London silver 1691?

PHOTOS REQUIRED - marks + item
Post Reply
emilgaigns
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am

London silver 1691?

Post by emilgaigns »

Hello. Can someone help me identifying these hallmarks?

I think it is William&Mary period silver.

Seems like a fruit basket , date looks like 1691, but I couldnt find the makers mark.

Thanks


Image

Image
emilgaigns
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by emilgaigns »

Image
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

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"

Image
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

One more possibility would be 1684.

Image
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

The maker appears to be Samuel Hood.

Image
AG2012
contributor
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:47 am

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by AG2012 »

Hi,
Date letter looks like g for 1684 and Samuel Hood was registered a decade later.
Too good to be true.
Regards
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

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.

Image
emilgaigns
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by emilgaigns »

You are right. Seems more like 1695. Hallmark is definitely Samuel Hood.


AG2012 why do you say it is too good to be true?
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

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.
emilgaigns
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 am

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by emilgaigns »

I understand.

I forgot to mention the dimensions.

Base is 13cm diameter, upper part is 20cm in diameter.
silvermakersmarks
co-admin
Posts: 1800
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:22 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by silvermakersmarks »

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
MGArgent
contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: London silver 1691?

Post by MGArgent »

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
Post Reply

Return to “London Hallmarks”