www.925-1000.com

Hi there,

I recently got this bowl. The marks look like pre-1798 Amsterdam? Can someone confirm this? Also, can anyone help with the date letter and the maker's mark?

Thanks in advance. Ben

Hi Ben,

Your bowl, which could have been a sugar bowl and part of a tea set, shows clear and genuine 18th century hallmarks for Amsterdam.
The maker’s mark could be IK perhaps IH or HI and is not in my reference books.

The date letter could be an L or an upside down T. The (zig zag) assayer’s test mark for fineness which damaged the date letter makes it hard to determine, letter L or T ? My best guess it is a L. Amsterdam has always used the same date letters in a circle, so the date letter does not tell us which periodically alphabet has been used and does not clearly show the year it has been punched. The L could be for 1721, 1745, 1770 of 1795. The T could be for 1704, 1729, 1753, 1778 or 1802.

The City mark of Amsterdam could tells us more, if we look at the contours of the crown, shape of the mark and the Andreas crosses. It is difficult but we could compare those with the Amsterdam city mark on dated pieces and if we have done all that and look at the simple perhaps sober Calvinistic style of this beauty. I believe your bowl could have been made in the first half of the 18th century.
Let us wait for ‘Zilverik’, perhaps he can tell us the maker’s name and the period he worked in.

Regards,

Oel

Hi Ben and Oel,

Sure it is the Amsterdam mark if it is genuine. The way I see the makersmark is IK. In my books that could be Jan Kips, Amsterdam 1748-1771 (or two unidentified masters 1690- ... and 1725-...). The L (?) could be the Amsterdam taxmark for tax in 1795 and not the dateletter. Although the marks look genuine, it is all together not that obvious. Jan Kips (if that is the mark) was a smallworker. He is not known as a worker for this sort of objects. The form of the bowl does not tell me a time it was made. Was it forced or purely handmade? Are there traces of old workmanship? I have doubts. This object should be seen closely and one have to know how it feels. Difficult to determine with this info.

Regards,

Zilverik

Hi Zilverik,

Thanks for your input. I believe we are looking at an unidentified master’s mark 1725-? The Lion Rampant silver guarantee mark (1st) looks genuine too me.
To have something to compare with a photo of spoon, the date letter L (1745) and the rest, the maker’s mark is of Jacob Schenk.


Please note: Spoon; when the marks are located towards the bowl end at the narrowest part of the shank then they are termed "bottom struck". The process of striking the marks in this area caused the stem to bulge, so on return from the assay office the spoon maker would have to re-hammer the spoon often resulting in squashed marks that are difficult to read.

Yes, you are right, the best way to examine the bowl is to use your eyes, triplet and having the item in hand, in bright daylight and a cool Foster in the other hand. Unfortunately for us Australia is too far away. My final advice shout be to have the bowl examined by an Australian expert on Dutch silver and to check the provenance of the bowl.
Was it forced or purely handmade? Are there traces of old workmanship? To my knowledge foot-operated lathe turning was available during the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, so it is reasonable to assume that hollow, round tubular shapes would be turned in the lathe, cut to length, and other fittings soldered on. Hand raising was a skill used by the silversmiths. This was a process done with the help of the lathe. The flat plate metal was spun on the lathe and pressure applied to form the flat plate into a bowl shape. It would then be hand worked from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe

Cheers,

Oel

Thankyou both very much. If you want to come and have a look in Australia, I will buy you a Fosters! Now I just need to find a Dutch Silver Expert down here. Thanks again.