Postby silverport » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:07 pm
Yes, it seems to be that the »Z«-marks are an indication of Dutch »Import« marks.
Hello Mrs. Elena
I hope that some one of our Dutch contributors get knowledge of your question, and could confirm my interpretation of the (in like a lying barrel-cartouche) »Z« marques.
The problem I’ve, my only reliable source is: »Nederlandse Goud- en Zilvermerken« door Elias Voet jr. — bewerkt door Ir. P. W. Voet. Achtste druk. ‘s Gravenhage, 1975: Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 90 247 1662 4.
In this kind of “bible” for Dutch fineness marks, and marks of warden offices, isn’t specially mentioned, that these »Z«-marks (»Z« = first letter of the Dutch word for Silver = »Zilver«) are »Import« marks.
On page 49 the chapter is named: »GEHALTEMERKEN SINDS 1-9-1953« (Translation: Fineness marks from 1 September 1953 on.)
There, on p. 49, is shown as nr. 12 the following »Z« mark (in a cartouche, like as a lying barrel):
Nr. 12 »Z800« “Voorwerpen, met een zilvergehalte van 800 duizendsten. 120)” (Translation: Objects, with a silver fineness of 800-1,000. [Footnote] 120)
And on page 77 this Footnote 120 is explained as: » Doordat de nieuwe wet alleen maar kent in zilver: 1ste en 2de gehalte, en alle voorwerpen met een lager gehalte, niet als van zilver worden beschouwd, gaf dat direct moeilijkheden voor de handel. Veel buitenlandse zilver (special Duits) had vaak een gehalte van 800 duizendsten en was door de wetswijziging geen zilver meer. Vandaar dat heel spoedig toch een teken werd ingevoerd voor zilver van een gehalte van 800 duizendsten. « (Translation: Because the new law mention as to be silver only: First and Second finenesss; and all objects with a lower fineness aren’t respected to be made from silver; that directly gave problems to the commerce. A lot of foreign silver (especially the German one) was often made from silver of 800-1,000 fineness only; and as a result of the new law, these were "seen" as not to be made from silver any more. For that reason, very quick then after was created [see p. 49, nr. 12 = »Z800«], and sounded by law, a new mark for silver of 800-1,000 fineness.)
On page 50 the chapter is named: »GEHALTEMERKEN SINDS 1-9-1953 VOOR VOORWERPEN IN VOLTOOIDE STAAT AANGEBODEN« (Translation: Fineness marks from 1 September 1953 on, on offers of already finished objects.)
There on p. 50 are shown, as nr. 5, 6 and 7, the following »Z« marques (in like a lying barrel-cartouche) marks:
Nr. 5 »ZI« “Zilver 925 duizendsten.”
Nr. 6 »ZII« “Zilver 835 duizendsten.”
Nr. 7 »Z« “Zilver 800 duizendsten.”
Because my edition is from 1975, so it could be, that then after, by law, the Roman ciphers were changed to Arabic ciphers, like e.g. »ZI« to »Z925« = “Zilver 925 duizendsten.”; »ZII« to »Z835« = “Zilver 835 duizendsten.” ?
Resume: For reason that the text and the footnote 120 are separated explanations of Ir. P. W. Voet, on behalf of the other Dutch marks for silver, which are in function from 1 September 1953 on (p. 49, nr. 8-12 [nr. 8 = I; nr. 9 = II]), I guess that these lying barrel-cartouche »Z« marks are really Import marks only, in the then official Dutch marking system.
TARDY (9th edition, p. 327) makes there a »Janus«-faced explanation: Before his explanation he shows the 3 different lying barrel-cartouche »Z« marks with Roman ciphers as »Importation« marks. Then after, his remarks are as follow: » Depuis le 1er sept. 1953 tous les poinçons d’impôt sont abolish. Aussi les ouvrages d’un titre inférieur à .833 sont exclus de la garantie de l’Etat et on ne les marque plus pour constater le paiement de la taxe.
La limite de .250 [sic] au moins est par conséquent aussi abolie.« (Translation: After 1 September 1953 all Import marks are cancelled [In reality he must write here: » ... tous les poinçons anciennes d’impôt sont abolish. « Translation: all former Import marks are cancelled]. Also all [silver] items with a lower fineness then 833-1,000 are excluded of States warranty; they could be marked with the tax mark, if there fore tax would be paid.
Also abolished is the limit of 750-1,000 of silver fineness.)
Yes, juridical text is like a »labyrinth« - especially if you’ve to translate it from one in other, differing languages.
I’ve done my best as I could do. There fore I request you and all, to forgive me, if my interpretations aren’t correct as they maybe could be done.
Critics, or confirmations, are very welcome!
Kind regards silverport