Help with Dutch date marks for 1784 or 1826?

[RdV]

I am interested to know if the marks on these Hanoverian transitional spoons are from 1784 or 1826 and if they are genuine or falsifications.

form what i think I know already, the maker is
Anthony Huys Sr, 1745-1786 (not listed as a known falsification in Citroen, 2008)
Rotterdam city mark
a script B which could be for 1784 (this i have no pictorial reference)
the hatchet indicating it meets .833 standard, marked 1814 - 1953
the Crowned 0 for a 1807-1810 re-examination mark for resale under the French occupation, see link
(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )


However, also, i have been informed this is an odd R for 1826

the forum does not allow me to upload photos even in small 26kb size

please help

Rimmer

[dognose]

There is no problem adding images.

How to Add Images

Trev.

[RdV]

I am interested to know if the marks on these Hanoverian transitional spoons are from 1784 or 1826 and if they are genuine or falsifications.

form what i think I know already, the maker is
Anthony Huys Sr, 1745-1786 (not listed as a known falsification in Citroen, 2008)
Rotterdam city mark
a script B which could be for 1784 (this i have no pictorial reference)
the hatchet indicating it meets .833 standard, marked 1814 - 1953
the Crowned 0 for a 1807-1810 re-examination mark for resale under the French occupation, see link

However, also, i have been informed this is an odd R for 1826

Thank you

[oel]

Hello RdV,

Well you know it all. No pictures to look at and I agree total fake!. Please prove if not so!

Regards,

Oel

[oel]

Morning RDV,

Last night the images did not show up and we were looking at blanks. Hence my wake up call and the result of some perfect images.
The marks;
The hatchet: not a standard mark for fineness. The books show two forms: 1)1798 the poincon de vieux, poincon de hazard or second hand mark duty mark. When an object was returned to the trade, in accordance with the rules it had to be re-submitted to the assay office for verification of the marks. When it proved that the marks on the object were still valid, the hatchet was struck as a formality free of all charges. The archives have proved that the rather murky legal provisions on this mark were often misunderstood by the officials. By 1812 the requirements for this certificate had become a dead letter and this mark was rarely used any more. The purpose of this mark is thus different from that of the later hatchet mark used 1853-1927 duty mark for old gold and silver objects of national origin returned to the trade. This hatchet was intended for objects with the hallmarks of the ancient Netherlands goldsmiths companies, of Louis Napoleon’s kingdom of Holland, of the French Republic, of the French Empire until the end of 1813, of Maastricht and Liege 1814-1815, and of the former Southern Netherlands considered national and thus exempt from import duty . The use of this mark was abolished in 1927 for two reasons: 1st. the lack of knowledge of the old marks had caused this mark to be sometimes struck on old foreign objects.2nd. This mark has often been counterfeited and used to give objects an antique aura. The difference with the older French hatchet mark: The French mark was struck tax free on objects with valid hallmarks. This Dutch hatchet was struck, also as an indication of marking duty payment on objects with hallmarks which were considered fiscally valid. Where are your valid hallmarks?
Your Crowned O misshaped most probably a fake duty mark.
Your date letter is a B and not the Dutch date letter R for 1826, please look at your own image of the R for 1826 and notice the differences.







Please look at the picture of the date letter B for Rotterdam and notice the differences with your letter B. Closely examine the city mark of Rotterdam and please draw your own conclusion.

Regards,

Oel

[RdV]

Thanks Oel,

so you are again saying this is a fake? because of the lack of the crowned lion rampant mark and the different city crown. There was a post some time ago about the crowned O remark, i thought this one was good.

I have no reference for the script B, did Rotterdam use a script alphabet for date letters?

Well this is a lesson.

In my short experience with Dutch silver i have not seen fakes that are so similar to true marks. Why would a maker fake these marks on a spoon? this is not a huge ewer of something of great value.

I have a set of 4 big spoons all marked the same but some marks are less well struck, i guess that is a clue too.

so when would these spoons been made?
transitional Hanoverian with pronounced rib and double drop on back, bottom marked.

[oel]

Hi RvD,

The Crowned Lion Rampant, the province control mark guaranteed (.934 fineness), for 1st.standard. Without the Crowned Lion Rampant the city assay mark guaranteed (.875 fineness) for 2nd.standard. Yes, Rotterdam used various types of script letters in the 18th century. Every new alphabet came with its own specific cartouche. Your date letter B does not match the official date letter B for Rotterdam for the year 1784. Your city assay mark for Rotterdam does not look correct.
The marks were used to give a blank ordinary cheap spoon some more importance, to collect a few extra bucks. Perhaps made in the 20th century.

Regards and a very Happy Newyear!

Oel