Silver frame marked RC and 925

[pb4sc]

Hi All,
I have this silver frame that I am trying to learn more about. The only marks, are an embedded RC and 925. I was told it was possibly it was Italian, but the marks look nothing like the examples on the website. Any insight would be much appreciated.
Phil


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByklNQ ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/123CJon ... sp=sharing

[dognose]

Hi Phil,

Welcome to the Forum.

You will have a far greater chance of getting a response if you embed your images as very few people will click on links.

Trev.

[pb4sc]

Hi All,
Here are the images.... Thanks for the tip Dognose. Any help is much appreciated.

[pb4sc]

Hi,
I was told that the RC might be for Irish Silversmith Robert Calderwood. However, he died in 1766, and that seems too early for this piece.
Phil

[pb4sc]

I think the mystery has been solved.

After much research, and looking at the book American Silversmiths and their Marks by Stephen G.C. Ensko. This beautiful piece is American and was made by Robert Campbell of Baltimore Maryland. RC was one of his early marks.

Phil

[AG2012]

Unfortunately, cannot be Robert Campbell, Baltimore, Md, 1819 on Market Street, until 1835, then Robert and Andrew, worked until 1854.


The frame is late Victorian velvet back and often reproduced (btw. fineness .925 indicates newer production).


Regards

[pb4sc]

Hi AG2012,
Thank you so much for the information. I really appreciate your insight. Thank you also for the two pictures. Do you have any idea in what country it was produced in? Is it English? Since it was often reproduced, can I take that to mean many different silversmiths made versions of it?
The reason I thought it was Robert Campbell is the mark in the book I mentioned which is


I had previously seen the mark that you provided for Robert Campbell, which did not seem similar.


Thanks again,
Phil

[silverly]

My expertise is very limited, but the mark on this item just does not look American. I'd say this post is now in the correct forum. Wish I could offer some substantial help.

[dragonflywink]

Agree with AG2012 that your frame appears to be a fairly recent reproduction. Usually, when I see 'RC' on a sterling frame, it's accompanied by British hallmarks, made by R. Carr - might investigate if they sold a similar line, perhaps made and/or sold outside of the UK...

~Cheryl

[AG2012]

Carr's of Sheffield Ltd
1984 –

I`d say the frame is Continental (Italy, Germany ....)

[pb4sc]

Hi All,
First off I want to say thanks for everyone's help. I have learned so much, including that my frame is most likely a reproduction. In fact, they really are not that rare.

One website even offers it for sale right now. It even says

These identical replicas of antique style European Sterling Silver Frames are made by casting the silver into a mould to create the 3-Dimensional raised look.

You can find the site here...(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )

Another one on eBay, is marked Sterling Silver. The seller says that it is likely from the 1980's.



Lastly here is another with English Marks.



Correct me if I am wrong, but I take these marks as follow...
Makers Mark- William Hunter or William Hurcomb, but both seem these silversmiths seem later than City mark.
City Mark- London
Silver Mark- Sterling
Date Mark- 1817?
Duty Mark- King George the 3rd.

Finally that leaves me with my frame, with the RC and 925. I guess if you can still buy a version today, there is going to be a lot of trouble getting a date for mine. While I do not think it is as new as the last 30 years, It is probably not an original. The nice part is I still love it. I can see why they were so widely reproduced, it really is a beautiful frame.

Thanks again everyone.

Phil

[AG2012]

Search for the history of photography; George III, very early 19th century is NOT possible. Not even early Victorian.Those velvet back frames are typical late Victorian pattern.
In short, hallmarks are not the only issue when judging silver. What photo would you mount in 1817?

[Qrt.S]

Do you mind if I present my humble opinion.
Please do not mix the first frame showed in the first input with the latter frame. The latter frame is of less interest. The frame presented in the beginning of this thread is a copy of the latter frame presented 14.12 at 7.23 am. The first frame in question has the fineness marked in promille and a maker's mark RC. That means that it is made at earliest during the last quarter of the 19th century or later. Most likely, anyway, it is made much later being a rather new copy. The frame is not made in UK, Scotland or Ireland. The marks show that without any doubts. Where it is made is a good question.
The questioned frame can very well be used as a photo frame while the original frame with the mark a crowned lion etc. is made in UK London 1817-18 (b). The duty mark is of course George III (1760-1820). This frame is not a photo frame but a mirror frame where the mirror has been broken or removed.
Now what seems to be the problem? It is that where is the frame made and who is RC?

[pb4sc]

Hi Qrt.s,
When I bought this frame, I thought it was an original. After doing research, I realized not only was it not one of a kind, but a reproduction. My questions, when I thought it was an original, was where it was made, and who is RC? I now think that I will not be able to answer those questions, since there are so many versions of the same frame. Thank you for your opinion, it was very informative.

Phil

[AG2012]

pb4sc
Your frame is nice, enjoy having it. The original pattern will remain a mystery.
Not even the last frame shown is an ``original`` in spite of the earliest marks. With or without mirror it cannot be George III. The velvet back ornate pattern is typical Victorian
Kindest regards

[Qrt.S]

Well if it is not the duty mark of George III then what is it? The marks are strictly in line of how an English silver object is marked at that time not to mention the crowned lion. Everything supports that. The style is only a guideline not an absolute fact as the marks are especially English marks.

[oel]

Hi,

To me, the last shown silver frame looks Victorian or has been Victorianized.
Another example of this frame;




This is how the particular silver frame has been described by an auction house:
A VICTORIAN SILVER FRAME William Hunter, London, England, 1897-98 Marks: (lion passant), (leopard's head crowned), (duty mark), WH 10-3/4 x 9-1/8 inches (27.3 x 23.2 cm) 24.6 ounces (gross) The silver frame with bow knot suspending unfurled parchment with cupids amidst foliate and flowers tending Venus, on velvet ground, hinged back with table stand.

Could it be the (hall)marks have been tempered with(fake), and the year letter b is for 1897. The way the marks are placed or are added in and I do not trust the duty mark of George III.
Maker’s mark WH. If William Hunter, registered October 1841, if William Hurcomb, registered July 1900 and if William Hall registered in January 1795, known spoonmaker.
Agree with AG2012, Indeed what is going on?

Oel.

[AG2012]

There are faked British silver marks.

Always look at the object first before looking at any hallmarks. Is it the right shape for the period?

Is the decoration, if any, correct for the period?

Alastair Dickenson
(Alastair Dickenson is a silver expert. Educated at Epsom College, He began his career in the silver trade by joining one of London's major auction houses in 1971.By 1983 he had been appointed Head of Antique Silver at Asprey, moving up to becoming a Director of the Antiques Department in 1994. In 1996 he started up his own business in Jermyn Street. He has lectured all over the world on 16th to 19th century silver and silver fakes).

The pattern and velvet back are NOT CORRECT for George III silver.
I will not engage in this subject any more.

[Qrt.S]

Interesting case, what if you Oel move this thread over to the London site. I believe that there are attendants specialized in London silver. They might have an opinion regarding this frame and its marks. Anyway, the year letter frame is very similar to 1897 but lion passant frame is totally different in 1897.

[agphile]

I agree that the 1817 marks are incompatible with the style of the frame. I suspect they are fakes rather than transpositions - or they may be transposed fakes. I am really more familiar with earlier silver but what hits me in the eye is that the leopard's head looks quite wrong. Detail of the face and ears different from examples of the genuine mark and out of scale with the other "hallmarks". At the end of the 19th and in the early years of the 20th century the London Assay Office prosecuted a number of people for forging marks so this is something to look out for.