Early English Silverplate or Possibly Sterling Creamer? Hallmark Help

[bigcaddy64]

I picked up this little guy (just at 6” high) at a garage sale this past Saturday with a few other small pieces of slightly more modern Sterling.

at first glance, it had the color of plate but the more I looked, the more the age of the piece became obvious, as well as the
possibility of it being Sterling. After seeing the hallmarks, I figured it was worth the 2 bucks and I bought it.


last night I spent a bit of time looking through silverplate and Sterling hallmarks with no real luck. The closest I found was Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city.

Since I’m not familiar with the rules on English hallmarks, I don’t know if this piece is 1792 or 1832. The marks are out of the correct order presented on the date charts and I don’t know what that indicates.


I can see small tool marks, file marks, etc which are good indicators its truly a very old, hand wrought piece from overseas.


Is anybody a bit more familiar with these marks or how to correctly interpret them. The closeup photos should help.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[rainwolf75]

Here are some of the resources I use for thrift store or estate sale silver finds. I hope they would be of use to you.

Millers Silver Mark App - downloaded on my phone a month ago but haven't used it yet.

• Antique Silver Hallmarks
• British, Irish, & Scottish Hallmarks
• British and Irish Silver Date Marks
• British Silver Collection Hallmarks
• Guide To British Silver Hallmarks
• LAPADA
• American Indian Jewelry Hallmarks
• American Indians of the SW Jewelry Hallmarks
• Early American Silversmiths Marks
• Silver ID Guide
• USA Silver Hallmarks

Hope this helps. Unfortunately, I couldn't see all the marks clearly as I am waiting on my new glasses to arrive so that I can actually see clearly.

 

[tamrock]

Looks good to me as being all sterling silver with legitimate British silver hallmarks.

 

[ARC]

Looks good to me as being all sterling silver with legitimate British silver hallmarks.

Agreed.

 

[pepperj]

I picked up this little guy (just at 6” high) at a garage sale this past Saturday with a few other small pieces of slightly more modern Sterling.

at first glance, it had the color of plate but the more I looked, the more the age of the piece became obvious, as well as the
possibility of it being Sterling. After seeing the hallmarks, I figured it was worth the 2 bucks and I bought it.


last night I spent a bit of time looking through silverplate and Sterling hallmarks with no real luck. The closest I found was Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city.

Since I’m not familiar with the rules on English hallmarks, I don’t know if this piece is 1792 or 1832. The marks are out of the correct order presented on the date charts and I don’t know what that indicates.


I can see small tool marks, file marks, etc which are good indicators its truly a very old, hand wrought piece from overseas.


Is anybody a bit more familiar with these marks or how to correctly interpret them. The closeup photos should help.

Seems that everything is in the correct order and standings regarding the hallmarks.
Well done on the purchase.

British Sterling - English Hallmarks, Irish Hallmarks & Scottish Hallmarks

How to read British Silver Hallmarks & Makers' Marks, Illustrated & Explained including the datemarks of England, Ireland & Scotland

www.925-1000.com

 

[Gare]

I picked up this little guy (just at 6” high) at a garage sale this past Saturday with a few other small pieces of slightly more modern Sterling.

at first glance, it had the color of plate but the more I looked, the more the age of the piece became obvious, as well as the
possibility of it being Sterling. After seeing the hallmarks, I figured it was worth the 2 bucks and I bought it.


last night I spent a bit of time looking through silverplate and Sterling hallmarks with no real luck. The closest I found was Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city.

Since I’m not familiar with the rules on English hallmarks, I don’t know if this piece is 1792 or 1832. The marks are out of the correct order presented on the date charts and I don’t know what that indicates.


I can see small tool marks, file marks, etc which are good indicators its truly a very old, hand wrought piece from overseas.


Is anybody a bit more familiar with these marks or how to correctly interpret them. The closeup photos should help.

BigDaddy i have to Agree with you on this

 

[bigcaddy64]

Seems that everything is in the correct order and standings regarding the hallmarks.
Well done on the purchase.

British Sterling - English Hallmarks, Irish Hallmarks & Scottish Hallmarks

How to read British Silver Hallmarks & Makers' Marks, Illustrated & Explained including the datemarks of England, Ireland & Scotland

www.925-1000.com

View attachment 2037445 View attachment 2037446 View attachment 2037447

Do you really think it’s just “AO”?

I was looking for TAO since I swore that was a capital T standing over that A.

I’ll take some better pics in the sunlight this week so you all can see the coloration on the vessel before polishing.

 

[bigcaddy64]

To everyone else that chimed in with info… thank you! I’ll have lots more reading to peruse through in the evenings

 

[Red-Coat]

Nice piece of English silver. Time for another little tutorial on our hallmarking systems and some history on your piece. Although often referred to as a “creamer” (especially by Americans), it’s a milk jug used as part of a tea service.

