www.925-1000.com

As I have probably said before, I have never paid much attention to most 19th C. French Silver. It is enough work learning 18th c. marks.
There are always exceptions, like ones from Strasbourg. I bought and kept these two T.TONNELIER beakers, mainly because they are the only French beakers I have had available that are really big enough for beer. Even some 17th c. French beakers I use, are just big enough for a 12 oz. beer. These will hold a little less and a little more than 16 oz. So anyway I have never really paid much attention to the marks. Both beakers have marks for 1819-38. the only curious item is the maker's mark on one is about twice the size of the one on the other. But that is not surprising as Tonnelier seemed to make every other early 19th c. beaker, so he had to have quite a few marks. What I don't understand is the extra marks. On the larger beaker (with the smaller maker's mark) there is a very, very small Minerva mark, but not the ones I know. First it is tiny, about the size of the boar's head mark. Second it is in a conforming cartouche. But everything else is there, the snake (or whatever) that goes down the side of the helmet, the feathers, etc. There is also a letter or a number on her cheek. It is very finely cut, but too small for the abilities of my camera. I presume it is some kind of official mark, added later, but not mentioned in Tardy. My main reason for guessing this is that the beaker was made before 1838, and there was no Minerva mark.
The second mark is on the smaller beaker at the rim. it is a lion with his mouth open in a conforming cartouche. it is on the other side of the grosse guarantie mark of Paris. It is about 3 times the size of the boar's head mark on the other side of guarantee mark. The presence of the boar's head mark is one of those inconsistencies that doesn't bother me. My guess is this lion mark is a house mark of the Tonnelier firm, perhaps a journeyman's mark. it is not the same quality, or fineness of the other odd Minerva mark. These photos are the best I can do.

Here is what I see in your photos:
The second or third maker’s mark for Théodore Tonnelier trading at 17 bis, rue Chapon in Paris, 1830 -1838 — TT on a vertical axis in a lozenge-shaped reserve separated by a feather with a ploughshare (soc de charrue) below. See Arminjon, V. 1. no. 03292, p. 321.

The Michelangelo head facing right in an octagonal reserve is the silver standard or assay mark (poinçon de titre) for Paris used from 1819-1838 for 950 silver.

A very rubbed 1819-1838 guarantee mark (poinçon de garantie) used to complement the Michelangelo. The guarantee mark was an administrative mark replacing the charge and discharge marks used in pre-Revolutionary times. The appearance of the guarantee mark was related to the weight of the object as the amount of tax charged was a function of the weight of the piece - either the Ceres head in an oval reserve for large objects or the Gorgon head mark in a circular reserve for medium-weight objects. The mark is too rubbed to be certain which.

The small Minerva (la petite Minerve) in use beginning in 1973 in accordance with EU standards, showing that your object was sold (at auction?) after that date. The letter on her cheek references the decade with A = 1973-1982, and so on.

What you call a lion’s head looks to me like an upside down giraffe head recount mark (poinçon de recense) for 1838. I do not believe that French journeymen had their own marks.

Hope this helps.

One and two I agree on, and knew.
In your third paragraph I think you transposed the circle and oval cartouche. Both beakers have the round Grosse guarantee mark shown on page 193 of Tardy.
I checked my edition of Tardy which is the 20th. And it makes no mention of "la petite Minerve" so I guess I was right it was a guarantee mark not shown in Tardy. I never knew of its existence so at least it was unknown to me. Nice to know, but in a few years I will think it is a centering punch as I doubt my eyes will recognize it much longer.
Finally, while I have seen the giraffe mark before, I was fairly sure this was not it, and was about to say so. Having turned the book and then the piece upside down, I think you are right. the mark is not long enough on my piece, but that can be because of a bad strike. Obviously Occam's razor says I must agree.
I would debate the journeymen remark, but for the present have no proof. So I agree for now.
Obviously post 1938 marks demand a strong loupe, and a bit of study.
Thanks,
Maurice

My pleasure.