British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

Recent Books by Forum Members

   

Go Back   British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum > Common Forums > It's a Mystery -Unknown Insignia for Identification

 Other Pages: Galleries, Links etc.
Glossary  Books by Forum Members     Canadian Pre 1914    CEF    CEF Badge Inscriptions   Canadian post 1920     Canadian post 1953     British Cavalry Badges     Makers' Marks    Pipers' Badges  Canadian Cloth Titles  Books  SEARCH
 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 15-04-19, 01:01 PM
zob's Avatar
zob zob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 450
Default

Just as a point of interest when interpreting hallmarks, that it is the last of the two period dates given that is used to indicate the age of the piece in question.

Zob.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15-04-19, 01:20 PM
Alex Rice Alex Rice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,736
Default

Thanks again for all the input! Much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16-04-19, 12:48 PM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

If the actual letter is a U,, where is the distinct gap between it's sides at it's topmost point, as very clearly shown in the first attachment in your post, which I quote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke H View Post
I’m in the 1895 camp too.

Last edited by Frank Kelley; 16-04-19 at 12:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16-04-19, 01:19 PM
Luke H's Avatar
Luke H Luke H is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Londoner in exile
Posts: 5,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kelley View Post
If the actual letter is a U,, where is the distinct gap between it's sides at it's topmost point, as very clearly shown in the first attachment in your post, which I quote?
It’s a V in Old English.
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg F7A09FE9-5C84-4B34-8A17-DC7F1CDD09EE.jpeg (27.5 KB, 1 views)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16-04-19, 04:28 PM
KLR's Avatar
KLR KLR is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,055
Default

From the photograph it looks much more like the leopard's head (facing) for London rather than the anchor for Birmingham
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 16-04-19, 05:32 PM
Luke H's Avatar
Luke H Luke H is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Londoner in exile
Posts: 5,906
Default

Maybe there’s something obvious I’m missing here to cause all this confusion but...

This badge has 2 sets of hallmarks I can see.

1st - on the front of the star at 6 o’clock below the central device (circled in pic)
2nd - I presume to be on the raised side of the central device - hence they must be very small and this is probably the reason why they’re unclear.

I suspect the badge is made in 2 parts and this is the reason for 2 marks.

Both makers marks are clearly F&D LD. Same manufacturer.

The first set of marks shown in the second picture of the OP and this post are very clear. They show an anchor for Birmingham and a old English V - see the link posted by Millmead in post #5. The v matches the ‘example’ hallmark photographed on the silver hallmark website exactly, it too has a closed top.

Granted the second hallmark is somewhat unclear but given it’s same manufacturer, same outlines, roughly same letter shape etc I think it’s going to be the same date & assay office. That it’s rubbed and a poorer mark has proved to be a bit of a red herring in this thread.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 97706A60-5E5D-4FB4-BB6D-0F8A8FDF96ED.jpg (65.3 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg 97DDA2B2-6DEC-4AC2-A0D9-D94C0F3A4A93.jpg (38.3 KB, 22 views)

Last edited by Luke H; 16-04-19 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Grammar
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16-04-19, 06:38 PM
trooper trooper is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Default

Very early Fattorini and sons Mark , you don’t see this often and yes 1895
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17-04-19, 03:30 AM
Milmed's Avatar
Milmed Milmed is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KLR View Post
From the photograph it looks much more like the leopard's head (facing) for London rather than the anchor for Birmingham
Hi KLR
The third mark is rather clear to me and is a Birmingham anchor. The confusion may be as a result of the anchor lying on its side (a sign of marks between 1875 and 1899) as apposed to its normal erect position.

See this link showing different cycles of Birmingham date marks.
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/D...irmingham.html

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 17-04-19, 07:33 AM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

Sorry, I typed U instead of V, notwithstanding, my question remains the same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke H View Post
It’s a V in Old English.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17-04-19, 07:40 AM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

There is certainly no "closed top" on a fifth cycle Birmingham V, in fact, if you look at the link you mention, or, a copy of Jacksons, you can see the reverse is the case, however, the "top" certainly does appear to be "closed" on the mark that is the subject of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke H View Post

The first set of marks shown in the second picture of the OP and this post are very clear. They show an anchor for Birmingham and a old English V - see the link posted by Millmead in post #5. The v matches the ‘example’ hallmark photographed on the silver hallmark website exactly, it too has a closed top.
.

