Incredible beautiful cup
Incredible beautiful cup
Hi friends.I got this very beautiful cup.Made in France.I guess the -N- is for Riom or Montpellier(there are different opinions) 17 th century,charge for Paris 1727-1732,discharge for medium items.I don.t know the maker-ILB??!!There is another 2 small marks on rim,i can.t read it and twot Minerva heads,later added.Could be a 17 th century cup?Thank you very much
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
Hi,
As far as I know the marks are: Paris maitre Jacques Cottin crowned ‚‚A‚‚ and small crowned bird (duck) discharge, crowned ‚‚N‚‚ for 1729/30.
The engraving is a later addition (19th century, I think).
There are experts for French silver here to tell you more.
Regards
As far as I know the marks are: Paris maitre Jacques Cottin crowned ‚‚A‚‚ and small crowned bird (duck) discharge, crowned ‚‚N‚‚ for 1729/30.
The engraving is a later addition (19th century, I think).
There are experts for French silver here to tell you more.
Regards
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
I agree with AG2012, except that I could not confirm the identity of the silvermith since I do not own the "Nocq" (reference book for parisian silversmith during 18e c.).
Note a minerva mark (Paris, after 1838) which could have been hallmarked when a repair was made, or maybe when the 18e c.-style decoration was done.
Note a minerva mark (Paris, after 1838) which could have been hallmarked when a repair was made, or maybe when the 18e c.-style decoration was done.
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
Both the marks and the post have me a little confused.
French pre-Revolutionary marks have the following characteristics. First there usually are 4 marks: a maker's mark, a date letter/silver fineness mark, a charge mark, and a discharge mark. There must be concordance between all the marks. It would not be possible to have charge marks from two different places (Paris and Riom, for example) on the same object.
On your cup, the maker's mark initials are IBL with a symbol of what looks like a rose or flower. This mark does not match any maker listed in Nocq, the main reference for pre-Revolutionary Paris maker's marks. I don't know how the attribution to Jacques Cottin was made - no reference is given.
The charge mark of a crowned A and the discharge mark of a crowned chick appear to be those from 1726-1732, but the date letter N is not the date letter for 1729, but rather 1753. Thus there is no concordance between date letter and the charge and discharge marks.
Then there is the very charming shoe mark (shown upside down), a countermark used 1774-1780.
The last two marks are not clear.
There is a personalization on the base of the cup; what does it say?
I can't comment on the date of the engraving without seeing the object in person, but 19th C seems fair.
So to conclude, this is a hodge-podge of marks, creating problems in dating and attributing this cup. It certainly is a French silver object, most likely dating after 1838 as shown by the Minerva mark. I would guess the others are fantasy marks.
French pre-Revolutionary marks have the following characteristics. First there usually are 4 marks: a maker's mark, a date letter/silver fineness mark, a charge mark, and a discharge mark. There must be concordance between all the marks. It would not be possible to have charge marks from two different places (Paris and Riom, for example) on the same object.
On your cup, the maker's mark initials are IBL with a symbol of what looks like a rose or flower. This mark does not match any maker listed in Nocq, the main reference for pre-Revolutionary Paris maker's marks. I don't know how the attribution to Jacques Cottin was made - no reference is given.
The charge mark of a crowned A and the discharge mark of a crowned chick appear to be those from 1726-1732, but the date letter N is not the date letter for 1729, but rather 1753. Thus there is no concordance between date letter and the charge and discharge marks.
Then there is the very charming shoe mark (shown upside down), a countermark used 1774-1780.
The last two marks are not clear.
There is a personalization on the base of the cup; what does it say?
I can't comment on the date of the engraving without seeing the object in person, but 19th C seems fair.
So to conclude, this is a hodge-podge of marks, creating problems in dating and attributing this cup. It certainly is a French silver object, most likely dating after 1838 as shown by the Minerva mark. I would guess the others are fantasy marks.
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
Hi,i made some professional pictures of cup and hallmarks.My opinion:the mark of charge is clear for 1726-1732 Paris and is a concordance this and the mark of discharge for 1726-1732.I have an opinion from an Sotheby.s expert for maker.s mark:Jean Le Bastier or Joseph Leballeur and he agree for the authenticity of the cup:Paris 1729-1730.There are several names to base of the cup,i put pictures.More opinions welcome!
