www.925-1000.com

Can anyone decipher these possibly Chinese hallmarks? Thanks! Nate.

Hi Nate

That's a Korean silver mark, in use from ca 1910s to 1950s. The mark literally says "silver" twice, side by side, once with the Chinese character and once with the Korean alphabet (Hangul).

The mark does not indicate any specific purity, but most likely it is no lower than 800 standard and perhaps much higher.

It's hard to say more without a photo of the entire item, but I would very much doubt it dates to the 1800s. I believe that Korean silver was unmarked before 1910.

Regards,

David R

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I actually work with both Korean and Chinese native speakers, so I did a survey today. My Korean colleague said that the words are Chinese, one meaning silver. My Chinese colleagues agreed it is Chinese, one word meaning silver and the other an archaic term for a purity guaranty provided by a specific organization like a central bank (I'm guessing assay office?). They told me this word is no longer used in Chinese and it fell out of favor "at least one hundred years ago". I think the jury may still be out on this one. It was purchased in a lot of silver, the rest American and dating around 1840.

An archaic purity mark with its meaning lost in antiquity, central banks guaranteeing teaspoons, unnamed assay offices somewhere in Asia. . . . these revelations and their sources are eye-opening and I cannot wait to hear more survey results.

No doubt the history of Asian silver hallmarking will need some vigorous revising.

Good luck with it,

DR

Not sure if that was meant to sound as snide as it came off but if so, know that I'm humbly here to learn and discuss. I am definitely an enthusiastic silver collector, but no expert at Asian silver. I don't see a lot of sources for information on Korean marking standards, especially prior to the more recent marking schemes of AG+number. Can you provide a source reference or another example of an identified piece that has this Chinese / Korean hallmark so that the less edified among us might benefit from your knowledge? I was able to locate one thread of another bright cut Korean teaspoon which you commented on some years ago with a less clear hallmark. Thanks again for helping me with the subject.

Your query was answered promptly and courteously.

Evidently, when the answer supplied did not support some fanciful expectations (“mid-1800s” . . . “possibly Chinese hallmarks”), you turned to a survey of “native speaker” colleagues from your workplace as the better source of information. If you already had such reliable linguistic and cultural resources at your fingertips, you might have posted those survey findings first.

Pardon me for saying so, but it seems more than a little curious that a native Korean would not recognize Hangul or know how Chinese characters have been used historically in Korea.

As my input comes off as “snide” to you, I will refrain from volunteering any more of my time and expertise to your queries. My apologies that I am unable to be of any real help to you.

Sounds good. Thanks in advance for your future restraint.

How fascinating to see that an identical spoon with the very same hallmark is being for sale on the internet.

The seller has identified it as "1925 Bright Cut Korean Spoon" hallmarked "in Korean and Chinese." It looks like the seller would agree with the information I have provided.

I never said you were wrong--just unkind.

Nor have you ever said that I was right, but I was--as you yourself inadvertently admitted by making use of the information I provided to flog online this pedestrian Korean spoon.

Your assumptions were wrong to begin with, and you were unable to admit as much even after making use of the information I provided. Now, some weeks later, you continue to resort to name-calling rather than humbly owning up and offering an apology.

If you do not like the manner of presentation of the information provided gratis on this Forum, then you should hire an appraiser to tell you whatever you want to hear in a format you deem suitably "kind."

Anyone who has followed this thread, or reads it in future, can draw their own conclusions about who is indeed unkind here, to say nothing of ungrateful and misinformed.