Please help identify silver hallmark on Silver bowl

[Gerox]

Hello All,
There is a nice Silver bowl, 800 silver.

Another item of which I can't find the maker's mark.

Has anybody an idea?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Gerox

[dognose]

Hi,

It will be Italian.

See: http://www.925-1000.com/Fitalian_marks_01.html

Trev.

[Italiansilver]

this is a typical oval centerpiece called usually with the french word "Jatte" (bowl)
if you do a google search with the words
"jatte argento" you will find a lot of variety

[Gerox]

this is a typical oval centerpiece called usually with the french word "Jatte" (bowl)
if you do a google search with the words
"jatte argento" you will find a lot of variety

Hi Italiansilver,
thank you for your quick reply, very useful and appreciated.
Can you help me with the determination of the manufacturer and the period of manufacture?
I can't interpret the hallmark.
Kind regards
Gerox

[AG2012]

Hi,
The winged lion of St Mark (Venice).
Must have been used by a particular maker unknown to me (rather than generic mark - compare with Murano glass labels).
Lack of official marks does not mean it was made prior to 1934, the mark being omitted too often.
All said, it must be Venice.That`s all I can tell.
Refards

[Italiansilver]

Hi Gerox,
sincerely speaking from the finish I would say a piece from the fifties, but from the mark I can say before 1934, but not so much (too modern appearance).
Regarding the provenance, the Lion mark suggests the Venetian area (Venezia, Padova, Treviso...).
Regarding the manufacturer there is lack of information of the manufacturers of late 1800, beginning of 1900.
In some cases you can find marks of the same manufacturer, before the 1934 law and after, so you find an object with the figurative mark+800 mark, and an object with the figurative mark+800 mark+registration ID into lozenge, so in this case you can associate the figurative mark to the name of the manufacturer.

Hi AG2012,
regarding what you are saying, I don't know if I agree so much, how can you say that after 1934 the ID mark into the lozenge was often omitted?
The object is marked, why do not use the one requested by the law?
I can imagine that there would have been a transition period in which the silversmith was not yet registered, but i do not think that his period was too long.
Additionally thinking that the 1934 law was within the fascist time so I suppose that controls were severe.
This basing on my experience, but if you have references to say what you said, I have to change my idea.

coming back to the Jatte, if it would have been sold by an action house the jatte would be referred to "the first half of XX century"...this because from the antiquity point of view there is not so much difference.
What can make some difference are the manufacturing details.

[AG2012]

Hello again,
Take a look here in regard of legislation in Italy.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=44311&p=127947&hilit=mario+bucelati#p127947

Pay attention to the quote from my correspondence with Mario Buccellati regarding an engraved box in “Il Laghetto” technique made by his grandfather Mario (marked with ``800`` and ``M.Buccellati``. No ``15 MI``

Unfortunately, sometimes my grandfather forgot to put the trade mark on silver and gold jewelry.

And that`s Buccellati, the most prominent Italian silversmith and jeweler.
Strict legislation is a myth, at least in several countries on the Continent, Italy included.
There was only one annual registration fee, punches kept with the silversmith, rather optional use.
All said, lack of registration number mark cannot help in dating Italian silver.(19th century silver,or older, is another issue).
Regards

[Italiansilver]

Hi AG2012,
the fact that Buccellati "sometimes" forgot to mark the silver doesn't make a rule, and consequently saying that marking the silver was rather optional is really a big jump.
Don't forget that Mario Buccellati firm started in 1919 so what strange in to have objects without the 15 MI mark?
If the mark 15 MI has been registered in 1935...why don't put it on silver? What is the convenience? The annual fee (license) is paid if the silversmith produces or not. No gain into not use that mark the silver (but the grade and the name yes...bit strange...only partial forgetfulness?).

With regards of modern Italian silver, the major part of Italian vintage silver that you find on the market (flea, auction houses, internet) has the lozenge mark, if the lozenge mark was so optional why do not find a consistent amount of objects without the lozenge? It is just a general statistical observation, and additional my personal observation on hundreds of pieces seen on the market.

And personally can say that very often the objects without the lozenge but only with 800 and, sometime, the figurative mark, have details, style, manufacturing and patina that clearly doesn't match with the fifties.

Having said that, I can understand that "sometimes" the marking system was not correct, or sometime the style of an object has been repeated during the year so doesn't help in the identification of the time...but I wouldn't say that lack of correct marking after 1934 was so often.

This just so speak because from the antiquities and commercial point of view the value changes not so much from an early 1900 and mid 1900 object.
At least for now, and I hope that in the future this valuation will change, because from a manufacturing and aesthetic point of view for me there are very big differences.

[AG2012]

The Buccellati box was made in the fifties.
Just wanted to say that the lack of lozenge mark (registration number) does not mean silver was made prior to 1934.
Winged lion Venice mark can help,though, if recognized.

[Gerox]

Hi AG2012,
Hi Italiansilver
Thank you for your support and the allocation of the lion's mark to the region of Venice.
Regarding the design and the form of the details of the shell in comparison to German objects, I would also date them to the end of the 19th early 20th century.
The discussion about the Italian hallmark is very interesting.
This is precisely the question of compulsory or non-compulsory compliance with the legal Requirements from 1934 (numerical system) is for me also in other Italian objects.
I have also assumed that since 1934 the numerical system was compulsory and image marks could be used additionally.
I value your opinions very much, and I hope we can discuss them.
thanks again
Kind regards
Gerox

[Italiansilver]

sure is mainly for the pleasure of the discussion
anyway I'll put particular attention to discover additional information on this subject

[Italiansilver]

Hi AG2012,
I come back on my steps, with big surprise from my side!
If from one side I stay on the fact that basing on my experience the objects without lozenge are the minority and, for the major part, the manufacturing appears not from a modern production, on the other side, on the contrary of what for me was a certainty, you are right.