Let’s take the date first. The leopard’s head is for London assay, with the lower case ‘r’ giving the possibilities for 1792 or 1832 as you say. However, note that the leopard’s head is crowned, which means it’s 1792. In 1832 it would have been uncrowned and the shield ‘cartouche’ also had a slightly different shape.

There’s no problem with the order of the hallmark icons. As a convention, they’re usually aligned in a row as: Sterling Mark (the lion passant); City Mark (specific to the assay office); Duty Mark (monarch’s head, 1784-1890 only); Date Letter (specific to the assay office). But, although the marks were mandatory, the order of the marks was not. Sometimes they aren’t even in a row but just loosely grouped together, especially on larger pieces. The maker’s mark might be at the beginning or at the end, or elsewhere and might not be in the same orientation as the other marks since it was applied separately with a custom punch. Upside down (relative to the other marks) is not unusual.

Although I used the term “makers’ mark” and that’s usually how people refer to these initials, the correct term is “sponsor’s mark”. It indicates who is formally accepting responsibility for the piece in terms of legal obligations. That won’t necessarily be the maker. It could be an importer or retailer. You mentioned “Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city”. I think you probably meant Thomas rather than Timothy, operating from Manchester. There is no “wrong city” when it comes to assay offices. Manchester didn’t have an assay office and if your business was in a place like that you just used the nearest available office. For Manchester, the nearest would have been Sheffield or Chester, but many provincial business used London, especially if they had a show-room or retail outlet there. Larger makers often registered their mark in multiple places, for convenience.

Now, we come to the sponsor’s mark. In this case, it’s not the actual maker. The mark you can see as ‘T O’ is for Thomas Oliphant (also seen spelled as Ollivant) operating from Manchester but the small ‘A’ in the middle and what looks like an ‘underline’ for the ‘O’ are the residual parts of the actual maker’s mark. Oliphant has ‘overstruck’ his mark on top. The actual maker was almost certainly Peter and Ann Bateman, who registered ‘PB over AB’ as their mark in 1791. You’re seeing the ‘AB’ part of the mark, with the upper letters obscured by the overstriking. Similar to this example:

Although there are lots of ‘Oliphant’ pieces, he was a retailer based in Manchester and, as far as we know, never made any silverware himself. He registered his ‘T O’ mark in London as a “plate-worker” in May 1789 but there’s no evidence for him actually being a silversmith. Seemingly, he bought stock from London silversmiths and added his own mark on top. He’s known to have done this for items produced by the Bateman family in particular over a period of about 15 years beginning with pieces produced and marked by Hester Bateman and then by her sons and relatives who inherited the business (Peter & Jonathan, Peter & Ann; Peter, Ann and William). .

A number of retailers did this, usually by buying stock from makers who were going out of business and also as a means of enhancing their reputation by ‘taking ownership’ of higher quality work. There were doubts about the legality of overstriking until the Assay Office at Goldsmiths’ Hall in London issued a circular to the trade on 14th February 1835 clarifying that “Every shopkeeper who shall strike his own mark over the workman's mark, is liable to a penalty of ten pounds, unless his own mark is entered at Goldsmiths' Hall”. Oliphant almost certainly registered his mark purely for legal protection long before that clarification.

 

[Red-Coat]

PS: Two bucks was quite some bargain for a piece of Georgian silver.

 

[SD51]

Nice piece of English silver. Time for another little tutorial on our hallmarking systems and some history on your piece. Although often referred to as a “creamer” (especially by Americans), it’s a milk jug used as part of a tea service.

Let’s take the date first. The leopard’s head is for London assay, with the lower case ‘r’ giving the possibilities for 1792 or 1832 as you say. However, note that the leopard’s head is crowned, which means it’s 1792. In 1832 it would have been uncrowned and the shield ‘cartouche’ also had a slightly different shape.

There’s no problem with the order of the hallmark icons. As a convention, they’re usually aligned in a row as: Sterling Mark (the lion passant); City Mark (specific to the assay office); Duty Mark (monarch’s head, 1784-1890 only); Date Letter (specific to the assay office). But, although the marks were mandatory, the order of the marks was not. Sometimes they aren’t even in a row but just loosely grouped together, especially on larger pieces. The maker’s mark might be at the beginning or at the end, or elsewhere and might not be in the same orientation as the other marks since it was applied separately with a custom punch. Upside down (relative to the other marks) is not unusual.

Although I used the term “makers’ mark” and that’s usually how people refer to these initials, the correct term is “sponsor’s mark”. It indicates who is formally accepting responsibility for the piece in terms of legal obligations. That won’t necessarily be the maker. It could be an importer or retailer. You mentioned “Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city”. I think you probably meant Thomas rather than Timothy, operating from Manchester. There is no “wrong city” when it comes to assay offices. Manchester didn’t have an assay office and if your business was in a place like that you just used the nearest available office. For Manchester, the nearest would have been Sheffield or Chester, but many provincial business used London, especially if they had a show-room or retail outlet there. Larger makers often registered their mark in multiple places, for convenience.

