www.925-1000.com

Hi to all,
I found this jug which in my opinion is made in London in 1774.

The goldsmith's mark, however, according to the table of 925-1000, looks like that of William Chinnery, registered in 1825.
Could it be a variant of William Cripps' one, instead?
Or am I completely wrong.?
Thanks for attention.
Amena

Looks like it could be William Collings
Regards
John

I really think you are right

Many thanks
Amena

I noticed a strange thing.
There was a slightly darker speck on the pitcher's surface. I tried to clean it with a silver polish, but the stain remained. Looking through a lens, I saw that it was not a spot, but a discontinuity in the plate.
I am attaching a photo, but it is not very clear.
The discontinuity is less than 1 millimeter.

I tried putting a tiny drop of acid on it, and it didn't turn red. What to think ? Could it be an inclusion of another metal in the processing of the plate?
Is this a fact that happens often, or sometimes, or never seen before?
The piece feels genuine to me, completely hand wrought, and the hallmarks seem genuine, at least to me.
I hope someone knows how to shed some light on this fact.
Thanks for attention
Amena

Hi,
The spot cannot be something within the silver sheet when the pitcher was made.
The scratch (my red arrows) looks newer in regard of the spot (its discontinuity).
I could not resist but try to remove it; even with the finest grain sandpaper then polishing and buffing.
That`s how I feel about it, but that`s my character which led me to worry about everything and ended with coronary stents.
Regards

Hi AG2012
Thanks for the reply
One thing that is perhaps not clear is that the gray part of the photo is not protruding, but is at a lower level than the surrounding silver and the surface is rough.
I had already tried with a very fine iron scourer, but the only thing I got is that the difference in height has been rounded off a bit. It is a very small difference in height, perhaps a few hundredths of a millimeter, but it is visible with a loupe.
Best regaards
Amena

Possibly it came into contact with a small drop of corrosive material, whatever that could affect and ``eat`` silver.
It happens within 200 years of exposure to elements (salt, acid, wine, silphur in the air, god knows what).
Even rubber bands leave permanent traces hard to remove, emission of chemicals from plastic etc.
Nothing to worry about, really.

Of course, the stain or whatever it is, is very small, but the thing that I do not explain is that, according to the test I have done, in that tiny area the metal is not silver. In a solid silver object, even if corrosion removes a small layer, there is always silver underneath.
I don't think the item is plated, I have filed under the base and it is definitely high grade silver.
After all, a fake completely hand wrought, seems very strange, unless it's an 18th century fake.
I think I'll take it to have the area x-rayed, and we'll see what the result will be.

Well, I went for the x-ray test.
Unfortunately the pitcher is too big for the machine.
We will stay with the mystery.
According to a goldsmith I consulted, it is the repair of a small imperfection in the plate.
Regards
Amena

Hello,
Just resurrecting an old post. I have finally got around to sorting out an item that I have which has the same kind of mark/blemish on the inside face. The item is a porringer by John Jackson and assayed in 1697, (viewtopic.php?f=60&t=56711)
I have spoken with several people about this and the general opinion is that it a small repair in lead, and lead was used because it has a lower melting point than silver and so it would not melt the object when being infilled.
I have not tested the repair on this item and so it must remain just a thought.
Trevor

Hi Trevorg
Thanks for your info.
In fact, the person to whom I had brought the object for the x ray test expressed a very similar opinion.
According to him it is a repair made with a low melting point alloy, possibly containing a little silver.
Regards
Amena