My father in law (that unfortunately I never met) was a goldsmith, so this morning I asked to my husband if his father had the identification number...and the answer is "no".
But he did not work for others...he was owning his business...so how could he sell gold?
My husband answered that the silver/gold content is mandatory, the identification mark is not mandatory and is like a trademark only, not connected to the license to make/sell silver/gold.

So this confirms what you are saying, and extend the uncertainty of dating up to nowday (with the exception of the cases in what you can clearly identify a recent grade mark or style or manufacturing).

And this answer to my identification question on two objects that I own of clear modern manufacturing with the only 925 grade mark, on which I was guessing about the provenance.

[Gerox]

Hi AG2012,
Hi Italiansilver
Well that's a thing!
I keep it with Goethe: „And here, poor fool, I stand once more, no wiser than I was before.“
Thanks again
Gerox

[AG2012]

Selbst der längste Weg beginnt mit dem ersten Schritt.

[amena]

Let's go slowly, law is law, and the Law 305 of 5 February 1934 prescribes

Any item containing platinum, gold and silver may not be sold to the public if it does not bear, applied in an immovable (fixed) part, a visible punch of the manufacturer's mark delivered to him by the office of assay, and followed by the indication of one of the fineness indicated in art. 2 for gold and silver, and by letters P.T. for platinum.
The manufacturer's mark is composed of the abbreviation of the Province, assigned by the competent precious metal assay office to all the factories existing throughout its provincial jurisdiction, and the progressive number assigned by the same office to each factory in the Province .
(excuse the googleenglish)
I have underlined sales to the public and manufacturer.
There may be reasons for finding an object made after 1935 without the manufacturer's mark, such as an item made on commission or made by an amateur but are nevertheless exceptions.
A retailer was not obliged to put his own mark, but the items he sold had to have the manufacturer's one. This is and was the law.

[Italiansilver]

thanks amena
I was waiting for a reply from you!
This is was I supposed to be up to some days ago when I asked to my husband about his father.

My father in law had the license and was registerd at the "camera di commercio", and had his own little shop.
My husband told me that his father owned for a certain period of time the mark with the ID number then he dismissed it, using only the one <750> for gold.
For sure he didn't work outside the law, as first because he wasn't that type of person, as second he owned a public shop as third there were regular controls from the dedicated office (Finanza).

So I dont' know what to say.

What I know is that he made his own creations and restoration/changes of customer objects.
If I remember well (I have to check on the few documentation that I stored) he was registered as "goldsmith repair"
I don't know if this can make some differences...

I want investigate further

[Italiansilver]

A retailer was not obliged to put his own mark, but the items he sold had to have the manufacturer's one. This is and was the law.

or the opposite:
the manufacturer uses the id mark of the retailer, as often happens for small artisans working for bigger retailers.

[Gerox]

Hi amena,
Hi Italiansilver,
first thanks to amena for the profound comment. So I have seen it so far, but in the discussion I already have doubts that the law was so strictly followed.
Nor do I know to what extent the assumption of Italiansilver "the manufacturer uses the id mark of the retailer" is leading here.
I have not seen that in Italian silverware.
I saw objects with a maker's mark and a retailer 's mark, but I never saw an object with the sole brand of a retailer.

For example, here:

Brands on two identical Italian decanters of the same manufacturer without and with a retailer mark.
I can still understand that a small manufacturer as a subcontractor for larger manufacturers suggests their brand.
But only the retailer brand would be an absurdity.

[Italiansilver]

Nor do I know to what extent the assumption of Italiansilver "the manufacturer uses the id mark of the retailer" is leading here.

what I wanted say is that there are (at least it happens here in Florence) many small silversmiths that work for big brands.

One day I was looking some dresses in a small atelier and in a cabinet there were some wonderful silver bracelets, then I asked for prices. The owner of the shop told me that were manufacts from a joung silversmith working for Buccellati, gave me his business card, and invited me to visit his workshop that was in the nearby. I tryed to find the address but i wasn't able...at that time i didn't pay attention to the mark on the bracelets,
anyway I don't think that Buccellati sells object in his style with the id of another silversmith...

One another thing that i can tell you is that some time ago i bought some objects from a silver shop "Argenterie Masi", the shop was selling things from other silversmiths just as a retailer, and things of its own pruduction. The second ones were done by small artisans, I know because I met them for some requests, that were marking the objects only with the Masi ID.
I do not see anything strange in this, because there were at the end like emploees of a firm.

the cases I can list are:

1)the retailer that is at the same time manufacturer (only ID of retailer that is at the same time manufacturer)
2)the retailer that simply sells objects from another manufacturer (only ID of the manufacturer)
3)the retailer that commissioned an object to another silversmith (ID of the silversmith+ another mark of the name (in letter) of the retailer
like this:


in both cases F.lli Peruzzi commissioned objects to other silversmiths
4)The silversmith that is commisioned to do some artifacts for other brands in the name of the brand so in this case only the ID of the brand

[Italiansilver]

Regarding the decanters, apart from the fact that are identical...
are you sure that are the same manufacturer?
the one on the left is Cesa with the ID and the brand symbol...
the one on the right are you sure that is Cesa too?