www.925-1000.com

Please help with makers mark. It's rather unclear here, but it's the best I can get.
I have presumed this is a Dutch Minerva head, with an assay mark of 'P' (unsure which assay area this is from), and an 'n' for 1872?
Thanks in advance

Hi,

Yes, perhaps the N for 1872 but the U for 1879 could be a perfect match. If the regional assay office letter to be a P, for the assay office Alkmaar. For information see: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32028
Please have the makers’ mark cleaned (old toothbrush, little silver polish and clean with warm water and soap) make some clear images (macro/tulip mode digital camera, daylight) and perhaps we can figure out the mark.
Thanks.

Oel.

Many thanks Oel,
I did use a 'super macro' setting, but I'll try again after a clean up.
Regards
John

Try this - any better?
Regards
John

Hi John,

Please keep your images to 7" max., otherwise those with small monitors only see part of your images.

Regards, Trev.

I guess no reply means no idea? I have to pass this item on & I thought it would be good if the makers were known. No problem either way.
Many thanks anyway
regards
John

Hi John,

Give it some more time and keep your images alive, you never know perhaps some day.

Best,

Oel

oel wrote:Hi John,

Give it some more time and keep your images alive, you never know perhaps some day.

Best,

Oel

After a long period, looked to this site

I think it is Jacob van Straten
Four makers marks mentioned on this name, operating in the city of Hoorn

Two are eligible (square)
One from the period 1846 - 1868
The other 1868 - 1886
Marked 38 JS

The makers mark is maimed.
Maybe Oel also can confirm.this
This could be the solution

Greetings
Dendriet

Hi Dendriet,

Yes, I will confirm the maker’s mark is maimed and the maker’s mark could be for Jacob van Straten, his mark used in 1846/1868 (the particular shape of the letters J and S) could be the one, but I would not vouch for it and the date letter for 1879 does not confirm this particular maker's mark.
Best,

Oel.

oel wrote:Hi Dendriet,
Yes, I will confirm the maker’s mark is maimed and the maker’s mark could be for Jacob van Straten, his mark used in 1846/1868 (the particular shape of the letters J and S) could be the one, but I would not vouch for it and the date letter for 1879 does not confirm this particular maker's mark.
Best,
Oel.

Dendriet wrote:@ Oel, thanks for your answer.
I was almost certain that the initial NT had been, only the images in "WaarborgHolland" were different.
I was already so far that I had found the information in "Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie" (RKD.nl) with the same information, but I was searching for the correct NT in a rectangle.
Apparently it will be in the book "E. Voet jr., Merken van Amsterdamsche goud- en zilversmeden, 's-Gravenhage 1912, p. 82"
Again great job,
Greetings
Dendriet

Hi Oel,
I knew this was you mention it here and yes I also knew that the year letter did not correspond.
We both use the book "WaarborgHolland".
I refer you to a similar problem we had in this Topic.viewtopic.php?f=24&t=31584&p=79133#p79133
We could find no conclusive evidence in this book, but you also here indicates that this vanThanael Teuter, while there was no example to find, and uses the image of the contributor.
I think we should think of a missing link in the books of the Netherlands'Responsebility Marks from 1797

Greetings
Dendriet

Hi Dendriet,

Perhaps not a similar problem. Nathanael Teuter and his maker’s mark, NT in a rectangle, is a mark used during the Dutch guild period and Napoleonic period in Amsterdam prior 1813 and shown in the book ‘Amsterdamse Zilversmeden en hun merken’ written by Karel A. Citroen.
I often believe the books by Waarborgholland; ‘Netherlands' Responsibility Marks since 1797’ should read ‘Netherlands' Responsibility Marks since 1813’. Possibly Jacob van Straten’s mark, according to Waarborgholland used in 1846 till 1868, has been used till 1886.Waarborgholland states the books are not without omissions and are open for discussion and improvements. However, I believe the maker’s mark in question is too far gone to reach a conclusion.

Best wishes,

Oel.