I wondered if anyone could help or advise
I have a pair of scottish sgian dubhs - one I believe to be decorated with brass, the other silver.
The silver hall mark shows a thistle, a castle, a lower case b and the makers mark of Marshall & Aitken Edinburgh. I have been told that the year could possibly be 1883, but this year should also carry a Queens head as part of the mark.
Can anyone shed any light on this for me please :)
Thank you
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6623 ... 165245.jpg
Sgian Dubh hall mark help
-
silvermakersmarks
- co-admin
- Posts: 1817
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:22 am
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Sgian Dubh hall mark help
I think it's 1901 so no duty would have been payable. The "b" and "v" are easily confused.
Re: Sgian Dubh hall mark help
Just to update my post, I contacted the Assay Office in Edinburgh, who have confirmed that the date is definitely 1883, and the reason the Queens head is missing is because the weight of the Silver would have been too light to pay tax.
Re: Sgian Dubh hall mark help
Hi Suzy,
Thanks for taking the time to update this topic with your findings.
Having studied the mark, I can't call it with any degree of certainty one way or the other, it requires some form of some back up evidence, such as the years of use of that Marshall & Aitkin mark.
The EAO's reason for the lack of a Duty mark, if it was 1883, may not be strictly correct. If the weight of the item is under the required weight for compulsory hallmarking, then the item has been sent voluntarily and is still subject to the Duty payment, however that does not appear to be the reason for a lack of the Duty mark, as you will see if you read this topic: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 32&p=26593
I'm not saying I believe anyone is right or wrong at the moment, just asking you to keep an open mind.
Trev.
Thanks for taking the time to update this topic with your findings.
Having studied the mark, I can't call it with any degree of certainty one way or the other, it requires some form of some back up evidence, such as the years of use of that Marshall & Aitkin mark.
The EAO's reason for the lack of a Duty mark, if it was 1883, may not be strictly correct. If the weight of the item is under the required weight for compulsory hallmarking, then the item has been sent voluntarily and is still subject to the Duty payment, however that does not appear to be the reason for a lack of the Duty mark, as you will see if you read this topic: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 32&p=26593
I'm not saying I believe anyone is right or wrong at the moment, just asking you to keep an open mind.
Trev.