Naples maker identification

[huszas76]

There Friends!
I need a little halp again. Can anyone help to identify the maker of this plate? I think, it's from Naples, 1793.

I appreciate any help.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[Ubaranda]

Hi Krisztián!
May be it would help you.



Google translate:
Consular stamp
Description:
Naples
Consular stamp for the years 1722 and 1731, as appears from the two cups respectively kept in the room << De Ciccio "of the National Museum of Capodimonte and the Museum of Martina in the Floridiana as well, for that last year, on a port of the housing the Collegiate Church of St. Mauro Abate in Casoria.

Information from (admin edit - link blocked following a virus warning)

Best regards. Alex.

[huszas76]

Wow!
Thank you very much Alex, it's very interesting and useful!
And now, as I see, what to have to see, it's clear the year for me, it's probably from 1723!
Thank you for the link too!
Best regards!
Krisztián

[AG2012]

Repeated ``Napoli`` three digit mark for 1708.

I`d be suspicious to have found 307 years old silver made in Italy. But that`s my problem.
Kindest regards

[AG2012]

The same mark struck twice
The crown
NAP For Naples (Napoli in Italian)
708 Three numbers for 1708

[amena]

I honestly do not find anything strange in the marks shown by Kristian. The corporate stamp (bollo corporativo) struck twice is not unusual at all, and also the year represented by three numbers is normal.

The date is difficult to read, but in 1723 it is very reasonable, given that Christopher Mellino was consul in 1722, and that, as we read in the same book of Catello, the corporate stamp stamp ( bollo comuntario) was renewed at the beginning of the year, while the period of the consulate, for the delay in the renewal of the appointments, often it took place at the turn of two years.
Also the shape of the crown is in line with that shown for those years in the book of Catello.
Regards
Amena

[AG2012]

Having evaluated Naples marks again I think the second number is 2, rather than 0, because 0 would be too small when compared to the third number.So, it`s either 1728 or 1723 and that supports the maker.

[huszas76]

Hello!
Thank you both for contribution! This conversation was exciting and interesting. Now it's time to find the original owner with the coat of arms.
If I find something, i will write!
Best regards!
Krisztián