London silver 1691?
Re: London silver 1691?
Hi,
Sorry I can't help with the maker's mark but have you considered this might be 1682? To me, this date mark looks similar to a partial "e"
Sorry I can't help with the maker's mark but have you considered this might be 1682? To me, this date mark looks similar to a partial "e"
Re: London silver 1691?
One more possibility would be 1684.
Re: London silver 1691?
The maker appears to be Samuel Hood.
Re: London silver 1691?
Hi,
Date letter looks like g for 1684 and Samuel Hood was registered a decade later.
Too good to be true.
Regards
Date letter looks like g for 1684 and Samuel Hood was registered a decade later.
Too good to be true.
Regards
Re: London silver 1691?
Sorry for so many replies on this thread, I think next time I will take a few minutes longer to research before posting!
My final opinion on the date mark is London 1695.
My final opinion on the date mark is London 1695.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am
Re: London silver 1691?
You are right. Seems more like 1695. Hallmark is definitely Samuel Hood.
AG2012 why do you say it is too good to be true?
AG2012 why do you say it is too good to be true?
Re: London silver 1691?
When a date mark is inconsistent with a maker's registration date, it is often a red flag for forgery. Since I had originally identified the date mark erroneously as 1684 and noting that Samuel Hood wasn't registered until 1694, the inconsistency would indicate the item could be a forgery.
Now knowing that the date mark is actually 1695, the date aligns with Samuel Hoods registration and shouldn't raise any concerns.
Now knowing that the date mark is actually 1695, the date aligns with Samuel Hoods registration and shouldn't raise any concerns.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am
Re: London silver 1691?
I understand.
I forgot to mention the dimensions.
Base is 13cm diameter, upper part is 20cm in diameter.
I forgot to mention the dimensions.
Base is 13cm diameter, upper part is 20cm in diameter.
-
- co-admin
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:22 am
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: London silver 1691?
In fact we do not know when Hood's mark was registered as there are no extant records available for pre-1697 registrations. The dates "1694..1695" quoted in the image above, taken from my web site, are meant to indicate dates for which I have seen the mark as I explain on the site's home page.
I am also sure the date letter is "s" for 1695.
Phil
I am also sure the date letter is "s" for 1695.
Phil
Re: London silver 1691?
Apologies for using images without adding references above. The images I posted are from the http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk website.
Maker's mark: https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Mak ... SI.html#SH
Date marks:
https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Dat ... -1696.html
Maker's mark: https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Mak ... SI.html#SH
Date marks:
https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Dat ... -1696.html