Possibly fake georgian salt

[laviva55]

I am having some trouble with this piece and I'm hoping someone can help me. I think it may be a fake.
It is a salt and it is meant to be London 1768. It is 6" x 7.75" x 3". I think that stylistically it is not correct for the period but i'm not sure.
Also, the hallmarks don't seem right. I can't find any record of the maker (G J.) or (G I.) and the shields on the marks are square with clipped corners. They don't have the dip at the center of the bottom edge as i think they should.
Could it be Indian/Chinese/british provincial? Maybe Chester without the town mark? or Bristol?
Or perhaps it is put together?

the thumbnails are links to big detailed pictures.

Thanks for any help you can provide



.

[buckler]

I'm afraid I have some doubts on this as well.

The Lion Passant does not have the characterisic "nipple " at the bottom of the punch which most of the London punches have - and it does not look like York, Exeter and Newcastle all of whom used various versions of the crowned Leopart.

The absence of a Duty mark indicates a pre 1784 date but like laviva I think stylistically it looks wrong for mid eighteenth century silver. It looks more like 1820 The quality quality is extremely fine and it appears to have some age to it

But the main worry to me is the area of the mark . All the surrounding blank field is punch stippled - but not the immediate area of the mark. Admittedly the assay marking is usually applied before this stage but IMHO it should be closer to the marks than this .

My guess is an unmarked Regency period piece , with an assay mark applied later. The mark resembles those of the plate worker George Piercy although the final dot is not present in his recorded marks
.

[celadon]

I believe that this is the piece that was up for auction on march 1st in Charloote, North Carolina. I took a serious look at the piece and something seemed odd.

I totally agree with Buckler comments.

It did however fetch a good price at the auction.
.