I am curious to know if anyone else has found comparable examples.
Regards, Tom
English Hallmarks Forgery Example
English Hallmarks Forgery Example
After decades of silver hunting, this is the first time I've come across a piece bearing forged British hallmarks. The copper bleed through on the rim and base now easily identify it as silver plated copper, but when it was newly made and shiny, even with the lack of maker's mark and date letter, it could easily have passed as sterling to an unsuspecting eye.
I am curious to know if anyone else has found comparable examples.
Regards, Tom
I am curious to know if anyone else has found comparable examples.
Regards, Tom
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
I acquired this pair, online, a couple of weeks ago. They were sold as forgeries, but I wondered if they might have been early Canadian or Chinese Export pieces, but on arrival they proved to be what they were sold as.
They polished up to give a silver looking appearence, as the photo shows, but after about a week they had returned to the yellow tone that they had pre-polishing. I'm not sure what the metal is, but the weight and flex are a reasonable match for silver.
The marks are very crude and a poor attempt at the real thing, but they are rare and they're the first example I've seen since Tom's post eighteen months ago.
Trev.
They polished up to give a silver looking appearence, as the photo shows, but after about a week they had returned to the yellow tone that they had pre-polishing. I'm not sure what the metal is, but the weight and flex are a reasonable match for silver.
The marks are very crude and a poor attempt at the real thing, but they are rare and they're the first example I've seen since Tom's post eighteen months ago.
Trev.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
Here are two dubious examples, both from the often somewhat dodgy world of the bucklemakers
This example seen on a very plain buckle of around 1790. The assay and duty marks are almost certainly a casting and an outright forgery . Makers mark is believed to be that of Joel Jacobson and James Yardley, although I suspect James Yardley used it after as their shortlived partnership ended in 1786 !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The next example , again involving Mr Yardley, has I think quite genuine assay and duty marks — but on an obviously plated buckle .
Note the wear to the facetted ball decoration which shows the silver to be a thin plating.
And the back of the frame — the plate appears to have been applied as a foil with its join on the back
I think that the two bridges (the side cheeks of the buckle which were welded to the frame and bear the assay marks ) are to sterling standard. I think they were originally submitted to Goldsmiths Hall either with the knowledge that the scraping would be taken from the bridge, or with a frame to sterling standard which was subsequently removed and replaced .
I’d love to get Goldsmiths Hall comments on this pair — but currently they are apparently very crudely obliterating such marks if submitted and ruining them as a part of history.
The makers mark is James Yardley’s incuse smallworkers mark of 11th August 1804 (Grimwade page 312) and the buckle bears the dateletter "I" for 1804/05. Chape is a copy of William Eleys patent
.
This example seen on a very plain buckle of around 1790. The assay and duty marks are almost certainly a casting and an outright forgery . Makers mark is believed to be that of Joel Jacobson and James Yardley, although I suspect James Yardley used it after as their shortlived partnership ended in 1786 !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The next example , again involving Mr Yardley, has I think quite genuine assay and duty marks — but on an obviously plated buckle .
Note the wear to the facetted ball decoration which shows the silver to be a thin plating.
And the back of the frame — the plate appears to have been applied as a foil with its join on the back
I think that the two bridges (the side cheeks of the buckle which were welded to the frame and bear the assay marks ) are to sterling standard. I think they were originally submitted to Goldsmiths Hall either with the knowledge that the scraping would be taken from the bridge, or with a frame to sterling standard which was subsequently removed and replaced .
I’d love to get Goldsmiths Hall comments on this pair — but currently they are apparently very crudely obliterating such marks if submitted and ruining them as a part of history.
The makers mark is James Yardley’s incuse smallworkers mark of 11th August 1804 (Grimwade page 312) and the buckle bears the dateletter "I" for 1804/05. Chape is a copy of William Eleys patent
.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
CORRIGENDUM (Latin for correcting something dumb)
In the last post for JAMES Yardley, please read John Yardley throughout.
.
In the last post for JAMES Yardley, please read John Yardley throughout.
.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
MORE SHAM ANTIQUES
WE are induced to recur to this subject– to which not many weeks ago we devoted an article–by the fraud that has recently come to light as to the sale of sham "antique" plate bearing hall-marks of the days of Queen Anne. It appears that in the years 1872 and 1873 a silversmith in London, in a large way of business, sold a large quantity of silver plate to a customer. Last autumn, a person who is well acquainted with plate marks saw this plate, and informed the owner that it was spurious.
Hereupon the Goldsmiths' Company were communicated with. Their officers were sent to examine the plate, and over 600 pieces were found to bear counterfeit marks.
