|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks again for all the input! Much appreciated.
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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?
Last edited by Frank Kelley; 16-04-19 at 12:55 PM. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
It’s a V in Old English.
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
From the photograph it looks much more like the leopard's head (facing) for London rather than the anchor for Birmingham
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
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. Last edited by Luke H; 16-04-19 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Grammar |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Very early Fattorini and sons Mark , you don’t see this often and yes 1895
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry, I typed U instead of V, notwithstanding, my question remains the same?
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Last edited by Frank Kelley; 17-04-19 at 07:51 AM. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
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." |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
|
|