Unknown Gold Mark Identification

[SoulsOfWolves]

I recently got this gold ring, but there's one mark on it that I can't seem to figure out, so any help would be appreciated.
It has the Birmingham assay stamp, the crown and 18 stamps for gold, and it also has the circular "m" stamp that indicates it was made in 1886 (not in the photos). For whatever reason, that's near the top of the ring. However, it also has this other stamp, and I can't seem to figure out what it is. Was it a mistake? It almost looks like half of a stamp, but I don't understand how something like that happens. I looks like it could be half of an "m" stamp or maybe an "r." I suppose it could also be a maker's mark, but there's already one of those to the very left. It actually looks like it was gouged to me or something, but even if it was supposed to be a date mark, the outline doesn't seem match the corresponding dates for the "m" or "r" letters (e.g., it's not an oval for the "m"). I also don't think the ring was ever resized because there is no evidence of a seam whatsoever, and I don't know why they'd ever cut it at an angle like that if it was. Anyway, I think I've made this post long enough. I'd just like to know what others think. The first photo is of the mark, and the second photo has some other marks. I tried to make them as good of quality as I could, but they are extremely small.

[SoulsOfWolves]

You know, now that I've very closely observed it, I think it may have actually been resized in the past. I still don't know why they'd do it at such an angle, but that's the only thing I can think of. When I was looking very closely at the area where the stamp is, I noticed that there was one part on the outside of the ring that looked more green, so I think that must have been the solder point. I didn't attach a photo of it because it's such a subtle transition. I could barely even see the color change, and I'm young and nearsighted, so I doubt my camera could have captured it. The bottom of the shank also seems to pinch in a small bit, like some metal was removed so only the smaller ends were reconnected.
I also found out after doing some more research that there were two date letter stamps for 1886, and the second one matches the shape of the cut off stamp. Lastly, the date letter stamp that's visible on the ring has a shinier "m" than the symbols in the other stamps, and it doesn't appear to have gone as deep. This leads me to believe that the ring was resized at one point, and they damaged the original date stamp, so they redid it further up the shank. Does that seem right?

The two date stamps for 1886.


The (probably replacement) stamp on my ring.

[silvermakersmarks]

Resizing seems the best explanation for the partial date letter, but I am at a loss to explain why there could be a second date letter. Once a piece is hallmarked by the assay office there is no real reason for it to be re-submitted, even after re-sizing, and especially not in the same assay year. The date letters which you illustrate are for silver, the oval punch being for duty-paid items and the squarer one for undutied items; gold marks are not necessarily the same, although in this case we seem to see both shapes - a bit of a mystery.

Phil

[SoulsOfWolves]

Hm. I don't live in the UK, so I didn't know that they don't usually re-stamp them. Is it something that the jeweler who probably resized it could have done? Date marks weren't compulsory when it was made after all.
I don't know. It's just weird to me. It's the first item I've bought from England, so I'd never seen the hallmarks before buying it, and now seeing 1.5 date marks is just a bit weird, and I'd like to know how it probably happened is all. Although, if it stays a mystery, then that's kind of cool too. It makes it more unique I suppose.
Oh, and It's most definitely gold. If I'm understanding this right though, the original cut-off date letter seems to be the one for gold since it's the square with cut corners, but the current one it has in the oval is for silver? Is that right?

[silvermakersmarks]

A jeweller would not have had access to the assay office punches to add an additional date letter. In addition those date letter punches were (allegedly, at least) destroyed at the end of every assay year so it would have to have been done not too long after the original assay; I would think that resizing would normally only be necessary some years after the original purchase when finger sizes had changed or after an ownership change.

You are correct to say that the rectangular cut-corner date letter is the normal one for gold for that period. The oval punch would have been for silver for which duty was paid.

The only possible explanation that I can come up with is that it is an assay office marking error.

[SoulsOfWolves]

That's interesting. Well, at least now I have a probable answer. Thank you! I'll never know exactly how it came to be that way, but it's here, so I guess that's that.

[dognose]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, please could you post an image of the maker's mark?

Trev.

[SoulsOfWolves]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, please could you post an image of the maker's mark?

Trev.

I'll be able to do it in a bit. For now though, it says "M&M."

[SoulsOfWolves]

Here's the maker's mark. It's like the candy lol.


And here is a pretty terrible quality photo of most of the hallmarks. This way you can see how they were laid out.

[AG2012]

I do not see any line of resizing and soldering. What if date letter was just badly punched (applied) and the assayer decided to apply date letter in another place away from other marks ?

[dognose]

Hi,

Thanks for posting the extra images. The maker appears to be Manton & Mole of Warstone Lane, Birmingham.

AG2012 makes an interesting observation. The ring would have sent to assay as a flat strip, and the stamper would have struck the marks using a fly-press and stub (the individual punches contained in the stub and struck with one swing of the fly-press). If a punch broke during the marking operation, as happens, then little could be done by the stamper to correct the original mark and it would make sense to add an additional single mark to replace to damaged one rather than strike another complete set of marks. The striking of marks always damages the item a little and another full set may not have been possible due to space available considering where the flat strip would be joined to make the ring.. I don't recall seeing this before but I think AG2012 may have provided the answer.

Trev.

[SoulsOfWolves]

Do they use steel stamps? I actually thought that maybe it was a broken stamp first just because if it was resized, then they left basically 0 evidence of it. However, I couldn't understand why they'd use a broken stamp, but if it broke in the machine without the operator knowing, then I guess that would explain it. I originally thought that though because of the right of the stamp, where it would have been broken, looks more rough than the other areas. I'm not sure how to describe it, but do you know how it looks when something like wrought iron is broken? It's kind of rough, like sandpaper. I'd imagine steel probably does the same thing, and that could explain why the right half looks much rougher than the other parts. I'll attach a photo of what I mean to explain it better.

[SoulsOfWolves]

This part of the stamp kind of looks like it has that texture.

[dognose]

Yes, the punches are made of steel and have a tendency to crack and pieces flake off. A punch may last years, or break on first use.

Trev.