French maker's mark request

[SilverK]

Hi, I'm trying to identify the maker of this item and approximately when it was made. I can see it was made in Paris post 1819 and is of 0.950 fineness. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference to the maker in the sources I've checked. Can anyone help identify the maker, please?

Many thanks in advance.

[Zilver2]

HI,
Manufacturer jeweller Aimée-Catherine Clérin (veuve Lecour).
12 rue Bailleul, Hôtel d’Aligre, Paris (1813)
11 place Thionville, Paris
N° de garantie : 953;1851; 2006
N° de préfecture : 1025
Symbol : a winged head and an imperial crown (une tête ailée et une couronne imperiale dessus)(1)
A cup (une coupe) (2)
Successor : François-Marie Lecour (1830)
Mark entered : 12-2-1807 (1), 1817 (2), 1818-1819 (3)

In your case the second mark is punched, which means 1817

[SilverK]

Hi Zilver2,

Thanks very much indeed for your excellent response.

I have one question which puzzles me a little. Tardy says that the mark of the man looking right was introduced on 16th August 1819. If Aimée-Catherine Clérin's cup mark was used in 1817 only, why would this fineness mark be on the same piece? Could there have been an overlap in the use of the 1817 mark? Was the item left in the workshop for a while, perhaps, before it was sent to the assay office? I would have thought though, that that would be economically silly. Any thoughts?

Thanks again,

Silverk.

[Zilver2]

Hi Silverk,

I appreciate your remarks. Honestly I have no clear answer to it.
In addition the item bears also the mark of the Association of Gold and Silversmiths used in Paris during the period 1793-1794, of which we actually know that it was used many years after.
The French silver markings many times are quite a puzzle and make it difficult to really define the correct date. In any case your item should be dated between 1817 and 1819.
Regards
Ziver2

[blakstone]

The 1817 and 1818-1819 marks look very similar, both being the initials ACC with an imperially crowned cup, and to my eye the mark on your piece looks more like the later mark. Also, Arminjon does not give a cancellation date for the 1817 mark, so it is entirely possible that it was still used after that, with the 1818-1819 mark being a second mark, perhaps larger or smaller for different sized work. So either way, I don't think the mark is problematic.

The same cannot be said of Aimée Catherine Clérin, the widow Lecour. Even though her mark was registered in 1807, she does not appear in the Paris trade directories until 1813. Moreover, her husband - Antoine Lecour - does not appear before that as a silversmith at all, nor does Arminjon give a mark for him.

However, their son (and Clerin's successor) François-Marie Lecour is listed as a silversmith at 32 rue St. Jacques le Boucherie on his 5 Dec 1807 marriage record to Anne Charbonnet. He was 26 at the time, so one would assume he had learned the trade from his father and that he was the head craftsman at his mother's shop. The only plausible scenario I can think of is that Antoine Lecour was working outside of Paris and that after his death his widow and son moved his workshop into the city.

Clérin is listed in the Paris Directory as Madame Lecour at 11 place Thionville/Dauphine (the street reverted to its original name in 1814) from 1813 to at least 1829, and her son as Lecour fils in 1833. His registered two marks - one in 1830 and one in 1832 - at the same address (the first mark at 14 place Dauphine, certainly an error) and both were cancelled on 31 Mar 1834. He does not appear in the Paris directory as a silversmith after that, evidently taking up another trade, as he did not die until 23 Jan 1859.

So given all this, I think that the dating of the piece to 1817-1819 is a little restrictive; I think it more likely dates between 1819, when the "old man/vieillard" mark was introduced, and 1830, when Clérin was succeeded by her son, Lecour fils.

Hope this helps!

[SilverK]

Thanks both for your help here, especially since your responses are so very detailed. I think blakstone's thoughts resolve the date problem rather nicely and leaves no further doubt in my mind.

All the best,

Silverk.