www.925-1000.com

Hello Again.
I'm wondering who is the maker of this Toddy Ladle.
Looks to me like DG in a lozenge shape, with a star above and something below the letters.
It is 15 1/2 inches long, and 79 grams.

I appreciate any assistance. Thanks.

I think that this is a pseudo-mark and not a London hallmark. Although the date letter looks very similar to the "f" for 1741 I have doubts about the crowned leopard's head, which is in the wrong proportions and appears to have only a very cursory attempt at a crown, and the lion passant, whose legs are too long. Compare with my example of a London 1741 mark:



Phil

Hello. Thank you for your response. If it was a London maker, who might you attribute the Maker's Mark to.
I purchased it with a large collection of old British pieces, so I feel it could be an authentic London Hallmark.
On the other hand, you are far more knowledgeable than I am, and your website is a great resource that I use often, and I thank you for your time.

As it isn't a London hallmark it is not a London maker. Indeed you will notice that the Administrators have moved your post from the London section to the Provincial & Colonial Marks section, where you may get a more informed response.

Phil

The marks do seem to be rather fishy. The lozenge maker's mark resembles that of Dinah Gamon, widow of John Gamon, who entered her mark in London in 1740.

Miles

Determining whether or not a mark is genuine is always a minefield, and this of course, was the hope and the very intention in the mind of a counterfeit punch maker. I too, am not totally convinced by this set, but if indeed they are spurious, they are a good imitation.

I agree with Phil's thoughts regarding the proportions and the detail of the crown, these are what make the marks themselves suspect. What I would also add is the apparent damage to the side of the Leopard's head punch, which appears to be result of more than one shard flaking off over a period of time and I would have thought the London office would have discarded such a punch long before it got into this state.

As to the maker's mark, it does, as Miles points out, look to be that of Dinah Gamon. This very fact, perhaps, when added to the suspect marks may add some fuel to the fire. The widow Gamon may have entered the mark with the hall to clear her deceased husband's work in progress, or perhaps to keep the business as a going concern, but either way, she may well have had no choice but to put her trust into hands of others. I don't recall seeing her mark that often, so perhaps whatever form her business took, it was maybe short-lived, but whatever the outcome, I wonder what happened to her maker's mark punch? It would have been her property and become just another part of the workshops tools and equipment, and when they all was disposed of, well who knows where it may have ended up.

Trev.

Some details of a silver paten in the church of St. Nicholas-at-Wade in Kent that appear to be struck with the mark of Dinah Gamon:


Source: Archaeologia Cantiana - Kent Archaeological Society - 1902

As can be seen in this case, the dates do not add up.

Trev.

Thank You all for your time and wealth of information.
As a side note, Any thoughts on my Mote Spoon posting, I'm very curious to know.
Thanks again.

Hi jacksonsvl19l,

The Minneapolis Institute of Arts has as part of its Baldwin bequest collection a toddy ladle by Dinah Gamon with a assay date of 1740. I've been unable to find an image of the piece or the marks, but if you are able to find such images it would be interesting to see how they compare.

This topic may also be of interest: Information on the Forgery of British Hallmarks

Trev.

Thank you. I will attempt to contact the The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, to see if I can get some pics of their piece and marks.
Will keep you posted.