Re: BEAKER
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:14 am
Gold & Silver standards were introduced to protect the interest of the Crown & to benefit the economy (trade/commerce) of a country and in general those standards were interlinked to the accepted silver & gold coins which were used by the Crown and traders. City Mints were supervised by the Crown and City Authorities. If coins became of inferior standards this could mean the downfall of the Crown, those inferior coins or Copper Noses (today we call this QE or Quantity Easing), would not be accepted by merchants, mercenaries & soldiers and citizens could starve to death.
Responsibility marks like Privy marks on coins were introduced to protect the interest of the Crown (Authorities) & citizen. Silver & Gold coins could be used by the Crown & Nobility and the Church Authorities or the Rich; to be melted down by a silversmith and transformed into a silver object however in time of need those silver objects were sold back to the Mint. To prevent silversmiths to put some of the offered coins in there own pocket, instead of the melting pot and to add some more copper for compensation, hallmarks were introduced. The first responsible is the silversmith with his makers’ mark (responsibility mark); to identify the maker. To better prevent fraud by the silversmith and for better registration and to uphold certain quality, the city guild mark (city assay) has been introduced but even city assayers could be bribed and thus the date letter (responsibility mark) has been introduced to identify the assayer.
In the 17th century Amsterdam was the main town in the Northern Netherlands. The gold and silversmith guild was probably formed between 1570 and 1578, an exact founding date is unknown but it is known that since 1464, the gold and silversmiths had their own altar in the Old Church of Amsterdam. From the year 1469, the Amsterdam gold & silver master craftsmen were obliged to apply for a registered master’s mark (responsibility mark) and mark their work with their master’s mark before it could be assayed. City guild inspectors called Assay masters assayed the gold & silver work for the proper standard of fineness and approved it with the Amsterdam guild mark; consisting of three pole-wise placed Andreas crosses. Since 1502 the date letter, to identify which assay officer was on duty, has been introduced.
The province of Holland, initially a county, later the most important region of the Dutch Republic and since 1663, in the province of Holland and West Friesland, there had been a provincial ordinance on the testing of gold and silver.
The legal silver standard, of the highest silver content, or 1st standard in Dutch ‘Grote Keur’ was determined at; elf penningen en acht greinen (approx. 944/1000) and with a maximum tolerance of minus three grains (greinen) (approximately 10/1000) or minimum of 934/1000 fineness and the lowest standard or 2nd standard in Dutch ‘Kleine Keur’ at; tien penningen (833,333 / 1000) minimum.
The silver content of the highest or 1st standard was almost identical to the silver content of a silver coin called; the Silver Rider or Ducaton.
Within the montaire system the 2nd standard of silver or 'Kleine Keur' had no equivalent coin nomination .
Silverware of 1st standard was stamped with the province Coat of Arms of Holland; the lion rampant facing left in a crowned shield; that served as a fineness mark.
Control of the gold and silver content of processed gold and silver was carried out by the Assay Wardens of the local gold and silversmiths' guilds, which in turn were under the supervision of the Dean in Charge of the Province Mint Board. The weights & Scales used by the gold and silversmiths and their guilds were checked by the Mint.
Finally to answer your question: did the Dutch silversmiths stay close to their standards? My theory has always been that the standards were minimums and that a piece of Dutch silver might easily assay out at let us say .900 fines. And what would stop a client from asking for A goblet to be made in the French standard?
My answer, yes during the 17th century the Dutch silversmiths stay close to the city guild standard rules but remember city standards could vary.
For example the city of Maastricht, in the province of Limburg (Southern Netherlands), this guild used three standards; 1st standard 916,667/1000, 2nd standard 868/1000 and 3rd standard 795, 8/1000. Not surprisingly in history Maastricht has been occupied and ransacked by Spain and French troops of The Ancien Régime.
A French costumer could order in Amsterdam a goblet made of French coins 920/1000 fineness and it would be marked with 2nd standard or ‘kleine keur’of Amsterdam minimum 833.33 fineness but in Maastricht it would be marked 1st standard or ‘den groote keur’ of Maastricht minimum 916,66 fineness. At the other hand the French client could ask the Dutch silversmith not to send the goblet for assay; the client must trust the silversmith, not to put some French coins in his own pocket and instead to add some more copper, to make the goblet with no hallmarks and/or makers' mark only.
Although a lot of the history of the city guilds has been destroyed, we can read in some books letters of complains written by the Authorities & silversmiths, to complain about their guild or other city guilds for not upholding the rules, selling silver below standard, unfair competition and so on. City guilds could be corrupt, lead by tradition and birthright, outsiders were kept out by ridiculous high first fees to register there own mark. Foreign silversmiths (refugees) were used as slaves and their work was punched with the mark of their Master only.
The advantage of seeing more hallmarks and not maker’s mark only is when we have doubt about the authenticity of an item; we are able to compare more marks especially if the marks are spread over the item.
