Thank you in advance for any information you can offer
unknown mark...USA, australian, german or lithuanian?
unknown mark...USA, australian, german or lithuanian?
Hello I recently pulled this ring back out to wear and noticed some makers mark on it that I have not been able to trace. thought I would post since you all seem to be very knowledgeable.
Thank you in advance for any information you can offer
Thank you in advance for any information you can offer
-
silverport
- contributor
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:18 pm
- Location: Portugal
4 clover leaf = Emil Baumgart, Gera (Reuss), Germany
Hello
Maker's mark (left side in your photo) is that of Ring factory of Emil Baumgart, in Gera (Reuss); before WWI capital of Principality »Reuss«, in the Middle Eastern part of Germany; now reunited.
800 is the fineness.
The third (right hand) mark I couldn't identify.
Kind regards silverport
Maker's mark (left side in your photo) is that of Ring factory of Emil Baumgart, in Gera (Reuss); before WWI capital of Principality »Reuss«, in the Middle Eastern part of Germany; now reunited.
800 is the fineness.
The third (right hand) mark I couldn't identify.
Kind regards silverport
-
silverport
- contributor
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:18 pm
- Location: Portugal
4 clover leaf = Emil Baumgart, Gera (Reuss), Germany
Hello all
That’s an already well known fact — and I hope that that would be changed as soon as possible:
Detailed marks, often well visible to the owner and questionnaire — remain nearly invisible in the photos, added to the questions!
Reason of this phenomenon: It’s maybe hope that all »925-1000« contributors be clairvoyants? It’s maybe ignorance of visible facts? It’s maybe lack of hasn’t studied before the own item? It’s maybe lack of …?
Contributors study often more possibilities of pro and contra, as they ever describe in their guess, result or statement.
It’s also a well known fact, that contributors by their risen knowledge sometimes could set their »limelight on the spot« - that is a lucky moment for questionnaires, and for the engaged contributors as well.
As already mentioned, by lack of visible facts — it’s often difficult to could give in the first attempt already a well sounded and reliable answer.
And it is not seldom that, by request later on given additional information’s, which were already existent before, but not given, change some part of the output.
A kind of rule is: Input = Output — it’s miraculous: In »925-1000«, questionnaires get often much more Output as ever their Input was.
In this case, the third mark has remained for me “invisible” in her contents — also after have enlarged on the screen by 400 %. A cartouche, shaped by 6-corners, isn’t seldom world wide — and if that is a hexagon, there are multiple examples there fore as well.
Because there is struck an 800 — and Austrian-Hungary Assayers behaviour is another; so I hadn’t to study them as main solution for a reliable answer.
From 1867 on, Austrian-Hungary Assayers marked imports by a kind of oblong octagon — that’s form of cartouche was necessary to be changed by getting space for Assay-Office indication by an integrated capital letter in 1872; there fore the oblong octagon became an oblong hexagon, until 1902.
This Austrian-Hungary Assayers import-mark, in an oblong hexagon, could be that third mark in question? By form of cartouche — my clairvoyant’s instinct fails there for, to could “see” more. Also by my typographical knowledge I couldn’t interpret any of the pixels inside of cartouches frame to be, for sure, this, or this, or that!
But, because here are well visible maker’s mark, and indication of fineness — I’ve studied in my main attempt such »clover leaf marks«.
For luck there don’t existing so much as »Eagles« or »Lions« - I had only to divide between »3 leaves« and »4 leaves«.
By close more and more the roundup — it was necessary to look on details; e.g. the petioles. Here it is a straight one — and not a curved or bent petiole.
Again, this has had for result to could also narrow more and more the roundup — there remained only one: Emil Baumgart, Ring factory!
Alexander Sturm — why not? In short: His company is a flatware and hollowware producer; the same as the company of his father-in-law, Vincenz Carl Dub.
Is the oblong hexagonal mark on the ring the Austrian-Hungary Assayers import-mark? Then it’s not A. Sturm’s mark — because also his additional specialities, e.g. cigarette cases aren’t rings.
