London 1866 chased Lias goblet
-
historydetective
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:53 am
- Location: Oklahoma
London 1866 chased Lias goblet
I was eventually convinced the chasing on my London egg vinaigrette was not contemporary with the date of manufacture, so I wanted to find out if the same is true of my new London goblet (194 grams, 6 and 1/8th inches tall); I was wondering why the hallmarking wasn't done to accommodate the position of the chasing, and I wondered why the maker mark is oddly placed relative to the other marks? Also, the date letter is 1866, but according to this website: http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Make ... HI-HR.html - the particular maker mark used on my goblet for the Lias/Lias partnership wasn't implemented until "1867..1877 (registered Aug 1853)." If the "L" date letter on this goblet ran from May, 1866-April, 1867, there would be a 4-month window when the new maker mark and the "L" date letter could've overlapped; is that the likely explanation? Thanks in advance!
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
The 1866-7 reference on the website is under the heading "Date Seen". In other words the owner of the site has seen (and the image shown was probably taken from) a piece of silver with that mark and that year's date letter on it. On another day a piece with the 1853 date letter might have been seen.
The hallmarking system is a test of the standard of silver in the piece, not an approval of the final finish on the article. Consequently Goldsmiths Hall may well have assayed the goblet in its unadorned state, found it was of standard, put on the hallmarks and returned it to the maker who could then have it decorated. It would not have to be returned to assay unless there were material alterations to it which required another test of the metal.
Not being an expert on mid Victorian silver decoration the work looks right for the time to me but other members may hold a different view.
Regards
Mike
The hallmarking system is a test of the standard of silver in the piece, not an approval of the final finish on the article. Consequently Goldsmiths Hall may well have assayed the goblet in its unadorned state, found it was of standard, put on the hallmarks and returned it to the maker who could then have it decorated. It would not have to be returned to assay unless there were material alterations to it which required another test of the metal.
Not being an expert on mid Victorian silver decoration the work looks right for the time to me but other members may hold a different view.
Regards
Mike
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
Looking at the image again before logging off it occurs to me that the hallmarks are partially overstriking the decoration so the piece was probably assayed after decoration.
Mike
Mike
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
Yes, this is very typical mid Victorian gothic influenced chasing- totally original.
With regard to the makers mark, the misaligned placement in relation to the hallmarks is nothing unusual. It looks like it has been done in sympathy with the chasing- aligning them perfectly would have stamped over the middle of the rosette.
Date- a couple of points worth noting:
1. Sometimes silversmiths didn't get around to registering their punch till a little bit after they started to use it. Naughty, but not unheard of.
2. As you say, the date letters correspond to a year period, but spanned most of one year and part of the next. To be precise, they correspond to the assay master's period in office, not the calendar year. Therefore the date of registration for the punch might have been towards the end of the use of the previous year's punch.*
3. The important date is the registration date of the punch, as the previous poster noted. Many books register the "Date Seen" rather than the assay office date of registration. The best book for this period is Culme, but I'm not certain if he uses date seen or date registered as I don't have it.
If you really want to know and don't have access to Culme (or Culme is "date seen" also) then an email to the Goldsmiths Company library will clear the matter up for you. They are extremely helpful.
*Remember, the date letter wasn't struck for the benefit of future collectors. It was simply a way of identifying which master was in charge when a particular piece was assayed, so that if a sub-standard piece was found they knew who was responsible, and who to blame!
With regard to the makers mark, the misaligned placement in relation to the hallmarks is nothing unusual. It looks like it has been done in sympathy with the chasing- aligning them perfectly would have stamped over the middle of the rosette.
Date- a couple of points worth noting:
1. Sometimes silversmiths didn't get around to registering their punch till a little bit after they started to use it. Naughty, but not unheard of.
2. As you say, the date letters correspond to a year period, but spanned most of one year and part of the next. To be precise, they correspond to the assay master's period in office, not the calendar year. Therefore the date of registration for the punch might have been towards the end of the use of the previous year's punch.*
3. The important date is the registration date of the punch, as the previous poster noted. Many books register the "Date Seen" rather than the assay office date of registration. The best book for this period is Culme, but I'm not certain if he uses date seen or date registered as I don't have it.
If you really want to know and don't have access to Culme (or Culme is "date seen" also) then an email to the Goldsmiths Company library will clear the matter up for you. They are extremely helpful.
*Remember, the date letter wasn't struck for the benefit of future collectors. It was simply a way of identifying which master was in charge when a particular piece was assayed, so that if a sub-standard piece was found they knew who was responsible, and who to blame!
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
Hi JBA,
Date letter to identify which master was in charge when a particular piece was assayed.
