Hi,
I'm not convinced about Duty Dodging as we know it. I noticed at an auction the other day a basting spoon made by William Chawner and William Fearn , it was bottom marked WC/WF four times, this partnership was not established until 1797, long after bottom marking had been discontinued.
Why would any smith risk the severe punishment of Duty Dodging and leave the article clearly stamped with his name? Its like a burglar leaving a calling card!
Many smith's are known to have done this, why didn't they use an unidentifable punch? Could it be that there was no attempt to avoid duty payment at all ?
Take this scenario, an army Major has been in India for twenty years, whilst he was there he had a canteen of flatware made by a native smith, upon his return to England he finds that his canteen is very much out of fashion, so he takes it to a silversmith to have it re-worked, a common practice in those days. He dare not have it assayed, what if the native silver was slightly under standard? The Hall would be obliged to take a hammer to it, so why not have the smith mark the piece four times?
The smith has done nothing illegal, he never had ownership of the plate, he was was only employed to re-fashion white metal there was no claim by him or the owner that it was silver, there was no Duty to be paid so no Duty Dodging!
Regards Trev.
.
Duty Dodging
Hi Trev,
I'm not sure of your theory. Would it have been much more expensive to sell the Indian silver and buy a new service than to have the whole service reworked? Did large firms even perform this service?
I suppose a good way of confirming your theory would be to test the grade of native Indian silver (which I'd imagine would be pretty low) and then test pieces with duty dodger marks. If the duty dodged silver is consistently below 92.5% it would be evidence for your theory.
I think it's more likely that someone approached the silversmith and proposed to buy a service, slipping him a few pounds if the smith could hand it over without going it through the assay office. Thus saving the customer the charges and duty which the smith would have passed on, and rewarding the smith himself with a nice bonus.
As for the danger of leaving his mark on the silver, perhaps the customer assured him that it would stay in the family for decades. Therefore no need to worry.
Miles
.
I'm not sure of your theory. Would it have been much more expensive to sell the Indian silver and buy a new service than to have the whole service reworked? Did large firms even perform this service?
I suppose a good way of confirming your theory would be to test the grade of native Indian silver (which I'd imagine would be pretty low) and then test pieces with duty dodger marks. If the duty dodged silver is consistently below 92.5% it would be evidence for your theory.
I think it's more likely that someone approached the silversmith and proposed to buy a service, slipping him a few pounds if the smith could hand it over without going it through the assay office. Thus saving the customer the charges and duty which the smith would have passed on, and rewarding the smith himself with a nice bonus.
As for the danger of leaving his mark on the silver, perhaps the customer assured him that it would stay in the family for decades. Therefore no need to worry.
Miles
.
Hi Miles and Tom,
The re-working of Hanvorian flatware into the Old English style was not uncommon, this must have provided work for a lot of silversmiths.
As I understand it, the penalty for tax offences was seven years transportation for a first offence, I cannot imagine many risking that for a few pounds and make no mistake the law was enforced, lets take the case of Philibert Mathey, I know these are different circumstances but it shows the severity of the authorites. Mathey entered his mark at Goldsmiths Hall in partnership with Fredrick Humbert on the 11th. of Janurary 1826 as watchcase makers, their work must have been good for soon after they were supplying cases to Benjamin Lewis Valliamy the famous watchmaker. In June 1826 Mathey was arrested for forgery, basically what he was doing was sending complete cases to the Hall where they were assayed and marked on the top and the bottom but not on the rim, on the return of the cases he would disassemble them and insert a sub-standard rim (he did not know the assayer applies a secret mark to the rim), he was tried, found guilty and transported for seven years.
As a side note to this story I noted that Mathey entered his first mark alone (the first with Humbert is not shown in Grimwades, I guess it was struck from the records) on the 5th. November 1831 so I guess you got time off for good behaviour even in those days.
Regards Trev.
.
The re-working of Hanvorian flatware into the Old English style was not uncommon, this must have provided work for a lot of silversmiths.
As I understand it, the penalty for tax offences was seven years transportation for a first offence, I cannot imagine many risking that for a few pounds and make no mistake the law was enforced, lets take the case of Philibert Mathey, I know these are different circumstances but it shows the severity of the authorites. Mathey entered his mark at Goldsmiths Hall in partnership with Fredrick Humbert on the 11th. of Janurary 1826 as watchcase makers, their work must have been good for soon after they were supplying cases to Benjamin Lewis Valliamy the famous watchmaker. In June 1826 Mathey was arrested for forgery, basically what he was doing was sending complete cases to the Hall where they were assayed and marked on the top and the bottom but not on the rim, on the return of the cases he would disassemble them and insert a sub-standard rim (he did not know the assayer applies a secret mark to the rim), he was tried, found guilty and transported for seven years.
As a side note to this story I noted that Mathey entered his first mark alone (the first with Humbert is not shown in Grimwades, I guess it was struck from the records) on the 5th. November 1831 so I guess you got time off for good behaviour even in those days.
Regards Trev.
.
Hi,
Maybe the items were for private use. In the Netherlands it is illegal to have any unmarked goods (gold,silver and platina) in your jewellery store, unless it is worn by you yourself or your familiy members.
No duties or hallmarking fees need to be paid for them.
Maybe there was a similar law back then that was taken advantage from.
.
Maybe the items were for private use. In the Netherlands it is illegal to have any unmarked goods (gold,silver and platina) in your jewellery store, unless it is worn by you yourself or your familiy members.
No duties or hallmarking fees need to be paid for them.
Maybe there was a similar law back then that was taken advantage from.
.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
Hi Colin,
Many apologies, I somehow missed your post and have just found it.
The accepted term "Duty Dodging" is when an item, say a spoon, instead of having the official hallmarks on the back, is stamped two or four times with the makers mark, in a position so as to resemble the official hallmarks, this method was used on bottom marked spoons for when the spoon was finished of by the silversmith the marks became distorted and difficult to read. By not sending the spoon to be hallmarked, the silversmith would not have to pay the duty due.
Hope this makes sense and sorry again for the late reply,
Regards Trev.
.
Many apologies, I somehow missed your post and have just found it.
The accepted term "Duty Dodging" is when an item, say a spoon, instead of having the official hallmarks on the back, is stamped two or four times with the makers mark, in a position so as to resemble the official hallmarks, this method was used on bottom marked spoons for when the spoon was finished of by the silversmith the marks became distorted and difficult to read. By not sending the spoon to be hallmarked, the silversmith would not have to pay the duty due.
Hope this makes sense and sorry again for the late reply,
Regards Trev.
.