I haven’t found until yet any time frame of Emil Baumgart — so I couldn’t say when the ring was produced. But it’s clear as well, after 1 January 1888 — crescent and crown weren’t necessary to be struck also, if there was lack of space, like here.
If we hold in mind some of these basics, and could state, that the oblong hexagon mark is an Austria-Hungary import-mark, than could be narrowed the time frame between 1888 and 1902 = now more then 100 year ago.
Just I saw, that here is being some differences of details and time frame between the reliable publication of Waltraud Neuwirth, and e.g. Tardy.
I request swrlygrl to add a clear photo with visible details of this oblong hexagon mark — or at least, to describe their visible contents; for example please look here: http://www.925-1000.com/Faustria_02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards silverport
That’s an already well known fact — and I hope that that would be changed as soon as possible:
Detailed marks, often well visible to the owner and questionnaire — remain nearly invisible in the photos, added to the questions!
Reason of this phenomenon: It’s maybe hope that all »925-1000« contributors be clairvoyants? It’s maybe ignorance of visible facts? It’s maybe lack of hasn’t studied before the own item? It’s maybe lack of …?
Contributors study often more possibilities of pro and contra, as they ever describe in their guess, result or statement.
It’s also a well known fact, that contributors by their risen knowledge sometimes could set their »limelight on the spot« - that is a lucky moment for questionnaires, and for the engaged contributors as well.
As already mentioned, by lack of visible facts — it’s often difficult to could give in the first attempt already a well sounded and reliable answer.
And it is not seldom that, by request later on given additional information’s, which were already existent before, but not given, change some part of the output.
A kind of rule is: Input = Output — it’s miraculous: In »925-1000«, questionnaires get often much more Output as ever their Input was.
In this case, the third mark has remained for me “invisible” in her contents — also after have enlarged on the screen by 400 %. A cartouche, shaped by 6-corners, isn’t seldom world wide — and if that is a hexagon, there are multiple examples there fore as well.
Because there is struck an 800 — and Austrian-Hungary Assayers behaviour is another; so I hadn’t to study them as main solution for a reliable answer.
From 1867 on, Austrian-Hungary Assayers marked imports by a kind of oblong octagon — that’s form of cartouche was necessary to be changed by getting space for Assay-Office indication by an integrated capital letter in 1872; there fore the oblong octagon became an oblong hexagon, until 1902.
This Austrian-Hungary Assayers import-mark, in an oblong hexagon, could be that third mark in question? By form of cartouche — my clairvoyant’s instinct fails there for, to could “see” more. Also by my typographical knowledge I couldn’t interpret any of the pixels inside of cartouches frame to be, for sure, this, or this, or that!
But, because here are well visible maker’s mark, and indication of fineness — I’ve studied in my main attempt such »clover leaf marks«.
For luck there don’t existing so much as »Eagles« or »Lions« - I had only to divide between »3 leaves« and »4 leaves«.
By close more and more the roundup — it was necessary to look on details; e.g. the petioles. Here it is a straight one — and not a curved or bent petiole.
Again, this has had for result to could also narrow more and more the roundup — there remained only one: Emil Baumgart, Ring factory!
Alexander Sturm — why not? In short: His company is a flatware and hollowware producer; the same as the company of his father-in-law, Vincenz Carl Dub.
Is the oblong hexagonal mark on the ring the Austrian-Hungary Assayers import-mark? Then it’s not A. Sturm’s mark — because also his additional specialities, e.g. cigarette cases aren’t rings.
I haven’t found until yet any time frame of Emil Baumgart — so I couldn’t say when the ring was produced. But it’s clear as well, after 1 January 1888 — crescent and crown weren’t necessary to be struck also, if there was lack of space, like here.
If we hold in mind some of these basics, and could state, that the oblong hexagon mark is an Austria-Hungary import-mark, than could be narrowed the time frame between 1888 and 1902 = now more then 100 year ago.
Just I saw, that here is being some differences of details and time frame between the reliable publication of Waltraud Neuwirth, and e.g. Tardy.
I request swrlygrl to add a clear photo with visible details of this oblong hexagon mark — or at least, to describe their visible contents; for example please look here: http://www.925-1000.com/Faustria_02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards silverport