to introduce into England a trial consignment of their Silver Indian Swami Embossed Work:

In August, 1881, P. Orr & Sons sent to England 25 pieces of Indian silver work, consisting of cups, goblets, spoons, &c, weighing 335 ounces, and value about Rs. 2,500. These articles were made of rupee silver, the current silver in India, and the only silver ordinarily procurable. Import duty was charged by the customs in London at the rate of Is. 6d. per ounce, and paid by the firm's English correspondents. All silver plate being required by law to be stamped by the Wardens of the Goldsmiths' Hall before being offered for sale, the Indian Plate in question was sent to the Hall and pronounced to be below "English standard," and notice was given that it would be destroyed. Every effort was then made to avert its destruction ; the payment of any penalty was offered, or the entire withdrawal of the plate from the country proposed, in order to atone for the unwitting transgression of the law; but it "was out of the power of the Wardens to assent to the course proposed; they dare not return the goods." There was no appeal, and the whole parcel was completely "smashed and battered" beyond recognition (a specimen of this "smashing" was submitted to his Excellency the Governor of Madras for inspection). After addressing a petition to the Inland Board of Revenue, and much trouble and delay, the duty levied by the Customs was, as a special case, ultimately recovered."

[houston]

I'm going to try to continue to gather information about it and if I get an assay I will report back. Forgery or no, I think it's a charming design although it requires two hands to pour from it.

[Aguest]

There is a "Robert Gordon II" who opened a business in Madras in 1793 (active silversmith 1802-1818 is what other sources claim) and his marks are "RG and a thistle" and some of his design elements are very similar to this pitcher and his "RG" really looks similar to your "RC" but of course we will never know the maker with absolute certainty. ::::: You might keep an eye on the works of Robert Gordon II just in case a detail on this pitcher matches a detail in another of his known objects marked with the "RG and a thistle" (you can see many more details than we can because you have the object in hand). ::::