Antique bowl

[84zolotnik]

Hello,
French hallmarks, does anyone know how to unlock them?
Thanks for any help,
Zoltan

[blakstone]

Alas, these are not authentic French marks. They are fantasy imitation marks intended to create an aura of age. They are perhaps from Hanau, Germany, where the practice was common, but I do not associate this exact series of marks with a particular Hanau maker. I would check the piece carefully for any other marks hidden in the decoration; very often - especially on Dutch pieces - the real marks (if any) are well-concealed while the false marks are shown prominently.

[84zolotnik]

Thank you for your comments.
I do not agree with this. Here's what I think:
The first hallmark is clearly a "mark of charge" (Paris 1762-1768).
The second hallmark is a master's mark.
In Hanau they used "'pseudo" marks, but they only resembled the original.
Could you be mistaken, are you sure of what you wrote?

[oel]

Fake French hallmarks, I agree with Blakstone. See Marc Rosenberg, Der Goldschmiede Merkzeigen IV. Band/Ausland und Byzanz Frankreich# 6514, and see the differences.



Peter.

[84zolotnik]

Thank you for your reply.
I am trying to find out where the coats of arms on the bowl come from.
That may be a way forward.
What you wrote does not convince me because the fineness of the silver is more than 925.

[blakstone]

Well, of course, anyone can be mistaken, but I stand by my assessment. While the first mark resembles the charge mark of JJ Prevost used 1762-1768, if it were genuine it would be accompanied by a warden's (jurande) mark in the form of a crowned letter, and a decharge mark of Prevost or his successor J. Alaterre (1768-1774). Neither of the last two marks even remotely resemble any known jurande of decharge marks of the period. Also, it is highly suspicious to see all four marks in a straight line and uniformly crisp like this, as on genuine pieces they would not have been all struck at the same time, most before the piece was completely finished.

Pre-revolutionary French marks may seem arcane, but they are quite precise, and proper identification requires that each mark properly correspond with the others. The marks on this piece simply don't. Furthermore, the piece, with its busy, florid, flat decoration, has very little stylistic relation to authentic Louis XV pieces; rather, it has all the characteristics of a late 19th/early 20th century pastiche.

Just my opinion.

[bijoux.expert]

I've been dealing in jewellery and silverware for 45 years, I'm good with 19th century hallmarks but poor with 18th century, I would have to agree that the marks are fake. The style of the plate is completely anachronistic - nothing in that style was ever made in 18th century France.

[84zolotnik]

Thank you all for your opinions.
So the question is where was the bowl made, by who, and when?