Is this an Andrew Archer mark?

[Silver Inquiry]

I have a rat tail spoon with a makers mark that seems to be a bit mutilated but has a couple telling characteristics.

The top of the mark is a cross or top of a crown and it appears to be the Letter A below.
I have seen Andrew Archers mark and given the date of the rat tail spoon I possess and the Letter G date,
it seems to fit. Any other suggestions or am I correct in assuming this to be Andrew Archer?

I know the pictures are huge. Sorry

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... ch1722.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... er1722.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... ch1722.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(admin photo edit - images too large - link only - see Posting Requirements )

[dognose]

Trev.

[Silver Inquiry]

I have seen his mark, that's why I thought it may have been his. It is quite mutilated. I can't be sure.

[salmoned]

When I see those marks side by side, I see no resemblance whatsoever.

[agphile]

I can't match this to the mark of any other known spoonmaker of the period so would not rule Archer out. He was a prolific spoonmaker so may have had more than one version of the punch. It may have been poorly struck and then distorted by the final shaping of the stem after hallmarking. And wear can do strange things to the detail of a mark. If the spoon were in my collection I would be havering between "possibly" and "probably" in listing Archer as the maker.

[salmoned]

You are very liberal in your attribution here. I doubt you could with certainty assign a single feature in common between the two, however. In fingerprinting, we'd say,"Zero point commonality - No match".

[agphile]

Perhaps, in trying to be brief, I failed to make myself clear. I am not claiming I can see a point for point match between the two illustrations.

When you come across a mark that does not seem a good match for any recorded marks, you may reasonably explore whether a tentative or reasonably firm attribution is possible. In this case we seem to have a centrally placed A within some sort of surround, surmounted by some sort of device. Archer is one of the most prolific spoonmakers of the period and the only silversmith to have registered a mark with a single, centrally placed A.

You might then consider the possibility that the Archer workshop had more than one punch, though only one had been registered (not an unknown occurrence). If you compare the photo Dognose provided with Grimwade’s reproduction of the inked impression of the registered mark, there are a few small differences. This may be due to wear in the one case and the inadequacies of an inked impression in the other, but it may also point to the possibility that the marks come from different punches.

The wear and distortion on the mark in question makes a comparison with the inked impression as problematic as it is with the photo of an Archer mark. It may well be from a completely different punch, but I cannot think of anybody other than Archer to whom that punch might reasonably have belonged. The question then is whether this is sufficient for an attribution and whether the attribution is just “possible” (tentative) or “probable”.

It might be relevant to mention something about Archer’s earlier, pre-1720 mark, AR. Some Dognose and Hanoverian spoons are marked AR with a pellet between the letters. My examples are from 1708 and 1709. There is no pellet on the registered mark recorded by Grimwade. Nevertheless, every time I come across a spoon with the mark that includes a pellet, it is firmly attributed to Archer. Unless I have missed something, I don’t think there is any documentary evidence for this attribution, but it seems to be generally accepted, presumably on the same assumption that he is the best candidate and his workshop must have had more than one punch. In my own catalogue I go along with this consensus, but with a footnote that it is a probable rather than definitive attribution.

[silverly]

Not to be contentious but simply for the sake of discussion, I have to say that I do see similarities between the two marks. For example the cross at the top, the "A," and portions of the decorative ring around the "A" (in particular at the lower left), do get my attention.

[Silver Inquiry]

Thank you for all your input and knowledge of this particular piece. The other pictures show that the date mark as well as the London assay mark are struck oddly. I will more than likely note that this mark is a possible Archer mark.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed. :)

[salmoned]

Fair enough, you see a central 'A', I see no such thing and no reason to assume the orientation of the mark in the side-by-side presentation is correct. Rather, I see a two-letter mark standing on end as most likely here.

[agphile]

I still read it as an A, but I do see what you mean. I hope my reading is not being over-influenced by the context of the question but who knows….

One thing Silver Inquiry might usefully do, if not already done, is hold the actual spoon with its mark alongside the mark as reproduced in Grimwade. Archer’s A mark is in a punch of a fairly distinctive size and shape. Whether or not there is a reasonable match in size and proportions (allowing for the distortions of final shaping of the spoon’s stem and wear) might serve to strengthen or weaken the Archer hypothesis.