I apologise for this being something of a diatribe but I find the subject both interesting and of significance. Nicholas
I feel that it is vital that all doubts be eliminated as to the nature of the hallmarks on the silver mount to this Islington paperweight. Future researchers may consider using these marks to help in the dating of the paperweights from this firm and there is the risk that incorrect information might lead researchers on a wild goose chase and thus obstruct the establishing of a more accurate chronology of this firms production of paperweights.
With this in mind I have been researching the marks stamped on this mount but I decided not to post my findings until the bidding on this weight had closed, this so as not to affect the outcome of the sale.
I thought it noteworthy that Bonham’s made no mention of this mount bearing an 1851-52 hallmark in their auction catalogue entry for this weight, Lot 353 in their sale on 3rdJune 2009, the mount was merely mentioned in passing as “later mounted on the base with a silver foot”. If this mount had provided a link to a date in the mid-nineteenth century then it seemed inconceivable that Bonham’s would not have referred to this.
The recent entry on Ebay was not so circumspect and even suggested that this weight may have been exhibited at the Great Exhibition of 1851. If one assumed that this hallmark were that for 1851-52, then it would have had to have been a late exhibit, as the exhibition only ran from 1st May until 15th October 1851 and the upper-case with serif “C” was only initiated on 19th May 1851, St Dunstan’s Day, the customary day for changing the date letter in hallmarks until the 1973 Hallmarking Act was applied in 1975.
I pondered on the lack of the presence of a duty (queen's head) mark amongst these hallmarks. However as this mark was not obligatory on objects of minimal weight, such as lightweight mounts, I dismissed this concern.
However I could find no silversmith of Birmingham, or other UK city, listed as using “C S” in the mid-nineteenth century, within a crescent or not, on the website referred to on this Ebay entry (admittedly still adding to its list of makers), or in Jackson’s Silver & Gold Marks (the standard reference work on UK silver marks).
In addition, the “c” date-letter on this mount appeared to be a lower-case, sans serif “c” not the upper-case, with serif “C” of 1851-52, although within an escutcheon similar to that used for the hallmarks of 1851-52. Also the form of the anchor, struck for Birmingham, looked rather different from the mid-nineteenth century variety. All very confusing.
The presence of a “925” sterling mark amongst these marks was also disturbing, this does occur with British hallmarks on both exported and imported silver but generally that of a much later date; on occasions at the very end of the nineteenth century but more usually during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. I felt that it would have been well-nigh impossible to add this mark at a later date, as it is placed between the “maker’s” mark and the mark for the city of Birmingham.
In short by process of elimination I came to the conclusion that this mark was not one that generally appeared in reference works on antiques because it was the new-style Birmingham hallmark for 2002. Was I correct?
I emailed both Goldsmiths Hall and the Birmingham Assay Office and, with their permission, I quote from their replies.
“I think you are absolutely correct in thinking this mark is of 2002.” Ms. Lyn Mills; Secretary to the Deputy Warden at Goldsmith’s Hall, London.
“In order to be absolutely certain of our identification of this hallmark, I and several of my colleagues have looked at the image that you kindly attached of the hallmark on the mount. I can confirm that the hallmark indicates sterling silver, assayed and marked at Birmingham in 2002. The sponsor's mark is that of Crescent Silver.” Dr. Sally Baggott; Curator at the Birmingham Assay Office.
Why this mount was affixed to a mid-nineteenth century paperweight one can only imagine.
Topic: Islington Paperweight (Read 3945 times)
