www.925-1000.com

George III small rectangular lift -off lid comfit or patch box
Dimensions 2.3 cm x 1.7 cm wide x 0.7 cm. Weight 5 grams or 0.2 oz.







Am I correct; we’re looking at the mark of Joseph Willmore II or Joseph 2nd (1790-1855) and the date letter L (upside down) for 1809-10. The book; Silver boxes by Eric Delieb also metiones Joseph Willmore I or Joseph 1st (1792-1865). I understand; Joseph 1st , only registered one mark being a serrated rectangle. All serrated ovals shown are contributed to Joseph 2nd the nephew of Joseph 1st .
This little box only carries hallmarks on the lid and none on the main part of the box. I appreciate your assistance.


Regards,

Oel

Hi Oel,

I have that as Joseph Willmore I, The most noticeable feature of his mark is the way the 'J' and the 'W' start almost to overlap.

That the box only has the one set of marks, is a concern, the assay office at Birmingham had a big reputation at this period in time for getting things exactly right, and one set of marks would not be correct for an item of two-piece construction.

Is there any chance that the lid and the base could be a later marriage?

Trev.

Thanks Trev,

I believe you on your word but if so Eric Delieb does not show the correct marks for Joseph I. See page out of his book Silver Boxes. Joseph I (Mark 1) without a stop. (Mark 2) Joseph II are a series of 7 ovals serrated —edged…., three with stops were entered on 4 th July 1832..


I checked my little box on a marriage. I do not think so. Tomorrow I will show you her insides and you may judge if she is still a virgin, by daylight clear photos of the hinge and other inside/outside parts.

Oel

Ah! Now that I've found the zoom feature, I see what you mean, I was thinking that the punch was oblong with worn edges, but yes it is oval and with a pellet.

I've just looked the BAO site, they also don't have the oval JW with the pellet registered until 1832, strange that, Crisp's book on Birmingham also has the same date of 1832.

I'm not sure what to make of it all, perhaps the use of an earlier unrecorded mark?

Trev.

Hi Trev,

Herewith the extra photos of the hinge to determine original or marriage?

http://imageshack.us/g/14/marriage3.jpg/"

To me the box base and its lid look original. No marriage. The prick work on the lid, the inter woven latticework, looks the same (done with same original tool) as the prick work on the base of the box.

Just to compare. I have a circular patch box dated 1805; two circular halves without a hinge and indeed both halves carry a full set of hallmarks (5); Duty mark, Lion passant, Maker’s mark, Anchor mark and Date letter. I also have a vinaigrette dated 1814; two parts hinged however one halve, the lid has 3 hallmarks; Duty mark, Maker’s mark and Lion passant. The 2nd halve or bottom part has 3 hallmarks; Anchor mark, and Maker’s mark and Date letter and the grill is without hallmarks.
I have a hinged snuff box dated 1744, one halve carries a full set of hallmarks; Date letter, London city mark, Maker’s mark and Lion passant. However the 2nd part, the lid, carries the maker’s mark only.
It looks like assay offices order of hallmarks could vary during the years and vary if box halves were loose or attached by a hinge. Strict rule were not always obeyed and sometimes mistakes were made.

Regarding Joseph (the First ) Willmore’s mark I am as puzzled as you are and I couldn’t add anything more!

Oel

Hello Oel & Trev

This reminds me of a discussion on this forum concerning the absence from the Birmingham Assay Office makers' marks website of ones being used by Sir Edward Thomason in the early 1800's.
Volume suppliers at Birmingham using unregistered marks or possibly registered marks missing from that website seems to be of growing concern.

Mike