This a lady's vanity case. I have no idea when they were first made but the hallmarks seem to indicate John Parrock (IP) of Birmingham in 1792. Am I wrong?
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=Wza ... 47Xg%3D%3D
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=Wza ... vCoA%3D%3D
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=Wza ... I0fQ%3D%3D
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=Wza ... UJ8Q%3D%3D
Thanks!
Hallmark help
The Marks appear to be a markers mark in a dentated rim punch of "?P" a George head duty mark and Lion Passant.
The absence of an anchor makes me feel this is not Birmingham. Birminhgham and Sheffield were very aware that London was waiting for them to make mistakes and were normally very careful to put the anchor or crown on all items.
John Parrock's mark only mark given by the Birmingham Assay office is not dentated and he registered in 1805.
It looks more like London 1795/96, but I cannot trace the maker as an IP . It does not appear to be Newcastle, and no IP appears for Chester , or as far as I can see Exeter.
The absence of an anchor makes me feel this is not Birmingham. Birminhgham and Sheffield were very aware that London was waiting for them to make mistakes and were normally very careful to put the anchor or crown on all items.
John Parrock's mark only mark given by the Birmingham Assay office is not dentated and he registered in 1805.
It looks more like London 1795/96, but I cannot trace the maker as an IP . It does not appear to be Newcastle, and no IP appears for Chester , or as far as I can see Exeter.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
Thanks Pat, thats much clearer now.
It's a good example of the item being decorated post-assay, Piercy would not have had the work done before, for fear of the item being rejected as below standard. It must have been a bit of a balancing act, but the cost of the engraving must have outweighed the cost of the extra assay charges as of course the item, especially where piercing in involved, would have somewhat heavier at assay.
Trev.
It's a good example of the item being decorated post-assay, Piercy would not have had the work done before, for fear of the item being rejected as below standard. It must have been a bit of a balancing act, but the cost of the engraving must have outweighed the cost of the extra assay charges as of course the item, especially where piercing in involved, would have somewhat heavier at assay.
Trev.
Hi Cliff,
Look at the internal dotted line that butts up to the anchor mark, if you imagine that the anchor was not there, the line would not marry up. The engraver does not appear to have been so careful with the duty and maker's mark.
It was normal procedure to send items for assay 'in the rough' with all the finishing done afterwards. It was of course very important that the hallmark was disturbed as little as possible, from a marketing point of view.
Regards Trev.
Look at the internal dotted line that butts up to the anchor mark, if you imagine that the anchor was not there, the line would not marry up. The engraver does not appear to have been so careful with the duty and maker's mark.
It was normal procedure to send items for assay 'in the rough' with all the finishing done afterwards. It was of course very important that the hallmark was disturbed as little as possible, from a marketing point of view.
Regards Trev.
No, he would want to get it as close to the sale weight as possible, the assay charges were calculated by weight. Although the filing, engraving and polishing all contribute towards bringing the weight slightly down, it's all costs that build up. If all this work was done pre-assay, and then the item failed the assay, then the assayer would be within his rights to cut or hammer the object that was rejected, thus a far bigger loss to the silversmith.
So, make the item roughly, then get it assayed, if it passes, then spend the time on it.
Trev.
So, make the item roughly, then get it assayed, if it passes, then spend the time on it.
Trev.
There could by several reasons why the assayer might reject the submission. The people employed at the assay office were usually trained silversmiths, so if they felt that, for instance, excessive solder had been used, they would reject the item. Other reasons could be, the failure of the silversmith to apply his mark before the assay, the belief by the assayer that something was to be added after assay eg. he would not assay a teapot that did not have a spout. Another reason may be if he was suspicious that a hollow part of the item had been loaded with another material.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's all that springs to mind at the moment.
Trev.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's all that springs to mind at the moment.
Trev.
Return to “Birmingham Hallmarks”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests