Bergen makers mark 1891?

[WarrenKundis]

First I would like to apologize to Hose for asking privately about a makers mark that I was at that time unable to post on this forum properly. Now upgraded to a Dell laptop with Windows 8, you can all now comment on my poor photography skills. Was very drawn to the particular design motif on this spoon. Do believe that it reads as follows: City of Bergen, 13 1/4 lot, IBH or JBH makers mark, May, 1891. It has been suggested that it is possibly Jacob Beyer Hagelien 1818-, your thoughts? And how would we descript this decorative element in Norwegian?

Warren

[Hose_dk]

No problem - now the Picture is here. The maker was active from that year, but I have no records that shows how long he was active.
The spoon is marked in May 1891.

I dont know the patterns name. I would call it a Empire model.
The use of straw/flowers in a buket is seen in different variations.
The edge (zig zag) is part of the Deep cut decor that became fascion late 17hundreds. So you could very well find older pieces with same decoration.

[dognose]

Hi Warren,

You have made a great start with your image posting, but remember to keep the images to within the 7" (18cm) guidelines, otherwise those using smaller monitors will only see part of the image.



Trev.

[Qrt.S]

Something is not in place here...1891? Jacob Beyer Hagelin or Hagelien was born in Bergen 1792. He became master 1818. It is not fully known what happened with his workshop but it was most likely closed down in 1837 or soon after this year. It is also known that Hagelin died as a poor man 9.6.1868. The eldest item a spoon in a museum is of 1835.

The town mark looks also a bit strange to me. I cannot recall seeing a town mark of Bergen (only seven cannon balls) in a round frame, but...? In addition such a town mark is very early for the period. It was used later. If it would be Hagelin the town mark should include the town gate standing on the cannon balls. Not to mention that there is no "guardein mark" but sometimes they are missing...

[WarrenKundis]

Yes Trev thank you, did notice that it clipped off part of my first image of the finial.

Hose and Qrt.S,

Is it possible that the first letter is an L? The protrusion into the cartouche below that first letter may be obscuring the right sweep of the letter. Note above the B there is another one. Would that be considered normal wear? Most of the marks have a rough quality about them. Bergen?

Thoughts

[Qrt.S]

I have tried to solve this mysterious maker. What is clear is that it is not Hagelin. The marks on the spoon indicate that it is made 1891 and in Bergen. 1891 was the last year the fineness was expressed in lots. As from 1 January 1892 it was changed to promille added with an capital S (830S). I would be interesting in seeing the marks and especially the maker's mark in a sharp frontal picture and not angled as the present picture is.

[WarrenKundis]

[WarrenKundis]

Am attempting to post other images but am having difficulty. Must have tapped the img image on photobucket too many times, can not clear the this last image.

My apologies
W

[WarrenKundis]

[Hose_dk]

I have no reason not to keep Jacob Beyer Hagelin responsible. No records of when he stopped - so why not him.
Also the Bergen 7 dots - its correct that its not in the book, but no reason to think that its somewhere else.

The serie of marks a clearly Norwegian full hallmarked spoon.

[Hose_dk]

I have no reason not to keep Jacob Beyer Hagelin responsible.

And by this I Refer to his workshop. His wife/children might have continued business.

[Qrt.S]

I have many reasons, here are the facts:

1. There are no notes of him being married.
2. There are no notes of him having children. Even less that his possible children would have been masters/goldsmiths.
3. Yes there are records. His last years he lived in poverty and died 1868. Hes last work is dated 1835 and the workshop was closed down in 1837.
4. Even if his possible wife or children would have continued the business they are neither mentioned nor listed in any source....their names are unknown!
4. The spoon is made 1891!!!! The time gap is too big!
5. The Bergen town mark is strange despite that the marks are most likely Norwegian.

Just forget Hagelin!

However, I have no reasons to believe that it could be an unknown Norwegian master who later happens to use the same initials. Still today previously unknown masters pop up now and then.

[Hose_dk]

Hans Blytt Hind nr 129 - is very similar. Not that it helps because he is 1757-1776.

What we know.
1.the serie of marks are thypical Norway
2. 5 over M is thypical month mark. For the month of May.
3. 13 1/3 is a normal Norwegian mark for lod
4. Bergen city mark 1848 is 7 dots in a Square and 1856 is 7 dots in a schild. We have no idea of how the city marks look when we are away from 1848 and 1856.
5. and to follow no 4. we know that there are more norwegian marks unknown that known and documented.
6. 91 is not in the book, but it follows what we would expect that it looks.