Application was then made to the seller, and he was informed that the Goldsmiths' Company would sue for the penalties, unless he could relieve himself under the statute by making known the person, and the place of abode of the person, from whom he received it. After having seen the invoices he admitted the sale, and, after some time, during which he had the plate examined by several persons in the trade, gave the name and residence of a person who, he said, supplied him with all the articles in question. This person is a working silversmith in a small way of business.
The Goldsmiths' Company thereupon applied to the last-mentioned person, who examined some of the plate in a cursory way, and, after some time, replied through his solicitor that he was not prepared to admit that he sold the plate, or that he had ever had the plate in his possession, but that if the wares in question had been sold by him, they must be some of certain wares which in 1872 he either bought or received in exchange from a person whose name he mentioned, who is dead.
The solicitor of the person first applied to was then asked by letter whether he was prepared by production of his books, or in some other manner, to substantiate his statement.
Whereupon he produced invoices which cover about 600 pieces of plate, answering the description of the plate which is the subject of inquiry, and cheques to order for payments made for it, all of which cheques oppear to have passed through a bank, and are duly endorsed.
The circumstances bore a very suspicious appearance, but the Goldsmiths' Company were advised that the evidence was such as would be deemed sufficient in a court of law, and that they would not be doing right to continue the proceedings against the person who apparently had cleared himself under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. They there upon commenced proceedings against the person from whom he asserts that he bought the plate in question, and these proceedings are now pending. The defendant has raised a point of law under the Statute of Limitations, which is set down for argument on demurrer. The articles in question purport to be of the time of Queen Anne, before the duty was imposed, and therefore do not bear the duty mark.
This revelation has excited a flutter in many a butler's pantry. Since the mania for what is "old" has seized rich people, prices out of all proportion to its intrinsic value have been given for ancient silver plate. For instance, only recently, 26s. per oz. was paid for a hammered bowl of date 1729, and 30s. per oz. for a cake-tray of 1696. Six tea-spoons, weighing a little over 2 oz., though of unknown date, were purchased for five guineas; and a cream ewer, believed to be of Charles II.'s time, fetched 84s. per oz. These were, however, well authenticated vessels. But since the taste for the antique, apart from its beauty or ugliness, has raged, silversmiths have almost ceased to bring out new designs, finding it more profitable to reproduce copies of Queen Anne or Stuart articles than run the risk of having their shelves cumbered with a dead weight of objects really better, but which it is not the fashion of the hour to buy. Hence, the ancient art of working in silver is rapidly declining. Electro-plating is pushing it hard on one side, and on the other the slavish imitation of the antique is discouraging any budding Benvenuto Cellini from trying a fresh departure. The taste is also producing another effect. It is tempting dishonest artificers not only to prepare avowed imitations of ancient plate–which is quite legitimate–but to cunningly fabricate articles to be sold as the veritable objects of which they are only the counterfeits. These specimens are frequently very exact imitations–so exact, indeed, that it requires a finished judge to say whether they are real or a sham. The "hall marks" are cleverly imitated, in exact accordance with the date to which the plate purports to belong. But the makers go even further. They buy small pieces of old plate of little value, and then skilfully cut out the hall marks from this, and " let them into " their modern manufactures.
Source: The Furniture Gazette - October 1880
Trev.
WE are induced to recur to this subject– to which not many weeks ago we devoted an article–by the fraud that has recently come to light as to the sale of sham "antique" plate bearing hall-marks of the days of Queen Anne. It appears that in the years 1872 and 1873 a silversmith in London, in a large way of business, sold a large quantity of silver plate to a customer. Last autumn, a person who is well acquainted with plate marks saw this plate, and informed the owner that it was spurious.
Hereupon the Goldsmiths' Company were communicated with. Their officers were sent to examine the plate, and over 600 pieces were found to bear counterfeit marks.
Application was then made to the seller, and he was informed that the Goldsmiths' Company would sue for the penalties, unless he could relieve himself under the statute by making known the person, and the place of abode of the person, from whom he received it. After having seen the invoices he admitted the sale, and, after some time, during which he had the plate examined by several persons in the trade, gave the name and residence of a person who, he said, supplied him with all the articles in question. This person is a working silversmith in a small way of business.
The Goldsmiths' Company thereupon applied to the last-mentioned person, who examined some of the plate in a cursory way, and, after some time, replied through his solicitor that he was not prepared to admit that he sold the plate, or that he had ever had the plate in his possession, but that if the wares in question had been sold by him, they must be some of certain wares which in 1872 he either bought or received in exchange from a person whose name he mentioned, who is dead.
The solicitor of the person first applied to was then asked by letter whether he was prepared by production of his books, or in some other manner, to substantiate his statement.
