Bottom marked sauce ladle

[rat-tail]

Hi All any help with these hieroglyphics would be appreciated.
I am not even sure that it is London, but let's start here.
A sauce ladle 17.5cm long, bottom marked. Engraved on back of terminal PBF from WB Wyllys. Has two crests on front.
The mark closest to the bowl is very unclear although it does have a central dot - could be a flower, a thistle, or could be a makers mark - more later.
The second mark is squashed into oblivion it could even be two marks, although is probably one, could be a crowned something. I have seen crowned marks when they get squashed look like this.
The third mark looks like a makers mark and would appear to be T ? or I ? over a pellet over WW.
The fourth mark looks like TD over something.

The only T.D over W.W mark my Jacksons lists is for T Devonshire and W Watkins on a 1756 coffee pot. The same letters noted on a skewer of the same age. But the mark slightly different with the pellets between the letters, not underneath them. Also feel it's a shade early for this spoon. And if it's a London piece why is the maker's mark struck, presumably three times. Inscription and crests look English. Any thoughts appreciated.
Regards Frank






First mark - closest to bowl


Second mark


third mark - two slightly different views



Fourth mark

[WarrenKundis]

Ouch,

If you look the London post for Jerraluv, he's in the same boat. Let me suggest that you skip the warmth ie; color for brightness, sharpness, and/or contrast to see if they come out any clearer.

Best of luck!
Warren

[rat-tail]

Hi Warren - sorry the pictures aren't great - but then the marks really are finished. I'll try in better light later in the week.
Will also try to get a better shot of the drop - that may point us in the right direction. thanks

[rat-tail]

Did a quick and very inconclusive internet search on WE Wyllys. Nothing really came up although it would seem the name originates from the Scottish border area particularly around Dumfries. There is obviously a branch of the family in belfast and the name is strong in early Connecticut history with a Samuel Wyllys having signed to states charter in the 1600s. No joy on the crests - it might help if i could work out what that demi lion rampant was holding - possibly an anchor.
If it's any indication, I bought this ladle with a collection of Scottish celtic point silver assayed in Edinburgh in early 1800s - but suspect the ladle is at least a generation earlier.

[WarrenKundis]

Hmmm,

Appears the lion is holding a flur de lis, am assuming the crests side by side indicate a marriage possibly. Am also assuming that they relate to PBF. How do we discribe the hound with collar and is that a snake's tongue?
Let me take a look around.

W

[rat-tail]

probably collared hound sejant with ball in dexter paw - langued would describe the tongue out and there's probably a heraldic word for a collar
I just got a whole load of pictures of people's pets lol
Yes am sure spoon was a wedding present
Thanks

[WarrenKundis]

He has spots, may be a leopard. Have come up with Thorpe and Brown with a rampant lion and fleur de lis although there are fourteen other possibilities. Rhodes has a collared leopard no ball. Let's not exclude the possibility that the engraved dedication is latter than the crests.

Will keep swinging at it.
W

[agphile]

A few quick points on the marks. Heal's London Goldsmiths records the Devonshire Watkins partnership from 1756 to 1773. Grimwade shows their mark with a pellet between the two sets of initials which seems to be what you have on your ladle and I would regard his work as the more definitive.

This seems to be an example of the so-called duty dodger where the item was not submitted for assay and instead the maker's mark struck several time to simulate a full set of hallmarks. Where the marks are then closed up this may have been to disguise what has been done but there are plenty of examples of the marks being left perfectly legible.

There are various theories about duty dodgers ranging from simple fraud through to circumstances when assay was not felt to be required for some reason. Perhaps the reason varied from case to case.

[WarrenKundis]

That is fascinating Agphile,

And yes I do now see the mark your describing possibly TI over pellet over WW.

Was just reluctantly raising a similar issue with Techsol in his recent London post after reading 925's silver article on Spurious marks on English silver. In his case three of the Geroge III marks are clear, it's the makers mark onky that appears muddled, cast is the word that the article describes. The article does focus on the out right forgery of the marks other others as I understand it. In this case, if it is the case, Watkins appears to be avoiding payment of a duty. Am I understanding these two issues clearly?

W

[agphile]

Yes. There are cases where the marks are a complete forgery. This may be on a fake antique, or to appear to guarantee a silver quality that is not actually the case, or indeed simply to avoid paying duty in the days when submitting an item for assay incurred this payment.

The so called duty dodgers (repeated maker's marks only) are a bit different. They have clearly not been submitted for assay but the maker's marks are not fakes. The maker is not hiding his identity. Why an item was not submitted for assay, and the duty thus avoided, is a matter of speculation. Proper hallmarks were a legal requirement for an article to be sold as silver. Perhaps the item was not being offered for sale but was made for personal use or as a gift. Perhaps when a customer brought in old silver to be melted down and refashioned the silversmith regarded himself as being paid simply for workmanship and not as selling the silver, particularly as he could not necessarily guarantee the standard of the silver he had been given to work with. Perhaps it was a sly agreement between customer and silversmith to avoid the expense of assay and duty. I am not aware of any hard evidence as to which of these reasons was the most common or for any other possible reason.

Incidentally, I would be cautious about assuming an illegible maker's mark is spurious if the other marks seem OK. You need to consider whether it has simply been badly struck, perhaps with a bit of a judder, or whether it is a question of one mark overstriking another (e.g. retailer over maker). The maker's mark is struck before submission to the assay office so it would be odd to find a fake maker's mark accompanying genuine hallmarks unless it purported to be that of a highly collectable maker.

[WarrenKundis]

Thank you for clarifing that further but as I said, reluctantly raised the issue. Am aware of how strict penalities were and still remain in Great Britian.

A very good evening to you sir.
Warren