Do you know how Britain use to indicate a master assayer lost his job during the year of a particular date letter and a new master assayer took over?
For example in the Netherlands, until 1931 the assayers were personally liable for mistakes in the results of their work. Until 1931 date letters were considered to be their responsibility marks. When in the course of a year the assayer of a certain office was succeeded by another one, as a consequence the date letters of that office were provided with a distinguishing mark. Usually it was a dot, but commas, crosses and stars also occurred. There are a few date letters punched by assay offices in the Netherlands bearing two dots; the result of two changes of assayer within a single date letter year. How did British assay offices deal with this problem?
Oel
Date letter to identify which master was in charge when a particular piece was assayed.
Do you know how Britain use to indicate a master assayer lost his job during the year of a particular date letter and a new master assayer took over?
For example in the Netherlands, until 1931 the assayers were personally liable for mistakes in the results of their work. Until 1931 date letters were considered to be their responsibility marks. When in the course of a year the assayer of a certain office was succeeded by another one, as a consequence the date letters of that office were provided with a distinguishing mark. Usually it was a dot, but commas, crosses and stars also occurred. There are a few date letters punched by assay offices in the Netherlands bearing two dots; the result of two changes of assayer within a single date letter year. How did British assay offices deal with this problem?
Oel
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
An interesting question! Practice in England in general was, in my understanding, pretty similar to how you describe things in the Netherlands. The date letter was included to be certain of which assay master was responsible for marking the piece in question, in case it was found to be fraudulent and sub-standard at a later date.
I can speak accurately for London only- in the provinces practices were less... strict ;).
In England as well as Holland the date letter is actually the "wardens mark". So when the Assay Master changed, so did the date letter. This took place on the 19th of May (St Dunstans Day), and then from 1660 the 29th and each term of office was exactly a year. In 1973 this changed to the 1st of January, so modern marks are for the exact year.
But of course sometimes the assay master was changed more than once within a year due to death, promotion or (in early times) fraudulent activity. But it was not the letter of the alphabet that changed. This would be too confusing!
Usually instead it was the shape of the punch which changed. e.g. 1560, 1619, 1627 1702, 1740 However, on a few occasions a pellet, cross or dot was added, like in the Dutch system as you describe. For examples check 1567 and 1575. Usually this is to denote a change in assay master, although 1560 change was because of a change in the standard.
Not all books record these different punches- this is important to realise!
Something I have only realised on attempting to answer your question is that I can find no instances of this practice after 1740, and I have no idea why. I will read a little and see if I can come up with an answer as to what was done instead.
I can speak accurately for London only- in the provinces practices were less... strict ;).
In England as well as Holland the date letter is actually the "wardens mark". So when the Assay Master changed, so did the date letter. This took place on the 19th of May (St Dunstans Day), and then from 1660 the 29th and each term of office was exactly a year. In 1973 this changed to the 1st of January, so modern marks are for the exact year.
But of course sometimes the assay master was changed more than once within a year due to death, promotion or (in early times) fraudulent activity. But it was not the letter of the alphabet that changed. This would be too confusing!
Usually instead it was the shape of the punch which changed. e.g. 1560, 1619, 1627 1702, 1740 However, on a few occasions a pellet, cross or dot was added, like in the Dutch system as you describe. For examples check 1567 and 1575. Usually this is to denote a change in assay master, although 1560 change was because of a change in the standard.
Not all books record these different punches- this is important to realise!
Something I have only realised on attempting to answer your question is that I can find no instances of this practice after 1740, and I have no idea why. I will read a little and see if I can come up with an answer as to what was done instead.
-
historydetective
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:53 am
- Location: Oklahoma
Re: London 1866 chased Lias goblet
Wow, fascinating info, JBA and Oel! I read somewhere on this site that in the Georgian period, the shape of the bottom of the punch often varied depending on which particular letter of the alphabet the date letter was; "F" was almost never in a rounded bottom or the opposite - it was almost never in a pointed bottom; I wish I could remember where I saw that info.
I'm not trying to change the topic, but how would you even out the patina and minimize the polish-resistant gray spots on the stem of my goblet just below the bowl, JBA? Zolotnik has a post - viewtopic.php?f=34&t=26020 - in which he mentions using tile cleaner, and I assume ammonia is the active ingredient in tile cleaner, so is that what you would use?
I'm not trying to change the topic, but how would you even out the patina and minimize the polish-resistant gray spots on the stem of my goblet just below the bowl, JBA? Zolotnik has a post - viewtopic.php?f=34&t=26020 - in which he mentions using tile cleaner, and I assume ammonia is the active ingredient in tile cleaner, so is that what you would use?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests