www.925-1000.com

Hello!

I have a lovely bangle bracelet with a questionable hallmark. It looks like it may be from the year 1908 since there is no sovereign head, but the letter "i" just seems too ornate to be from this year. It almost looks like a letter "t", which would mean it is from the year 1893, however, the shield is square instead of oval. Also, I'm curious to know if anyone is familiar with a maker with the initials "RLK" or "R&K".

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/G ... 10468a.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/G ... 9e14d2.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/G ... 9ecfd5.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/G ... bc6bf7.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/G ... 69fca8.jpg

Oh crap! I just noticed it said NO silver-plate, jewelry or watches. >_<

Well, I'm not sure how to delete a post so....

Good morning,

A lovely piece but will need clear close ups of both set of marks. Do realize that it's even more of a challenge on a curved surface but do keep trying until you get the shots you need. May I suggest shooing in indirect day light without flash.

Good luck
Warren

Hmmm, this didn't work the first time I attempted to post. So, here I go again....

Hmmm, this didn't work the first time I attempted to post. Here I go again....

I think it is 1885 (date letter i) Birmingham assay office, not idea on the maker, sorry.

user701 wrote:I think it is 1885 (date letter i) Birmingham assay office, not idea on the maker, sorry.

Thank you so much for responding to my inquiry! However, according to this site, it seems a piece from 1885 would bear the letter "l" and the year 1883 would be represented with an "i". I apologize if I'm wrong.

Also, do you know if it's common for this type of jewelry not to have a duty mark?

I got the answer about the lack of a duty mark on another post. However, I'm still curious to know if anyone can help me figure out the maker.

Hi Roelsama,

Welcome to the Forum.

This particular series of date letters used by the Birmingham Assay Office is often the cause of debate. As they wear and flatten over the years, they distort and the result is often differing opinions. Me, I would go for 1885, but....I wouldn't rule out 1893 either.

http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_birmingham.html

The maker appears to be Rowland & Kibble of Manchester.

As for the duty mark, or the lack of it, just this week we have had the same query, see: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 15&t=38967

Trev.

Roelsama wrote:

user701 wrote:I think it is 1885 (date letter i) Birmingham assay office, not idea on the maker, sorry.

Thank you so much for responding to my inquiry! However, according to this site, it seems a piece from 1885 would bear the letter "l" and the year 1883 would be represented with an "i". I apologize if I'm wrong.

Sorry, that was a typo, I did mean to type l not i

dognose wrote:Hi Roelsama,

Welcome to the Forum.

This particular series of date letters used by the Birmingham Assay Office is often the cause of debate. As they wear and flatten over the years, they distort and the result is often differing opinions. Me, I would go for 1885, but....I wouldn't rule out 1893 either.

http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_birmingham.html

The maker appears to be Rowland & Kibble of Manchester.

As for the duty mark, or the lack of it, just this week we have had the same query, see: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 15&t=38967

Trev.

Thank you for taking the time to view my piece! My goal is to provide as much information as I can and to be as accurate as possible. Thank you for the link, however I have another question. How can a maker from Manchester use a mark from Birmingham? Do these two places share a common history? I will attempt to research Rowland & Kibble on my own, but please let me know if you can help me solve this mystery.

(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )

Thank you, once again for sharing your knowledge with me!!!

user701 wrote:

Roelsama wrote:

user701 wrote:I think it is 1885 (date letter i) Birmingham assay office, not idea on the maker, sorry.

Thank you so much for responding to my inquiry! However, according to this site, it seems a piece from 1885 would bear the letter "l" and the year 1883 would be represented with an "i". I apologize if I'm wrong.

Sorry, that was a typo, I did mean to type l not i

Aha! Well, thank you again. Looks like I have two votes for the year 1885!

The mark is that of the assay office. The location of the manufacturer has no bearing on their choice of assay office, an Aberdeen manufacturer may use the services of the London Assay Office, a Plymouth manufacturer may use the services of the Edinburgh Assay Office, the choice is theirs.

Trev.

Hi,
My money would be on an italic "i" making it 1883. We've learned this week Birmingham omitted the duty mark around that time so it could be possible. (Mine is "h" for 1882 without duty mark)
To me the width of the letter is too wide in relation to its length for a "l".
Just my very humble opinion though.
Unusual item anyway.. Nice :-)
Steve.

Thank you both for taking the time to enlighten me!