My conclusion based upon that is Norway, Bergen, May (Fifth month) 1891. And silver.

Master is a mystery. I agree that its long after he was born. However the mark is very similar. I am convinsed that its the same mark. What we could discuss is WHO used that mark? I am sure that we agree of my conclusion.

Denmark and Norway (and germany) is flexible countries. What goes for guardein, wardein and the use of hall marks. In denmark and norway often the guardein, wardein was non-excisting. Silversmith acted accordingly. Set funny series af marks.
My best guess is that someone bought his workshop and tools. A hallmark was expensive and not "absolutely nessasary" - so they reused an elder masters mark.

at least thats a possibility - and then the complete serie of marks make sence.

[WarrenKundis]

Thank you gentlemen for the spirited discussion.

Does that possibility explain the intrusions in the makers mark below the I and above the B which you can also see in the lot number and the year mark? In today's vernacular that might be considered to be trademark infringement, fraud, or at the very worst forgery.

Your thoughts.
W

[Qrt.S]

Yes Hose, we share the same opinion, it is a Norwegian spoon irrespective of the a bit strange town mark of Bergen and that the maker's name is unknown.
No, Warren, it is not a fake.

[Hose_dk]

It can be a fake in many ways. In fact whats a fake?
Also fom here - its not a fake as my college already stated.

You can make a crime in many ways.
The king put tax on the silver items. Month mark is set by guardein/wardein to assure that tax was paid. I have more than one piece of silver where the silversmith reused old month mark - to say - tax paid. The only one that suffered was the king cheated of his tax.

Guardein set city mark - to gurantee - silver content. As long as content is 13½, or 13 1/3 or whatever Lod was requered. Its not a fake, just because mark is missing. When these marks are reused, only one getting cheated was guardein for his fee to controle.

Guardein set guardein mark to say that he set city mark. Same argument as obove.

You should see old silver in another context. They where honest.
I many cases - I have several exambles - maker was also guardein. That Means mr abc put one mark at silversmith abc. He then set a different guardein mark because now he bekame guardein mr. abc. And he added city mark and tax mark as Kings representative mr abc.
Same person but different roles.

I many Towns there where no guardein. What should a silver Smith do? He has some options. He could have 2 different marks. When he stroke the 2 different mark each 2 times the silver har the requered 4 marks.
Or - he could set one mark, or 2 times his mark, or 3 times his mark og 4 times his mark.
Or he could get a city mark and strike that one time and his makers mark 2 times.
All these variations excist.
I my Collection I have a huge variety of funny ways to set the lowfull 4 marks.

But I never question the lod of the silver. They where wery lawfull. They worked - their conditions made it impossible to fulfill the law. But that is not the same as they broke the law.

This is proberly very confusing.

[WarrenKundis]

Hose,

They are all valid points, was only looking at the idea of someone else using a master's mark after the other man's death. I'm sure that the vast majority were extremely honest and industrious. At some future point we may be able to identify who actually made this spoon.

Many thanks
Warren

[WarrenKundis]

Wanted to finish off this post with this contemporary photograph of the city of Bergen that may have been taken when this spoon was being created. This older city coat of arms shows the seven balls that represent the seven hills surrounding Bergen.

W

[Elsebe]

1. There are no notes of him being married.
2. There are no notes of him having children. Even less that his possible children would have been masters/goldsmiths.
3. Yes there are records. His last years he lived in poverty and died 1868. Hes last work is dated 1835 and the workshop was closed down in 1837.
4. Even if his possible wife or children would have continued the business they are neither mentioned nor listed in any source....their names are unknown!

A little research could clear things up:

At the census 1865 in Bergen, Norway, there were two persons by the name Jacob B(eier) Hagelin, both goldsmiths. The oldest was born about 1792, and died June 9, 1868, 78 years old, widower. (Death record: Parish record Bergen, Domkirken 1863-1876, page 44)
The young one, Jacob Beier Hagelin, was the son of the old one. He was born on April 1830 in Bergen as son of goldsmith Jacob Beier Hagelin and wife Gjertrud Bergitte Boland. (Baptism record: Parish record Bergen, Korskirken 1823-1835, page 102)

I have added the sources for this information, in case someone wanted to check the records. So in this case:
1. Yes, he was married
2. Yes, he had at least one son
4. The name of his wife and his son is registerd in the parish records for Bergen.

Regards
Elsebe

[Goldstein]

Hello

@ Elsebe - facts always win over drivel! Thanks for the phantastc investigation!

@ Hose - thanks for explaining the "different marking habits" - without real existing objects in your hand the books are worthless.