Now, we come to the sponsor’s mark. In this case, it’s not the actual maker. The mark you can see as ‘T O’ is for Thomas Oliphant (also seen spelled as Ollivant) operating from Manchester but the small ‘A’ in the middle and what looks like an ‘underline’ for the ‘O’ are the residual parts of the actual maker’s mark. Oliphant has ‘overstruck’ his mark on top. The actual maker was almost certainly Peter and Ann Bateman, who registered ‘PB over AB’ as their mark in 1791. You’re seeing the ‘AB’ part of the mark, with the upper letters obscured by the overstriking. Similar to this example:

View attachment 2037450

Although there are lots of ‘Oliphant’ pieces, he was a retailer based in Manchester and, as far as we know, never made any silverware himself. He registered his ‘T O’ mark in London as a “plate-worker” in May 1789 but there’s no evidence for him actually being a silversmith. Seemingly, he bought stock from London silversmiths and added his own mark on top. He’s known to have done this for items produced by the Bateman family in particular over a period of about 15 years beginning with pieces produced and marked by Hester Bateman and then by her sons and relatives who inherited the business (Peter & Jonathan, Peter & Ann; Peter, Ann and William). .

A number of retailers did this, usually by buying stock from makers who were going out of business and also as a means of enhancing their reputation by ‘taking ownership’ of higher quality work. There were doubts about the legality of overstriking until the Assay Office at Goldsmiths’ Hall in London issued a circular to the trade on 14th February 1835 clarifying that “Every shopkeeper who shall strike his own mark over the workman's mark, is liable to a penalty of ten pounds, unless his own mark is entered at Goldsmiths' Hall”. Oliphant almost certainly registered his mark purely for legal protection long before that clarification.

Red-Coat, Thank-you for your detailed response, we all learned some great information today!

 

[Red-Coat]

Red-Coat, Thank-you for your detailed response, we all learned some great information today!

You're welcome.

There will be a test on Thursday.

 

[SD51]

Seems that everything is in the correct order and standings regarding the hallmarks.
Well done on the purchase.

British Sterling - English Hallmarks, Irish Hallmarks & Scottish Hallmarks

How to read British Silver Hallmarks & Makers' Marks, Illustrated & Explained including the datemarks of England, Ireland & Scotland

www.925-1000.com

View attachment 2037445 View attachment 2037446 View attachment 2037447

Thanks pepperj for the explanation too of those symbols!

 

[rainwolf75]

Nice piece of English silver. Time for another little tutorial on our hallmarking systems and some history on your piece. Although often referred to as a “creamer” (especially by Americans), it’s a milk jug used as part of a tea service.

Let’s take the date first. The leopard’s head is for London assay, with the lower case ‘r’ giving the possibilities for 1792 or 1832 as you say. However, note that the leopard’s head is crowned, which means it’s 1792. In 1832 it would have been uncrowned and the shield ‘cartouche’ also had a slightly different shape.

There’s no problem with the order of the hallmark icons. As a convention, they’re usually aligned in a row as: Sterling Mark (the lion passant); City Mark (specific to the assay office); Duty Mark (monarch’s head, 1784-1890 only); Date Letter (specific to the assay office). But, although the marks were mandatory, the order of the marks was not. Sometimes they aren’t even in a row but just loosely grouped together, especially on larger pieces. The maker’s mark might be at the beginning or at the end, or elsewhere and might not be in the same orientation as the other marks since it was applied separately with a custom punch. Upside down (relative to the other marks) is not unusual.

Although I used the term “makers’ mark” and that’s usually how people refer to these initials, the correct term is “sponsor’s mark”. It indicates who is formally accepting responsibility for the piece in terms of legal obligations. That won’t necessarily be the maker. It could be an importer or retailer. You mentioned “Timothy Oliphant but he’s in the wrong city”. I think you probably meant Thomas rather than Timothy, operating from Manchester. There is no “wrong city” when it comes to assay offices. Manchester didn’t have an assay office and if your business was in a place like that you just used the nearest available office. For Manchester, the nearest would have been Sheffield or Chester, but many provincial business used London, especially if they had a show-room or retail outlet there. Larger makers often registered their mark in multiple places, for convenience.

