Damaged or pseudo marks?

[juantotree]

Hi

I have posted here as these marks are London marks or purport to be so, I would welcome any opinions on whether these are genuine but somehow damaged London marks, or are they pseudo marks?

Many Thanks
Martin

[Sasropakis]

The shape and orientation of the hallmarks look right to me but the date letter is a bit problematic. The duty mark looks more like William IV than George IV if you compare the shape of the king's head. Then the year could be 1834 with "t" but the problem is that I can't discern the cross bar. But there's some consistent damage to the hallmarks which could explain this. Also the style of the laddle would be appropriate to 1834 so I would say that these are genuine albeit damaged hallmarks.

[dognose]

Agree with Sasropakis. It would appear likely that someone has attempted to clean the ladle with a mechanical wire brush or such like, and then buffed it up afterwards? This would have removed much of the resulting damage on the higher points, but left the evidence on the lowest points, such as the marks.

Trev.

[juantotree]

Thanks guys, supports my initial feelings.

Martin