In the early 20th century some silversmiths took damaged / destroyed old silver items with clear recognizable guild marks, took the silver bottom part with the guild marks and (re)build it into a ‘authentic’ looking item, for example:
From Valse Zilvermerken in Nederland K.A. Citroen page 79
Objects were recognized to be fake; odd height/weight/wrong scenes/wrong marks/ shape/material/solder.
Oel.
Responsibility marks like Privy marks on coins were introduced to protect the interest of the Crown (Authorities) & citizen. Silver & Gold coins could be used by the Crown & Nobility and the Church Authorities or the Rich; to be melted down by a silversmith and transformed into a silver object however in time of need those silver objects were sold back to the Mint. To prevent silversmiths to put some of the offered coins in there own pocket, instead of the melting pot and to add some more copper for compensation, hallmarks were introduced. The first responsible is the silversmith with his makers’ mark (responsibility mark); to identify the maker. To better prevent fraud by the silversmith and for better registration and to uphold certain quality, the city guild mark (city assay) has been introduced but even city assayers could be bribed and thus the date letter (responsibility mark) has been introduced to identify the assayer.
In the 17th century Amsterdam was the main town in the Northern Netherlands. The gold and silversmith guild was probably formed between 1570 and 1578, an exact founding date is unknown but it is known that since 1464, the gold and silversmiths had their own altar in the Old Church of Amsterdam. From the year 1469, the Amsterdam gold & silver master craftsmen were obliged to apply for a registered master’s mark (responsibility mark) and mark their work with their master’s mark before it could be assayed. City guild inspectors called Assay masters assayed the gold & silver work for the proper standard of fineness and approved it with the Amsterdam guild mark; consisting of three pole-wise placed Andreas crosses. Since 1502 the date letter, to identify which assay officer was on duty, has been introduced.
The province of Holland, initially a county, later the most important region of the Dutch Republic and since 1663, in the province of Holland and West Friesland, there had been a provincial ordinance on the testing of gold and silver.
The legal silver standard, of the highest silver content, or 1st standard in Dutch ‘Grote Keur’ was determined at; elf penningen en acht greinen (approx. 944/1000) and with a maximum tolerance of minus three grains (greinen) (approximately 10/1000) or minimum of 934/1000 fineness and the lowest standard or 2nd standard in Dutch ‘Kleine Keur’ at; tien penningen (833,333 / 1000) minimum.
The silver content of the highest or 1st standard was almost identical to the silver content of a silver coin called; the Silver Rider or Ducaton.
Within the montaire system the 2nd standard of silver or 'Kleine Keur' had no equivalent coin nomination .
Silverware of 1st standard was stamped with the province Coat of Arms of Holland; the lion rampant facing left in a crowned shield; that served as a fineness mark.
Control of the gold and silver content of processed gold and silver was carried out by the Assay Wardens of the local gold and silversmiths' guilds, which in turn were under the supervision of the Dean in Charge of the Province Mint Board. The weights & Scales used by the gold and silversmiths and their guilds were checked by the Mint.
Finally to answer your question: did the Dutch silversmiths stay close to their standards? My theory has always been that the standards were minimums and that a piece of Dutch silver might easily assay out at let us say .900 fines. And what would stop a client from asking for A goblet to be made in the French standard?
My answer, yes during the 17th century the Dutch silversmiths stay close to the city guild standard rules but remember city standards could vary.
For example the city of Maastricht, in the province of Limburg (Southern Netherlands), this guild used three standards; 1st standard 916,667/1000, 2nd standard 868/1000 and 3rd standard 795, 8/1000. Not surprisingly in history Maastricht has been occupied and ransacked by Spain and French troops of The Ancien Régime.
A French costumer could order in Amsterdam a goblet made of French coins 920/1000 fineness and it would be marked with 2nd standard or ‘kleine keur’of Amsterdam minimum 833.33 fineness but in Maastricht it would be marked 1st standard or ‘den groote keur’ of Maastricht minimum 916,66 fineness. At the other hand the French client could ask the Dutch silversmith not to send the goblet for assay; the client must trust the silversmith, not to put some French coins in his own pocket and instead to add some more copper, to make the goblet with no hallmarks and/or makers' mark only.
Although a lot of the history of the city guilds has been destroyed, we can read in some books letters of complains written by the Authorities & silversmiths, to complain about their guild or other city guilds for not upholding the rules, selling silver below standard, unfair competition and so on. City guilds could be corrupt, lead by tradition and birthright, outsiders were kept out by ridiculous high first fees to register there own mark. Foreign silversmiths (refugees) were used as slaves and their work was punched with the mark of their Master only.
The advantage of seeing more hallmarks and not maker’s mark only is when we have doubt about the authenticity of an item; we are able to compare more marks especially if the marks are spread over the item.
In the early 20th century some silversmiths took damaged / destroyed old silver items with clear recognizable guild marks, took the silver bottom part with the guild marks and (re)build it into a ‘authentic’ looking item, for example:
From Valse Zilvermerken in Nederland K.A. Citroen page 79
Objects were recognized to be fake; odd height/weight/wrong scenes/wrong marks/ shape/material/solder.
Oel.