www.925-1000.com

Ask first - buy later! It is a wise advice, so I ask informations on this teapot, also because it is not sold at a scrap value.

Under the base there are three marks that indicate London 1751, I think, and the mark of the silversmith, unknown to me. In addition there are some written scratched.

However on the lid there is not the complete set of marks, but only a mark C. G, maybe a silversmith, but it's different
from the one on the base.

I'd like to get your views
Regards
Amena

Probably a Victorian piece with added mark of Richard Gurney & Thomas Cook, who worked together until 1773. Very suspicious if the lid and the body bear different and incomplete marks.
The handle was made later.
Regards.

Hi AG2012
Thanks for your response.
I'm wondering if by chance the little mark on the cover coul be the makers mark of the same company in a different form, as the initials of the two surnames are C and G.
In this case it would not be so suspicious
Regards
Amena

Two London mid 19th century silversmiths had the mark ``C dot G``.
I have had very few George II silver items in my hands to judge whether silversmiths had two different marks for e.g. teapot lids or castor tops, particularly partnership initials. It`s unlikely, though.
And without any additional mark on the lid.
I never buy when in doubt, instead of enjoying the new piece it becomes a nightmare.
Let`s hope someone might shed more light on the issue.
Kindest regards

I would imagine that the teapot is contemporary to the hallmarks on the base. However it would have been of quite plain form when it was made. The decoration would have been added in the Victorian era, which was probably when the lid was replaced, either due to the original being damaged or maybe the form of the original lid was unable to take the decoration the then owner wanted to add. The finial appears to be a cast example and as such may also be marked, possibly with a lion passant mark only, you may need to remove the finial to find any marks.

Martin

Right, many plain XVIII silver was chased and embossed by Victorians, although Rococo decoration was not uncommon during George II period. But the decoration was more sophisticated and not exaggerated.This teapot really looks Victorian to me.
Cannot understand ``leopard`s head crowned`` being so scratched almost beyond recognition in a well protected place under the rim.
Anyway, the decoration of the body and the lid should have common features (foliage, flower petals etc), if done by the same hand and repeated.
And again, lack of additional marks on the lid is very suspicious.Search for them, even on finial and its bolt.
Let`s see how the discussion develops.
Regards

I find no matching mark for 'C·G' registered at London during the Victorian period.

Trev.

The mark of Charles Gordon,mentioned in 1840, (Registered Dec 1828)
A similar mark registered by Christopher Gerock Oct 1831.
(Compared to the mark on the teapot lid, above, resized to match).

Regards

Amazing. It is exactly the same mark.
Now I must try to understand why there is no a complete set of marks.

The scratches to the Leopard's head crowned and indeed to a lesser extent the scratching on the other marks, appear to line up perfectly with the scratches to the base in general. This could possibly be due to some over zealous cleaning with inappropriate materials. As for the lid, AG2012 seems to have found a possible candidate, however the replacement lid may not have necessarily been assayed in London, but having said that I cannot suggest any likely candidates from any of the other assay offices.

Martin

Thanks to everyone for their contribution.
I've come up with a hypothesis. Suppose that the cover was smooth and regularly punched with the entire or partial set of (hall)marks. Mr Charles Gordon, chasing the lid to decorate it, has deleted the marks, but maybe it was not compulsory to bring the lid to the assay, as it was not replaced with a new product, but only modified. Perhaps it is nonsense, tell me your opinion please.
One other thing I'd like to know is how the engraving made in Victorian times has changed the value of the teapot.
It has remained the same, decreased or increased?
Regards
Amena

Too much to speculate about the lid mark and the lid itself.
Victorians have ruined both silver and older furniture with French polish.
Later chasing and embossing decrease the value (significantly).
Regards

I would not want to rule out the possibility of a greater fake with the 1751 marks taken from another damaged item and inserted to portray a late Victorian item as 18th century rococo.Do the scratches run right to the edge, i.e. do they look as if they were acquired before being inserted as a base plate?

In any event, as far as one can judge by photos alone, there are too many doubts to make this in any way desirable. It could even be illegal for sale in the UK.

Who cares? You should see traders and enthusiasts with torch lights at 5 AM at Bermondsey Antiques Market. It’s a break of dawn affair on Fridays, even in drizzling rain.
Regarding base plate, marks could be genuine, abrasive cleaning included. On the other hand, having in mind very suspicious lid mark and everything contradicting it being a genuine George II, if you ask me, I would save money for something beyond any doubt.(As you mentioned, it’s not being sold at scrap value).
Regards

I did not paid great attention to scratches under the base, but re-reading more carefully what was said by agphile, I realized that instead they could have it.
It is not possible that they were made by some over zealous cleaning with inappropriate materials, they are too deep. They seem filing signs.

Also in one point I think I see traces of soldering

What do you think of what you can see in these photos?
Regards
Amena

Many old pieces have those scratches (when cutting sheets of silver, hammering, filing etc.) and silversmiths did not care much to polish them, being out of sight. Besides, silver should be perfectly clean before soldering, and the best method to produce suitable surface for soldering is to file off all impurities and patina. Filing is necessary for better adherence of solder.
An example is given (base of a tea caddy).
In a word, scratches you show are normal for old handmade silver.
Completely different issue is the possibility of transposed base plate with old marks, but that`s impossible to tell; solder line is even and tidy (compare with my tea caddy where solder has spilled). If very poorly done, one might be suspicious, but the base plate is well soldered to the body.
Regards

I sent your comments to the owner of the teapot. Looking closer he found the lion passant inside the lid, on finial and its bolt.
But on the lid there are neither the city mark nor the date letter.

That means the lid is correctly marked if it was assayed with the teapot and if the teapot was also made by CG. The pot itself should have should have full marks with part marks only on the subsidiary pieces. As the pot shows a different maker, the lid must have been taken from another teapot or, more likely, the teapot's baseplate with its marks has been taken from another item.

We all seem to agree that the teapot's decoration looks Victorian and we know that the Victorians were fond of "improving" earlier pieces with their own decoration. However, there are reasons for doubting that this is a redecorated 18th century piece. The shape of the teapot is not what I would expect from 1751 (though plain teapots of this shape were being made around 25 years earlier so it cannot be ruled out that some buyers continued to want the shape). I am doubtful about how easy it would be to apply all this later decoration to a plain teapot. I am thinking particularly of the spout for example.
The scratches on the baseplate were done after the hallmarking and are apparently not seen elsewhere on the pot. I suspect they may be the result of preparing a piece of silver from another item before transposing it to the teapot.

My guess, therefore, is that this is a Victorian teapot reproducing the shape of an early 18th century teapot and decorated in a Victorian version of Rococo. At some stage it has acquired a baseplate that hides the original marks and pretends that the pot is actually mid 18th century. Whether or not this is the case, the mismatch of marks makes it a very dubious item however one tries to explain its history.

Well, It seems that no one has more to say. I just have to thank you all for your contributions that have been enormously helpful to me.
Regards
Amena