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
Hi,
Excuse me for not being fully familiar with French terminoligy. I was not refering to maker`s mark.
The problem seems to be the form of the date letter i.e. not 1729, but rather 1753.
This is from Rosenberg.
Regards
Excuse me for not being fully familiar with French terminoligy. I was not refering to maker`s mark.
The problem seems to be the form of the date letter i.e. not 1729, but rather 1753.
This is from Rosenberg.
Regards
Re: Incredible beautiful cup
Hello
Thank you for the additional photos. I stand by my opinion that these are fantasy marks, and that the cup dates to the nineteenth century. Here is my logic:
-Maker's marks are read left to right, then top to bottom. On your cup, I read IBL, with the L being slightly larger and lower, therefore presumably the last name of the maker. Nevertheless, I looked at Nocq for the makers suggested by Sotheby's. First, Joseph Le Balleur, mark JLB, a rose. Le Balleur registered his mark on 29 August 1712, a bit early for your object. No end date is given for this maker. (See Nocq, v. 3, p. 43.) Next suggestion from the Sotheby's expert, Jean le Bastier, mark JLB, a rose. The le is lower case, unlike the first suggested maker. He registered his mark on 7 January 1699. He was still listed in 1715, but no end date is given. (See Nocq, v. 1, p. 77). Again very early for your object. Nocq unfortunately does not picture either of these marks, so we have to go by description alone.
-The maker was the first to stamp his mark; then he took the object to the maison commune to be assayed. The assay master stamped a mark that also served as a date letter. In this case the date letter is for 1753.
-Next stop was to the office of the fermier général (right next door) to have tax assessed or charged. On your object the charge mark is for 1726-1732. This does not correspond to the date letter. The maker returned the object to his workshop to be finished, taking it back to the tax office to be weighed again and to actually pay the tax owing. A discharge mark was applied when the tax was paid. The charge and discharge marks coincide on your object, but do not correspond to the later date letter. This is a real problem for me.
-Finally we have the picturesque slipper counter mark from 1774-1780. For those who collect marks, this one is sought after, yet it has no business being on a cup purportedly from 1726-1732. Maybe putting it there was someone's idea for making the cup more desirable?
The personalizations are family names, and are standard for cups which were often given as baptismal gifts, and handed down.
Wishing you the best in your further research.
Thank you for the additional photos. I stand by my opinion that these are fantasy marks, and that the cup dates to the nineteenth century. Here is my logic:
-Maker's marks are read left to right, then top to bottom. On your cup, I read IBL, with the L being slightly larger and lower, therefore presumably the last name of the maker. Nevertheless, I looked at Nocq for the makers suggested by Sotheby's. First, Joseph Le Balleur, mark JLB, a rose. Le Balleur registered his mark on 29 August 1712, a bit early for your object. No end date is given for this maker. (See Nocq, v. 3, p. 43.) Next suggestion from the Sotheby's expert, Jean le Bastier, mark JLB, a rose. The le is lower case, unlike the first suggested maker. He registered his mark on 7 January 1699. He was still listed in 1715, but no end date is given. (See Nocq, v. 1, p. 77). Again very early for your object. Nocq unfortunately does not picture either of these marks, so we have to go by description alone.
-The maker was the first to stamp his mark; then he took the object to the maison commune to be assayed. The assay master stamped a mark that also served as a date letter. In this case the date letter is for 1753.
-Next stop was to the office of the fermier général (right next door) to have tax assessed or charged. On your object the charge mark is for 1726-1732. This does not correspond to the date letter. The maker returned the object to his workshop to be finished, taking it back to the tax office to be weighed again and to actually pay the tax owing. A discharge mark was applied when the tax was paid. The charge and discharge marks coincide on your object, but do not correspond to the later date letter. This is a real problem for me.
-Finally we have the picturesque slipper counter mark from 1774-1780. For those who collect marks, this one is sought after, yet it has no business being on a cup purportedly from 1726-1732. Maybe putting it there was someone's idea for making the cup more desirable?
The personalizations are family names, and are standard for cups which were often given as baptismal gifts, and handed down.
Wishing you the best in your further research.