www.925-1000.com

Round 2? (I thought I posted this general question a couple of days ago, but it appears to have disappeared into the ether without a bubble.)

Scottish provincial town marked pieces are keenly collected by a number of silver devotees. But a few of the small town silversmiths had some of their work hallmarked in Edinburgh or Glasgow, such as the apparently prolific Wm. Hannay of Paisley, who utilized both major hallmarks at times. So would a piece with a major city hallmark have less value than a similar piece with the small town mark and, if so, by what percentage as a rule of thumb?

I suspect that your previous post was deleted by one of my colleagues as the discussion of value in any form, specific or relative, contravenes forum rules.

Phil

Thank you for your elucidation. I had interpreted forum rules to imply requests for a dollar value on a specific item were forbidden and not with respect to a generalized relative value of classes of items (no specific dollar values involved). Sorry, I didn't realize that the prohibition was that sensitive, not obviously apparent in my reading of the rule. Still, I think a personal message explaining such would have been appropriate, as mine was certainly not an outright violation of forum rules as currently written and reasonably interpreted, to be dismissed out of hand and without comment. JMHO, YMMV. Thank you again for providing some information regarding the moderator action.

Hi SS,

The rules are indeed very clear:

Any reference to value in a post is grounds for immediate deletion without notice!

It was me that deleted your original post. I sure you'll understand that we really do not have the time to write individually to everyone who commits a peccadillo on the forum.

Trev.

Hi, Trev!

Yes, I was and am quite aware of the "immediate deletion without notice" statement in the forum rule. Of course, this rule is primarily aimed at those individuals who want a quick specific dollar appraisal in order to flip an item that they have just acquired, their interest monetary and not aesthetic.

I won't reiterate how my inquiry differs, I can't make it any plainer, other than mention my interest was in regards to the purchase of items, not in the selling. Unfortunately, aesthetics cost real money.

I am now aware of your sensitivity on the subject and so will make every effort so as to not trespass again. As far as the rational basis for this sensitivity in terms of its wide application and the curt deletion of my original post, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Take care.

SS

Sorry for your "ouch!" SS, but having myself been both dinged and deleted with good cause, I can say the management does not do these things irrationally. If you read some of the banter in the Russian section, you'll see they actually give an enormous amount of leeway to comments, and even bad humor. I'm sure if you had asked generally about differences in collector interest of items, rather than differences of value, it might have remained intact. Occasionally, people do mention what they actually paid for an item and it gets by, but placing any judgement on what a value range should be is bad form...simply put, someone would eventually blame the site for their experience in buying or selling. They might even claim the site is manipulating markets which could ruin their good reputation for assistance without fiduciary interest of any sort. Just think about all those collector books that have been tossed out as their price guides have become largely meaningless...we wouldn't want such a useful site to start imploding.

Traintime wrote: I'm sure if you had asked generally about differences in collector interest of items, rather than differences of value, it might have remained intact.

Thanks for your input. I had actually considered framing my inquiry in safer, more nebulous terms, but decided that when you get down to it, what indeed is the basis by which differences in collector interest can be objectively understood by all involved? And so my trespass. ;o)