Queen Anne Porringer

[spobby]

Really unsure of the date mark, be grateful for any help.
Also, confirmation of the maker's mark please, possibly Nathaniel Locke
Thanks in advance

[AG2012]

Hi,
1713
Regards

[MGArgent]

I concur with 1713.

Stylistically, the joining of the "L" and the "O" are similar to another Nathaniel Lock mark that shows the characteristic "key" symbol.

I vote for Nathaniel Lock.

[MGArgent]

Counter to my previous post, evidently this same porringer was discussed on another forum in 2015 where Nathaniel Lock was considered and subsequently dismissed as the possible maker.

Silver Collector Forums - Queen Anne Porringer - 1713

You may need to wait for an opinion regarding the maker from one of this forum's experts.

[spobby]

MGArgent - thank you
I had honestly forgotten I had asked the same question on that site.
Sincere apologies, admin, if this is a double up.
Regards
John

[dognose]

Hi John,

We're delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this interesting piece.

Trev.

[MGArgent]

Hi John,

The other thread was started 5 years ago and was inconclusive. It seems reasonable to me that enough time has passed to seek answers elsewhere and start a thread here (to be clear I don't make the forum's rules).

Most importantly, we should get to the bottom of this mystery!

The previous reasoning given for why Nathaniel Lock was not the maker of your porringer:

...the key in his mark is too close to the LO not to be seen on your mark and the symbol below the letters is not as much like a cross as in your picture...

Contrary to this, I believe the mark comparison above shows the mark used by Nathaniel Lock in 1713 had sufficient space between the key and the letters that it is OK for the key not to be seen on your piece.

I still vote for Nathaniel Lock.

[silvermakersmarks]

Having initially thought it was Nathaniel Lock in the thread on that other site I then persuaded myself that it may not have been. 5 years down the line I am now leaning back towards Nathaniel Lock. I suspect that the apparent difference between the cross and the corresponding part of the mark in Grimwade's illustration is probably down to the poor quality in the latter. John's original image of the mark is perhaps a little clearer:



Phil

[spobby]

Thanks so much for your input & tolerance guys.
Best regards
John
N.B. Phil.. I was tomnik on your wonderful site