Last edited by Frank Kelley; 17-04-19 at 07:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 17-04-19, 08:16 AM
Alex Rice Alex Rice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,736
Default

I have posted the mark on a silver forum as well to get more info and it looks like it is an 1888 hallmark! Surprise surprise... A forum member there posted an identical mark which has been identified as 1888. Apparently, the date letter series for 1881 - 1899 used oval letter dates and also the square with chamfered corners concurrently. The attached date stamps show them.
Cheers,
Alex
Attached Images
File Type: png Scots Guards hallmark.PNG (26.7 KB, 17 views)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 17-04-19, 08:34 AM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

Well, I think that backgrounds did vary a little, but, the actual letters themselves certainly should not have done, given the photographs, I certainly don't believe that mark to have been 1895-96.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Rice View Post
I have posted the mark on a silver forum as well to get more info and it looks like it is an 1888 hallmark! Surprise surprise... A forum member there posted an identical mark which has been identified as 1888. Apparently, the date letter series for 1881 - 1899 used oval letter dates and also the square with chamfered corners concurrently. The attached date stamps show them.
Cheers,
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 17-04-19, 10:57 PM
Luke H's Avatar
Luke H Luke H is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Londoner in exile
Posts: 5,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kelley View Post
There is certainly no "closed top" on a fifth cycle Birmingham V, in fact, if you look at the link you mention, or, a copy of Jacksons, you can see the reverse is the case, however, the "top" certainly does appear to be "closed" on the mark that is the subject of this thread.
Frank, I don’t have a copy of Jacksons. I’m going by the link posted by Millmed. I’m worried that one of us needs to go to Specsavers as the tops of the two example hallmarks they show for Birmingham 1895 look closed to me. They both also have the strange hook that almost makes it look like a lower case ‘b’. If the website’s examples are wrong I couldn’t tell you I’m just going by what I’m looking at.

Both hallmarks on the badge in question have this little ‘hook’ like feature and are closed just like the website’s two examples - to my possibly malfunctioning eyes anyway.

Screenshots below.

P.S. just seen Alex’s post re the silver forum’s decision. Seems the experts have spoken, 1888. Makes me assume the website’s examples are indeed incorrect? Perhaps such sites should be treated with a degree of caution.

P.P.S. Alex - did you conduct any research into the badge to see when it was worn just to confirm it ties up with the date? Knowing the period of wear may have made this much easier.

Last edited by Luke H; 17-04-19 at 11:41 PM. Reason: Added P.S.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18-04-19, 02:36 AM
Phil2M's Avatar
Phil2M Phil2M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 6,312
Default

1888 looks nothing like the letter in the OP, regardless of tablet shape. Unless, after 36 years, I do finally need to start wearing glasses. Different tables all show the same for 1895, the drawings with a slight gap at the top, the real photographs tending not to actually show the gap.
__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 18-04-19, 06:19 AM
Frank Kelley's Avatar
Frank Kelley Frank Kelley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,562
Default

The sizable gap at the top of the letter V in that cycle of marks is very clear indeed and interestingly is of the same proportion as the others of the same cycle that have "open tops" the letter U, the letter W as well as the letter Y.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke H View Post
Frank, I don’t have a copy of Jacksons. I’m going by the link posted by Millmed. I’m worried that one of us needs to go to Specsavers as the tops of the two example hallmarks they show for Birmingham 1895 look closed to me. They both also have the strange hook that almost makes it look like a lower case ‘b’. If the website’s examples are wrong I couldn’t tell you I’m just going by what I’m looking at.

Both hallmarks on the badge in question have this little ‘hook’ like feature and are closed just like the website’s two examples - to my possibly malfunctioning eyes anyway.

Screenshots below.

P.S. just seen Alex’s post re the silver forum’s decision. Seems the experts have spoken, 1888. Makes me assume the website’s examples are indeed incorrect? Perhaps such sites should be treated with a degree of caution.

P.P.S. Alex - did you conduct any research into the badge to see when it was worn just to confirm it ties up with the date? Knowing the period of wear may have made this much easier.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg P1030414.jpg (26.7 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

mhs link

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.