www.925-1000.com

As I was telling Pat earlier today, I am rather new to the researching of makers marks and I am having trouble finding this particular set out.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1034937728 ... directlink" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From what I can gather it is:

Sterling - from London - 1821 - George III - Made by __________

So it comes down to who made this particular piece and is my current research on par?

You have the assay office and date correct, I cannot help on the maker at the moment (a quick search and unable to find) I do not have my big hallmark book here at the moment.

Invert it to 'I H' & it would look to me like John Hawkins, registered at various times up to 1831?
Regards
John

user701 wrote:You have the assay office and date correct, I cannot help on the maker at the moment (a quick search and unable to find) I do not have my big hallmark book here at the moment.

Thanks for the help!

spobby wrote:Invert it to 'I H' & it would look to me like John Hawkins, registered at various times up to 1831?
Regards
John

Thanks for the help!

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

I would be somewhat reluctant to attribute Hawkins as the maker of your tray. John Lacey Hawkins was a known spoonmaker, and a part-time one at that, as he also held the post of a Marshalman of the City of London for many years. He appears to have made spoons in the morning, probably slept in the afternoon, and carried out his duties in that early peace keeping force during the night.

The 'IH' mark is always difficult to attribute, but John Houle would be my choice.

Trev.

spobby wrote:Invert it to 'I H' & it would look to me like John Hawkins, registered at various times up to 1831?
Regards
John

I can see how this could happen easily. Is it common to find marks upside down?

I have quite a few Georgian spoons where the makers mark is upside down (compared to the rest of the hallmarks).

dognose wrote:Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

I would be somewhat reluctant to attribute Hawkins as the maker of your tray. John Lacey Hawkins was a known spoonmaker, and a part-time one at that, as he also held the post of a Marshalman of the City of London for many years. He appears to have made spoons in the morning, probably slept in the afternoon, and carried out his duties in that early peace keeping force during the night.

The 'IH' mark is always difficult to attribute, but John Houle would be my choice.

Trev.

Thanks for the help dognose. So what part of makers marks is pure speculation and at what point is it ok to just make an assumption, say if I am trying to sell an item.

The following might go some way towards explaining why attribution of a mark on silverware to a particular maker is not an exact science.
Historically silverware was seen as utilitarian and it is only in recent times that collecting has become a hobby and the maker of an item considered of interest.
The mark originally identified the maker for the purpose of the standard of silver used in the production of an item. It was for applied for Assay Office use. Only occasionally would the owner of a piece have reason to identify the maker. If the need arose the office could usually achieve identification by comparison of the mark on the item to the one which was registered and in the short term could also refer to its own records of goods assayed or rely on the knowledge of its workforce.
The Assay Office was not charged with the duty of preservation or publication of its records for later generations. Its responsibility was to test the standard of silver used in production of items for sale.
To satisfy the later public interest in identification of marks various authors have published reference books. The prime source for these would generally be by access to the original copies of marks and records retained by the Assay Office but detail has become lost over time, particularly the day to day papers and, of course, the unwritten knowledge of its workforces. The published books can therefore contain educated guesses as the records from which they were written may have their problems of certainty.
In attempts to attribute a maker’s mark many years after it was applied to the item other factors such as a maker’s style of work and usual type of output may have to be taken into account. Consideration may have to be given to when one mark might have ceased to be used and another identical mark took its place particularly where the initials and therefore duplications are common.
No doubt others will have views on the certainties of attribution of a mark but in the end it is always for the current owner to decide by best evidence the maker of an item.

Mike