Now, we come to the sponsor’s mark. In this case, it’s not the actual maker. The mark you can see as ‘T O’ is for Thomas Oliphant (also seen spelled as Ollivant) operating from Manchester but the small ‘A’ in the middle and what looks like an ‘underline’ for the ‘O’ are the residual parts of the actual maker’s mark. Oliphant has ‘overstruck’ his mark on top. The actual maker was almost certainly Peter and Ann Bateman, who registered ‘PB over AB’ as their mark in 1791. You’re seeing the ‘AB’ part of the mark, with the upper letters obscured by the overstriking. Similar to this example:

View attachment 2037450

Although there are lots of ‘Oliphant’ pieces, he was a retailer based in Manchester and, as far as we know, never made any silverware himself. He registered his ‘T O’ mark in London as a “plate-worker” in May 1789 but there’s no evidence for him actually being a silversmith. Seemingly, he bought stock from London silversmiths and added his own mark on top. He’s known to have done this for items produced by the Bateman family in particular over a period of about 15 years beginning with pieces produced and marked by Hester Bateman and then by her sons and relatives who inherited the business (Peter & Jonathan, Peter & Ann; Peter, Ann and William). .

A number of retailers did this, usually by buying stock from makers who were going out of business and also as a means of enhancing their reputation by ‘taking ownership’ of higher quality work. There were doubts about the legality of overstriking until the Assay Office at Goldsmiths’ Hall in London issued a circular to the trade on 14th February 1835 clarifying that “Every shopkeeper who shall strike his own mark over the workman's mark, is liable to a penalty of ten pounds, unless his own mark is entered at Goldsmiths' Hall”. Oliphant almost certainly registered his mark purely for legal protection long before that clarification.

How would you suggest for one go about determining the value?

 

[Red-Coat]

How would you suggest for one go about determining the value?

I would use auction listings for pre-sale estimates or hammer prices (proper auctions, not Ebay etc). I've provided enough information for the OP to do their own searching but, off the top of my head, I would expect a Bateman milk jug to go for around $150 up to maybe $250 on a good day with competitive bidding. The Oliphant overstamp wouldn't detract from that very much.

Apart from prestigious makers, Georgian silver can be surprisingly good value because so much of it was produced and the surviving pieces easily fulfil collector demand.

 

[pepperj]

Do you really think it’s just “AO”?

I was looking for TAO since I swore that was a capital T standing over that A.

I’ll take some better pics in the sunlight this week so you all can see the coloration on the vessel before polishing.

Yes you are correct, as I should looked more in-depth at the T.
The AO was too easy-and a tad lazy on my part-

 

[Red-Coat]

Do you really think it’s just “AO”?

I was looking for TAO since I swore that was a capital T standing over that A.

I’ll take some better pics in the sunlight this week so you all can see the coloration on the vessel before polishing.

Yes you are correct, as I should looked more in-depth at the T.
The AO was too easy-and a tad lazy on my part-

Just to clarify, the mark is 'T O' for Thomas Oliphant (Ollivant) as a retailer and has been overstruck on the original maker mark. The smaller 'A' and what looks the lower limb of another letter visible below the 'O' are part of the original maker mark which has partially survived the overstrike. Oliphant is know to have purchased much of his stock from the Bateman family and the original maker was almost certainly the Peter & Ann Bateman partnership, using this mark between 1791-1799:

 

[rainwolf75]

I would use auction listings for pre-sale estimates or hammer prices (proper auctions, not Ebay etc). I've provided enough information for the OP to do their own searching but, off the top of my head, I would expect a Bateman milk jug to go for around $150 up to maybe $250 on a good day with competitive bidding. The Oliphant overstamp wouldn't detract from that very much.

Apart from prestigious makers, Georgian silver can be surprisingly good value because so much of it was produced and the surviving pieces easily fulfil collector demand.

I now understand how using Ebay to value my antique sterling silver was a mistake.

 

[Red-Coat]

I now understand how using Ebay to value my antique sterling silver was a mistake.

Ha Ha... yes. A canny seller on Ebay can talk up the rarity of anything and dupe the unwary into paying over the odds. It's also worth looking closely to see if a listing has actually attracted any bids, or even sold at all. Even the 'sold' prices can be fudged. Sites like "WorthPoint" are equally misleading. They simply regurgitate information from sites like eBay and Etsy but without any verification or expert comment beyond what the seller said.

 

[rainwolf75]

Ha Ha... yes. A canny seller on Ebay can talk up the rarity of anything and dupe the unwary into paying over the odds. It's also worth looking closely to see if a listing has actually attracted any bids, or even sold at all. Even the 'sold' prices can be fudged. Sites like "WorthPoint" are equally misleading. They simply regurgitate information from sites like eBay and Etsy but without any verification or expert comment beyond what the seller said.

I learned many years ago that local antique shops will value items at only a fraction of their actual worth - yet they're selling items for half of their worth. I sometimes shop at local antique shops knowing that I could double my investment. The same goes for certain pawn shops - great deals to be found. Not sure if this is a common occurrence elsewhere or if it is just local.