Mystery Mark on Georgian Marrow Scoop

[chm]

Thanks in advance for any help!
What a great sight- I'm learning so much. Thanks to all who have set it up.
I have a marrow scoop - The marks are deeply struck- but I am having a lot of trouble with attiribution. I can make out a crowned leopard head- and I THINK the maker mark is Script G or J or I (dot) W (W is cross of Script an print) in a rounded rectangle. I believe the date mark is a d or O - but the mark is kind of smooshed - almost like is only 1/2 struck in the thin area- but the stamp seems whole and does not extend to the edge. The REAL mystery is the jagged mark next to it- I have no clue! I 've looked and looked with no luck. Can anyone help me?
Thanks for you time


(admin photo edit - images too large - insert as link or thumbnail only - see Posting Requirements)
.

[dognose]

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

I should say that your marrow scoop was made by James Wilks (Grimwade 1753) in 1749, however there are several similar marks and it would be good to hear the opinion of others.
The mark you are struggling with is the Lion Passant which signifies Sterling silver 925/1000.

Trev.
.

[Tongtwister]

Hi,

Can't be certain but I also think it is London 1749. The jagged mark is the Lion Passant. Note there is no duty mark so it is pre-1784. I also go along with dognose - most likely candidate James Wilks - but like dognose, I suggest you can't be certain - there are several makers with similar marks. Maybe there's someone out there who knows for certain
.

[buckler]

I too would concur with James Wilks , although as a largeworker or plateworker a marrow scoop seems an odd thing to mark . But Paul Storr marked tongs and spoons.......

I can understand the confusion with the Lion Passant - it's the London 1740 -1756 version upside down !


.

[chm]

Thank you very much for taking the time to inform me.
The Lion Passant is so elongated. Was there ever any different proportions to hallmark stamps? Take the Lion Passent- would one have a few different stamps (one more square- one elongated- but of the same design) to choose from that would give the same information but would fit in different areas? ? Actually I was kind of surprised that the marks were not just placed on the bowl somewhere. It seems it would have been a lot easier.
.

[buckler]

The problem with assay marks is that assay was done BEFORE the item was finalised. Hence spoons often had very pinched and distorted marks. Degree of finishing after assay varied. In theory something which had to have soldering , like a tankard, should have the soldering done before assay, so the assay guys could tell if the smith had overloaded the piece with (cheaper than silver ) solder. A piece like a spoon was worked after assay as otherwise the marking would distort the shape. An item with complicated piecing and chasing was assayed before the expensive hand work was done - mainly so that if it failed assay the workmanship was not lost. Today there are often queries on the scratch weights being higher than the current weight of an item. In many cases - baskets in particular - the reason is not alteration or wear but the amount of silver removed during the piercing process. Even before duty was payable the hall charges were also on the weight of the article when assayed so it could be a fine line for the silversmith to choose to pay excess on the silver he was about to remove, or to risk the loss of his post assay labour.
.