www.925-1000.com

Hi Folks,

Can anyone help me with dating this spoon please?

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/22 ... 3261ARhiDa

It is 205mm long (8.1 inches) and sold to me as 1723 but the "H" appears to be a maker's mark.

Could the maker be John Holland? If so that would limit the range of the date.

Thanks, Jim.[/img]
.

I know very little about spoons so cannot comment on the style and construction of the spoon , but the Lion Passant appears to be the
London punch of the 1720- 1740 period.
Are there other marks on the bowl ?
.

Hi Buckler,

No marks on the bowl but there is a stag's head above a crown on the terminal. Too feint to get a decent photo.

The spoon is quite a bit heavier than other C16 & C17 similar designs that we have.

Regards,

Jim.
.

Hi Jim,

It's very difficult to call, datewise I would think 1720-1739. The maker would have to be a guess, it does not look like John Holland (I or II) to me, a possibility may be George Hodges who entered his mark in 1728.
It would be good to see what others think.

Regards Trev.
.

Hi Trev,

Thanks for that. I will go down the Hodges route which gives a possibility that the date mark is a mis-struck 1735 "V".

That is unless others challenge.

Thanks also to Buckler as he put the London punch between 1720 and 1740.

Regards,

Jim.
.

Hi Jim,

It not that the marks are mis-struck, the spoon would have gone to the Hall "in the rough" i.e. unpolished, the striking of the marks would have distorted the stem, on its return the silversmith would have hammered the stem back into shape and distorted the marks, or am I preaching to the converted?

Regards Trev.
.

Hi Trev,

No you are not preaching to the converted just someone who is not using the evidence properly.

Under magnification I could see the effect of the the reshaping but couldn't understand why it would have been done. At one stage I thought we had a splice in of older marks but the face of the stem didn't confirm it.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,

Jim.
.

I think it was most likely made by Caleb Hill (Grimwade 325) who entered his mark in 1728. The mark, as you suggested, looks most like the 1735 V since it diverges from the side of the cartouche.

Miles
.

Thanks Miles, I'll try Hill as well. Rgds, Jim
.

On the matter of marks being altered by work done after assay this was very common. As long as nothing was ADDED after assay, especially solder, it was perfectly acceptable. You find many examples of piercing done after assay, as the labour involved was considerable and expensive . The smith did not object too much if his item was broken for being of too low a silver content - he could always have recover the scrap and bring it up to the fineness required - but to see many expensive hours work scrapped was a different matter. After duty ( on weight ) came in in 1784 it must have annoyed them to pay for silver that was going to have holes bored in it, the fillings of which were recoverable, but had to have duty paid again when re - used.
.

Hi Clive,

That's an interesting point and one I had not thought of before, I've seen items where the piercings had cut through the hallmark and assumed that it was a later decoration or that if it was punched in a block of four that one had clipped a piercing, but applying the decoration later makes much more sense.
The duty of course started in 1720 at 6d. an ounce, it was dropped in 1758 in favour of the plate licence at £2, but was reintroduced in 1784 at the same rate, but you still had to buy the licence!

Regards Trev.
.

Thanks chaps. Interesting additional information that as you say Trev, you don't normally think of. I'm glad I joined this forum. Cheers, Jim.
.