Letter date vs. duty mark??

[SusanWhite]

Hello Everyone!

I probably am presenting a no-brainer here, but we're a little confused by the marks on a set of tongs from London.

We're nearly certain the TS is Thomas Shepherd and know that the crowned leopard head means it had to be made before 1822 ... but the shape of the area around the "n" date stamp doesn't look exactly like the one for 1788 or 1828 ... and if it is the one for 1828, then old Tom Shepherd was really old when he made the tongs.... Was Thomas Shepherd an individual or a company? Additionally, the tongs have a duty stamp which we're pretty sure is the stamp for 1834 - 1837. So all in all, we're just trying to figure out how old the tongs actually are.

Any and all help is so welcome and we're grateful for all of you!

Sincerely,
Susan






.

[Granmaa]

Hi Susan,

That is an uncrowned leopard's head, and the duty head is for William IV.
The letter is the 1835 u. Fiddle pattern is the same as with spoons: generally not before 1800.

I don't know the maker, but most likely not Shepherd.

Miles
.

[dognose]

Hi Susan,
This looks like the mark for Thomas Streetin, he registered an extra mark with a pellet on 13-04-1820,
Regards Trev.
.

[SusanWhite]

Dear Miles and Trevor,

Thanks so much to both of you!

I can't believe, however, that I'm going to disagree...

Miles, it is definitely a crowned leopard's head. I can see it very clearly under the loop, it looks exactly like the illustration on the London Hallmarks page ... the left side of the crown has been somewhat rubbed off, but the outline of it is clearly visible. Also, the date letter couldn't be a "u" for 1835, since there is no "u" for 1835. The "u" for 1825 has a notch at the bottom of its outer shape and ours is completely smooth and semi-rounded with slightly rounded corners. I agree that the duty mark is William IV.

Trev, the reason we felt it was Shepherd's mark and not Streetin's was because Streetin's initials are surrounded by an oval and Shepherd's initials are surrounded by a square. The mark on these tongs is surrounded by a square. Is Streetin's extra mark also encompassed in a square? Or doesn't that matter?

I really do appreciate your help and interest.

Sincerely,
Susan
.

[admin]

Hi Susan,
Have to go with Miles & Trev, it is 1835. Although life would be simpler if it were otherwise, there are lots of little anomalies in hallmarking, but that also makes it more interesting.
The lack of the little point on the bottom of the date letter is confusing, but a common event, the cartouche shapes do not always match the books as there were a number of different stamps used each year.
Your lion appears to be crowned, but isn't. I believe those are just darker spots of oxidation in the background. It is remarkable that they do make an almost perfect crown. Here's a pic to clarify, your lion next to the real crowned guy.
Regards, Tom


.

[SusanWhite]

Dear Tom, Miles and Trevor,

Thanks for putting the two images together, Tom ... and yes, it is remarkable that those spots make an almost perfect crown ... lol ... maybe we're "seeing" what we wanted to see, or something like that ... but really, it's still a good piece and plenty old ... we should all be in such great condition at a 172!

Okay, so does the shape of the cartouche around the maker's initials have the same "problem" and we shouldn't put too much importance on it?

Thanks so much to all of you for your patience and help!

Sincerely,
Susan
.

[Granmaa]

Hi Susan,

You really scared me when you said there was no u for 1835: I thought I was going mad! After 1810 all the marks on flatware (except the lion passant) were stamped vertically and the same way up, so this has to be a u.

I'd say the shape of makers' cartouches are more consistent than the assay office's; my copy of Grimwade shows Streetin's mark in a square, so there's nothing to worry about.

Miles
.

[SusanWhite]

Hi, Miles!

Scared you, eh?? Hmmmm

Anyway, these forums are helping me in more ways than just identifying silver marks. The last few weeks I've been looking at issues around care and attention to detail ... doesn't that just sum up this study of marks, date stamps and so forth? What is really interesting to me is that I am have been led to really contemplate how we "see" ... or don't "see" the things around us. The fact is, if you read the London date letter page carefully, there is no 1835 u ... but that's because there's a typo ... if you look at the date range directly above the 1825 u, it starts with 1830 ... look above that date range and you see 1825 again.

If someone were to be reading down that column, (as you "ought" to do in such cases) I'm thinking their eyes might automatically "see" the 1825 u as an 1835 u, because they noted the preceeding date range starting with 1830. I know that I happened to see the u's running along the bottom of the chart first off and didn't look any further when I saw the 1825 u.

Anyway, it's cool that everyone here is so open and willing to talk about disagreements over what's what. I personally feel really helped by it and free to "try my wings" so to speak, in learning how to read these marks.

Thanks for all of your help and for letting me know about the cartouche shapes, and about Streetin's in particular, I really appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Susan
.