Please, I need help with this hallmarks to identify them. The Item is a Serving Dish.
Thank you
Regards, CJ
silver plate mark
Re: silver plate mark
Besides being dumbfounded, all I could mutter was "Ooh, nice mark". Beyond that, it seems that the lower mark might be one of the variations of imaginings of Saint Patrick's staff. (Or it might be more generally related to something of religious order or position.) It may help get an opinion of the likely sourced region by adding photos of the whole object revealing shape, style, or design elements.
Re: silver plate mark
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
I will add more pictures with the object.
Thanks again
Thanks for your reply.
I will add more pictures with the object.
Thanks again
Re: silver plate mark
Hi,
That's one of the marks used by Carl Cohr of Denmark.
Trev.
That's one of the marks used by Carl Cohr of Denmark.
Trev.
Re: silver plate mark
Hi,
Thank you very much! I really appreciate your help!
Regards, C.J.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate your help!
Regards, C.J.
Re: silver plate mark
Trev.- Were the CC-in-crown arguments ever resolved? The threads on it seemed to emphatically deny the conclusion, but perhaps I've missed new information.dognose wrote:Hi,
That's one of the marks used by Carl Cohr of Denmark.
Trev.
Re: silver plate mark
Ok...mark 2 (reversed) is recorded next to an ATLA mark for Cohr: http://www.silvercollection.it/DICTIONA ... NMARK.HTML
This piece then confirms this form of CC-in-crown is equal to the others shown in the link, thus solving some old threads.
This piece then confirms this form of CC-in-crown is equal to the others shown in the link, thus solving some old threads.
Re: silver plate mark
Here a CC-in-Crown is shown to be Carl F. Christiansen Copenhagen 1943-1963: https://www.925-1000.com/denmarkC.html
And there’s a ancient thread on this topic emphatically denying any use by Cohr.
Given that it is seen coupled to a known Cohr mark (linked above), any new conclusions on a relationship?
And there’s a ancient thread on this topic emphatically denying any use by Cohr.
Given that it is seen coupled to a known Cohr mark (linked above), any new conclusions on a relationship?