www.925-1000.com

I recently bought a stock buckle with no assay marks, although it is almost certainly English, from the last quarter of the Eighteen Century.
- Stock buckles were used to secure an elaborate cravat at the back of a gentleman's neck.





There is a clear makers mark IB and what looked like the remains of another makers mark, which appears to start with a T





Your mission, should you be mad enough to accept it, is to determine the identity of the maker and probable reason, or reasons, for the absence of the assay mark .

Answers next week !
(I spent some time on this identification and gave up. My wife solved it in under two minutes. Don't you just love it when that happens ! )

Our illustrious moderator Trevor has very courteous and not to claimed victory on this site, but quickly came to the right answer after only a few moments on Sunday.
He and my wife are obviously brighter than the rest of us !

Not remembering that most people have never seen a stock buckle, one clue I failed to give was the size of the item.
Stock buckles are small, this one has a frame 27mm by 46mm, with the chape studs protruding a further 5mm or so beyond . To imperialists, that's about less than two inches by one and a half inches.

Answer later this week !

Thanks for watching

An enquiry from a friend for a photo of the T ? mark on the frame, which is a repeat of the one on the studded chape, prompted my wife to admit that mark had helped her. Now she tells me !

So here it is . Sorry for poor quality



Mind you, my admiration for Trevor grows as he never had this available.

Hi,
On your quest, I may not fully get what you are asking, the maker or the reason why it is not assayed.
What I see on your item is a clear TM mark without dot between the letters. So if the item is London and in the mentioned period, the TM mark looks like the mark from Thomas Meriton.
Is this your question or do you search for the reason why it is not assayed?

Kind regards, Jörg

Yes, I am asking for the maker and also why no assay mark.
I know (hopefully !) the answers and am putting it up just as challenge to readers .
It's an interesting piece .

I'm afraid that the maker was not Thomas Meriton,
Clive

The maker (or rather makers) was the partnership of John Bourne and Thomas Moore III.
Below is their first joint mark, registered 26th June 1770 as smallworkers, (Grimwade No 1188). This was followed by two marks as bucklemakers on 8th February 1775 (Grimwade p.392)



This, the 1770 mark, was too large a punch for very small buckles, so they used the top of the joint punch (IB) in one spot on the buckle and the bottom (TM) adjacent to it ! Saving them the cost of another smaller punch.

There’s two possible explanations for the lack of a Lion Passant.

Either the workmen ,seeing two marks on both the frame and chape of the buckle, assumed that the second mark (not a clear impression) was an assay mark, never sent it to Goldsmiths’ Hall to be assayed.

Or, they may have decided that as it looked like an assay mark ,they could get away without paying the fees etc involved.
Bucklemakers were a thrifty lot. And some not above a bit of dishonesty.

Error or dishonesty, human nature is unchanging

Congratulations ,Trevor !

Thank you Clive.

Another possible explanation for the lack of a Lion Passant may have been that the striking of the maker's mark in such a fashion was unacceptable to the assay office. The marks struck, of course, were not that of those recorded in the register, and as other 'IB''s and 'TM''s similar in style were registered, then if there was a problem that later arose regarding responsibility, then doubt may be cast over the submitter.

The assay office refuses to mark, but the customer is waiting and wants his buckle now..... We can guess what happens.

Trev.

Thanks Trevor, yes that's another possibility.

Another, rather unlikely one, is that it was made for a specific person, and "never exposed for sale " . Which exempts it from assay .