Teapot with tremolierstrich

[dolpheus]

Dear colleagues,
i again have some questions to You. This massive teapot i have obtained as alpaca. But, due to tremolierstrich (manufacture details - small metal imperfections - conform with this period) and due to absence of base metal spots (off wiped silver), i thing it is massive silver. So, i scratch bottom border (see foto, 0,5-1 mm) and make chemical chromic acid testing (i am a chemist). This test confirm my opinion, it is massive silver.
I thing, marks can be old Germany, but this mark (crowned P ower two unidentified items) i can not find anywhere. Interesting is, for Penzlin in Mecklenburg-Schwerin i find mark P in a square and maker mark IFG Johann Friedrich Theodor Gotthardt. So my crowned P can be some variant of Penzlin mark? Or, it is only random.
My questions are:
It is, by virtue of marks, really solid silver? Anyone know these marks? Anyone can identify maker (IFG or possibly IEG)? What is presumable creation time (period)? And, finally, what style this is? classicism, rococo, or ..?
Very great thanks for every comments,
yours sincerely
M.

************
****************

[Theoderich]

interesting

there is a mark of Penzlin
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... ht=penzlin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dolpheus]

Many thanks, Theoderich.
from your topic: "...Scheffler also mentions a "Crowned P" #501) on a church silver piece by Michael engraved 1813..."
This could be possibly mark on my item? Someone has picture of this #501 "Crowned P" mark? If yes, it is great.
But, why was my topic moved to Other countries, Penzlin is in Germany, not?

[dognose]

Hi,

Nice find. Different crown, but I guess this is your man.



Oporto, Portugal.

Trev.

[Theoderich]

oh yes of course
it seemed so familiar yet equally

thank You dognose

[dolpheus]

dognose : Thank you very much, it is wonderfull.
This mark for Oporto in Portugal was in use only between years 1810-1818, its OK? And, i have readed (Divis: Markenzeichen auf Silber, 1976) that Portugalese city mark (before 1881) is garancy for silver purity 958/1000, this is true?
Thank you, yours sincerely
M.

[dognose]

Hi,

Yes, as I understand it, that was the standard in Portugal at that time, as quoted from Tardy.

Trev.

[silverport]

Hello

Yes, it is Porto mark: Assayer Alexandre Pinto da Cruz — in use first quarter of XIX century (mark-nr. 2395, p. 249).

»IFG« = name unknown (maker’s mark 1160, p.110) — 1810-1818 (very brief explanation on this case, p. 332)
»IFG« = probable other silversmith, with same mark — Porto mark 1843-1853 (mark-nr. 98, p. 11)
»IFG« = probable other silversmith, with same mark — Porto mark after 1853 (mark-nr. 100, p. 11)

Mr. Divis and Mr. Tardy report, that before 1886 the fineness standard in Portugal was 958-1,000 I couldn’t confirm in a brief study. In literature I’ve from the National Mint, is explained also for the time from XV century until 1886 the »dinheiro« system of:

12 dinheiro = 1,000
11 dinheiro = 916-1,000 = First Standard (1887 = I)
10 dinheiro = 833-1,000 = Second Standard (1887 = II)
9 dinheiro = 750-1,000

958-1000 is 11 ½ dinheiro; but as general standard of fineness?

In this special time after 1800 must be hold in mind the Napoleonic wars and the costs of occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. I guess for that reason that these items aren’t made from silver of 958-1,000 fineness.

Source: «Marcas de Contrastes e Ourives Portugueses» ISBN 972-27-0773-6. Vol. I (XV century — 1887). Reprint 3rd ed. 1997, Lisbon.

Kind regards silverport

[dognose]

Message from Silverport:

Mark IFG (# 1060, p. 110) Name is actually unknown by me

Hello dolpheus

Also if you like it, I couldn't confirm these attributions of others.

Reason: Many attributions of to be maker of that silverware I've seen in internet weren't correct - for that reason I don't trust in finds of attributions; except I've seen the correct marks ...

But also my experiences with Auction houses aren't so, that I would trust in their attributions. Because nearly all Auction houses of the globe don't make basic research. As I must do, their research is based on published registers and guides.

In Portugal is the almost sounded guide therefore that one of the National Mint of Lisbon. All the others I've seen until yet are copies; or self copies from copies - see e.g. Divis or Tardy.

After this it's up to you what you like - ask them to sound their attributions. If their attributions are based on «Marcas de Contrastes e Ourives Portugueses» ISBN 972-27-0773-6. Vol. I (XV century - 1887). Reprint 3rd ed. 1997, Lisbon. Then I could state already now, that their attributions are being wrong!

1.) A first silversmith with »Guimarães« as part of his family name is mentioned in Braga in 1763 (# 2130, p. 217) with a single V as mark of a goldsmith's companionship (Boaventura José Rodrigues e [&] João Marcos de Freitas Guimarães).

2.) In Guimarães itself is only one 1768 registered with »Guimarães« as family name (# 2168, p. 221) with a kind of single F with an upper dot as mark (João Francisco Guimarães).

3.) In Guimarães itself is an other one 1786 registered with possibly »Guimarães« as family name (# 2164, p. 221) with a kind of single D with an upper dot as mark (João Francisco [Guimarães?]).

4.) Then the next ones with »Guimarães« as part of their family name come up in Porto in 1852 (# 979, p. 102) with a single G as mark (José António de Oliveira de Guimarães).

5.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1858 (# 758, p. 126) with BACG, and another (# 805, p. 84) with CG as mark (Bento Augusto da Costa Guimarães).

6.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1859 and 1860 (# 1222, p. 80) with JG as mark; in a companionship (Joaquim Maria Gonçalves e [&] Joaquim Marques de Oliveira Guimarães). Maybe familiar relations to 9.) ?

7.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1865 and 1866 (# 616, p. 65) with AG as mark; in a companionship (António José Leite Guedes e [&] António José de Araújo Guimarães).

8.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1866 (# 617, p. 66) with A.G.es as mark; separate from his former mentioned companionship (António José de Araújo Guimarães).

9.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1875 (# 1259, p. 130) with JMOG as mark (José Marques de Oliveira Guimarães). Maybe familiar relations to 6.) ?

10.) Next one with »Guimarães« as part of his family name in Porto in 1879 (# 871, p. 91) with DPFG as mark (Daniel Pereira da Fonseca Guimarães). Here with you could see that there is a time gap between Guimarães town 1768 (maybe also possibly 1786) and Porto town 1852 (then after 1858 until 1879). Well, these dates indicate only year of mark's registration - not, how long these marks were in use for their products. As already mentioned: Mark IFG (# 1060, p. 110) Name is actually unknown by me.

Kind regards silverport