Who is the Italian maker numbered 746V?
Italian maker
Italian maker
HI
Who is the Italian maker numbered 746V?
Who is the Italian maker numbered 746V?
Re: Italian maker
Hi,
La Pagoda in Vicenza (VI)
See here:
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27003&p=85878&hilit=746+VI#p85878
Regards
La Pagoda in Vicenza (VI)
See here:
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27003&p=85878&hilit=746+VI#p85878
Regards
Re: Italian maker
Thank you. This was probably bought in the 70's.
Re: Italian maker
Hi,
There is a minor controversy here:
They are founded 1974, so one would expect the mark with a star and different cartouche used after 1968 (1970). See here:
https://www.925-1000.com/Fitalian_marks_01.html
But your mark is obviously of older type (changed to new marks with a star according to legislation 1968 and 1970).
Regards
There is a minor controversy here:
They are founded 1974, so one would expect the mark with a star and different cartouche used after 1968 (1970). See here:
https://www.925-1000.com/Fitalian_marks_01.html
But your mark is obviously of older type (changed to new marks with a star according to legislation 1968 and 1970).
Regards
Re: Italian maker
My guess would be that there is not too much of a mystery here.
I believe the start of the roll-out of the new punches took place in the early years of the 1970's. Although the law requiring the new format of the registration mark was enacted in 1968, it took several years before the whole process completed its course and no doubt the old-style punches were still issued for a period of time.
We have seen on the forum examples of where the use of the old-style punch was still continued to be used by some firms for some years following the change. This may not have been correct, but as the mark is stuck by the manufacturer and the items not passing through an assay office, then I think little was done to prevent it.
Trev.
I believe the start of the roll-out of the new punches took place in the early years of the 1970's. Although the law requiring the new format of the registration mark was enacted in 1968, it took several years before the whole process completed its course and no doubt the old-style punches were still issued for a period of time.
We have seen on the forum examples of where the use of the old-style punch was still continued to be used by some firms for some years following the change. This may not have been correct, but as the mark is stuck by the manufacturer and the items not passing through an assay office, then I think little was done to prevent it.
Trev.
Re: Italian maker
Hi,
Trev is right.This is not purely academic; remember this when discussing e.g. lack of pellets (dots), or a couple of years gaps (particularly with insufficient relevant data).
We often tend to exaggerate and overestimate legislation in regard of marking of precious metals (not only in this particular case, but elsewhere, too). Like they always played by the rules and behaved by the book, and if not, they were severely punished and sent to Siberia or to medieval dungeons for the slightest deviation of marks we discuss. Far from that, even today there is widespread tax evasion and fraudulent behavior, and let alone centuries ago when almost entire European population deserved to be imprisoned (according to our contemporary standards).
Regards
Trev is right.This is not purely academic; remember this when discussing e.g. lack of pellets (dots), or a couple of years gaps (particularly with insufficient relevant data).
We often tend to exaggerate and overestimate legislation in regard of marking of precious metals (not only in this particular case, but elsewhere, too). Like they always played by the rules and behaved by the book, and if not, they were severely punished and sent to Siberia or to medieval dungeons for the slightest deviation of marks we discuss. Far from that, even today there is widespread tax evasion and fraudulent behavior, and let alone centuries ago when almost entire European population deserved to be imprisoned (according to our contemporary standards).
Regards
Re: Italian maker
I’m a little puzzled about the date myself. The law changing the marks was passed on 30 Jan 1968, but would not go in to effect until it was approved by the full legislature and published in the Official Gazette. It was approved on 30 Dec 1970 and officially published on 17 Aug 1971. The legistlation provided that makers who had marks registered since 1934 then had sixty days – i.e., until 16 Oct 1971 – to request new punches. Until the new punches were provided, manufacturers could continue to use their old punches.
An existing company at the time might conceivably have had to wait three years for the new punches (insert wisecrack about Italian efficiency here). But as the company wasn’t even founded until 1974 (and the registration number 746 in Vicenza does appear to coincide with that date) the problem is that they would never have even had an old-style punch in the first place; only new ones were issued after 17 Aug 1971.
So it is pretty odd.
An existing company at the time might conceivably have had to wait three years for the new punches (insert wisecrack about Italian efficiency here). But as the company wasn’t even founded until 1974 (and the registration number 746 in Vicenza does appear to coincide with that date) the problem is that they would never have even had an old-style punch in the first place; only new ones were issued after 17 Aug 1971.
So it is pretty odd.
Re: Italian maker
Blackstone is right, but I would have no doubts about the dates. The 800 mark, in fact, is inscribed in an oval that has the dimensions provided by the official gazette of 17/8/1971.
It should be noted that at the time of the entry into force of the application regulation, the Mint was faced with an enormous commitment : to replace the old punches it had to produce more than 2800 molds each of which could be requested in 4 different sizes,. In addition, he had to manufacture the mold for new companies. There have been enormous delays. Probably Mr. Loro did not want to wait for the delivery of his molds and made an old-fashioned temporary punch for himself. Maybe not entirely legal, but understandable.
Just my opinion.
Amena
It should be noted that at the time of the entry into force of the application regulation, the Mint was faced with an enormous commitment : to replace the old punches it had to produce more than 2800 molds each of which could be requested in 4 different sizes,. In addition, he had to manufacture the mold for new companies. There have been enormous delays. Probably Mr. Loro did not want to wait for the delivery of his molds and made an old-fashioned temporary punch for himself. Maybe not entirely legal, but understandable.
Just my opinion.
Amena