My knowledge of Early Sheffield is a little week No Marks

PHOTOS REQUIRED - marks + item
Post Reply
MBASE213
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:27 am
Location: Hollywood

My knowledge of Early Sheffield is a little week No Marks

Post by MBASE213 »

I've researched what I could on Old Sheffield and think, based on the copper showing through, the seams and the tin interior, that it's really old Sheffield. But, I can be sure, and the hallmark is faded, but the initial are still readable. I get GJC on the initials. But can't find any reference to who that might be. Any help on identifing this piece would be a great help.

The Initials

http://www.basei.com/Boerman/ID46/PIC00034a.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(admin photo edit - image too large - link only - see Posting Requirements )
The Mark
Image
One of the Seams
Image
The Tea Kettle and Stand
Image
The Tin interior
Image
paulh
contributor
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Post by paulh »

Looks like O.S.P. to me. The marks are not the makers marks. They appear to have been scratched in rather than punched. From the style I would date it somewhere around 1810-20.

Paul.
MBASE213
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:27 am
Location: Hollywood

Thanks

Post by MBASE213 »

Thanks Paul, I'm not sure what the initial are. I"ve heard 2 or three different opinions. But either case, I don't think that's going to lead me to the manufacture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in that era, they didn't require or record a lot of the silversmiths work. Some would do it if they wanted notority, but others just put out product.

Thanks again,
paulh
contributor
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Post by paulh »

The marking of O.S.P. was never specifically regulated. It was more a case of what was permitted rather than what was required. A Parliamentary Act of 1784 said that materials plated to resemble silver made within 100 miles of Sheffield were permitted to be marked with certain marks, which should contain the name of the manufacturer together with any symbol which did not resemble a silver mark used by any of the assay offices. (Such as the Sheffield Crown).

These marks were registered with the Sheffield Assay Office from 1784 the first one being W. Green & co registered on the 8th of September. But having said all that, it was still not compulsary (and it still isn’t) to mark silver plated wares. There must be a conflict of interests here, as with your kettle. If I had made a piece that good I would want people to know that it was me that made it. However, the customers would probably prefer no markings, so that the O.S.P. would be easier to pass off as solid silver.

Paul.
MBASE213
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:27 am
Location: Hollywood

Post by MBASE213 »

Makes sense. especially for those social climbers that couldn't afford the solid silver. Thanks for the info on O.S.P. I wasn't aware of it's significance.

Mark
Post Reply

Return to “Silverplate Trademarks - Worldwide”