Whereupon he produced invoices which cover about 600 pieces of plate, answering the description of the plate which is the subject of inquiry, and cheques to order for payments made for it, all of which cheques oppear to have passed through a bank, and are duly endorsed.
The circumstances bore a very suspicious appearance, but the Goldsmiths' Company were advised that the evidence was such as would be deemed sufficient in a court of law, and that they would not be doing right to continue the proceedings against the person who apparently had cleared himself under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. They there upon commenced proceedings against the person from whom he asserts that he bought the plate in question, and these proceedings are now pending. The defendant has raised a point of law under the Statute of Limitations, which is set down for argument on demurrer. The articles in question purport to be of the time of Queen Anne, before the duty was imposed, and therefore do not bear the duty mark.
This revelation has excited a flutter in many a butler's pantry. Since the mania for what is "old" has seized rich people, prices out of all proportion to its intrinsic value have been given for ancient silver plate. For instance, only recently, 26s. per oz. was paid for a hammered bowl of date 1729, and 30s. per oz. for a cake-tray of 1696. Six tea-spoons, weighing a little over 2 oz., though of unknown date, were purchased for five guineas; and a cream ewer, believed to be of Charles II.'s time, fetched 84s. per oz. These were, however, well authenticated vessels. But since the taste for the antique, apart from its beauty or ugliness, has raged, silversmiths have almost ceased to bring out new designs, finding it more profitable to reproduce copies of Queen Anne or Stuart articles than run the risk of having their shelves cumbered with a dead weight of objects really better, but which it is not the fashion of the hour to buy. Hence, the ancient art of working in silver is rapidly declining. Electro-plating is pushing it hard on one side, and on the other the slavish imitation of the antique is discouraging any budding Benvenuto Cellini from trying a fresh departure. The taste is also producing another effect. It is tempting dishonest artificers not only to prepare avowed imitations of ancient plate–which is quite legitimate–but to cunningly fabricate articles to be sold as the veritable objects of which they are only the counterfeits. These specimens are frequently very exact imitations–so exact, indeed, that it requires a finished judge to say whether they are real or a sham. The "hall marks" are cleverly imitated, in exact accordance with the date to which the plate purports to belong. But the makers go even further. They buy small pieces of old plate of little value, and then skilfully cut out the hall marks from this, and " let them into " their modern manufactures.
Source: The Furniture Gazette - October 1880
Trev.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
dognose wrote:
They polished up to give a silver looking appearence, as the photo shows, but after about a week they had returned to the yellow tone that they had pre-polishing. I'm not sure what the metal is, but the weight and flex are a reasonable match for silver.
Trev.
I wonder if these aren't actually Paktong/German Silver. Some flatware was made of those metals, and the marks I have seen do look very much like these. They were, of course, pseudo-hallmarks, but not actually intended as forgeries.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
Hi,
Welcome to the Forum.
Just my personel opinion, but I would describe imitation hallmarks applied to silver pieces, such as Hanau, Colonial, Chinese Export Silver, etc., as pseudo marks, but imitation hallmarks applied to non-silver pieces, such as this pair of spoons, as forgeries.
The grey area to the above statement, would be perhaps, the marks applied by 19th century silver platers, where the finished product was designed to reproduce its silver counterpart in every way, including to a greater, or lesser extent, the marks, but as these products were sold as plated wares, the application of such marking was perhaps more to fool one's guests at the dinner table rather that the purchaser themselves.
Trev.
Welcome to the Forum.
Just my personel opinion, but I would describe imitation hallmarks applied to silver pieces, such as Hanau, Colonial, Chinese Export Silver, etc., as pseudo marks, but imitation hallmarks applied to non-silver pieces, such as this pair of spoons, as forgeries.
The grey area to the above statement, would be perhaps, the marks applied by 19th century silver platers, where the finished product was designed to reproduce its silver counterpart in every way, including to a greater, or lesser extent, the marks, but as these products were sold as plated wares, the application of such marking was perhaps more to fool one's guests at the dinner table rather that the purchaser themselves.
Trev.
Re: English Hallmarks Forgery Example
Yes, I understand your distinction. I think Paktong falls in to the grey area, as does early Old Sheffield Plate. Having said that, it was actually made illegal to mark OSP in the late 1770's, because the London goldsmiths petitioned parliament claiming that the marking of OSP was intended to deceive the customer. So I think the government viewed the use of Sheffield Plate marks in the first period as forgeries, and not pseudomarks, and it would be legitimate therefore for you to do the same!
I'm not convinced they were correct though. The London goldsmiths just didn't like the competition!
I'm not convinced they were correct though. The London goldsmiths just didn't like the competition!
Return to “Contributors' Notes”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests