I have to completely disagree with the above (post #3).
Take a look at the link that was posted and click on the first image (for Francis Pages) to expand it to full size. Then you will see the
full hallmark set, not just the lion passant and the maker initials ‘FP’ (with a
stop between the letters) as below:
View attachment 2028281
Note that there are
four marks. On later silver these are generally placed in a row but, on early silver, often just grouped close to one another. English hallmarks were applied by the assay office, not by the maker, and heavily regulated. In the example shown, the additional marks are a leopard’s head, facing (for the London Assay Office) and a date letter (a lower case ‘b’ in the style used for 1737).
Those were the four
compulsory marks used on English silver at the time. They should all be present on a piece which has been officially hallmarked and, unless present in full, the piece could not have been sold as ‘silver’.
It’s not Francis Parsons’ mark either (FP over BG) and the same discrepancies are true for the depicted marks in that link. The city mark shown is a castle (for Exeter) and a capital ‘L’ (for 1807) but there are
five icons in the hallmark set:
View attachment 2028282
The legally-required hallmark set changed on 1st December 1784, when the ‘Duty Mark’ was introduced as proof that the maker/sponsor had paid tax on the item. It took the form of the Monarch’s head in an escutcheon. For Tamrock’s jug it appears to be George III facing right, which was the mark used between 1786-1820.
So, if the jug had been officially hallmarked in Britain, it should have
five icons in the hallmark set: a silver purity mark; a city mark; a date letter; a maker/sponsor mark; and a duty mark. The jug has only
three of those icons and is not an official hallmark from Britain.
I see two possibilities:
1. Those are ‘pseudo-hallmarks’ on a piece that’s silver plate. In that case the maker would likely be American; despite the Georgian style it would be reproduction; and it would be no earlier than the 1840s.
2. The piece is silver, produced outside Britain in Georgian style with ‘pseudo-hallmarks’. It could be either contemporary Georgian or a later reproduction. To me, the handle style is not what I would expect to see on a period Georgian jug and the ‘hallmarks’ are uncharacteristically and ostentatiously prominent.
One thing to note is that, in earlier times, British Colonies had no official system of silver hallmarking. Local silversmiths applied their own marks in imitation of British marks, but with no official status. These are also referred to as 'pseudo-hallmarks' but of a different nature. Typically such marks in the Georgian period would have the Monarch’s head, the lion passant and the maker’s initials only… which is what we can see on this jug. This was not an uncommon practice in America prior to the War of Independence but this jug has to be later. It was also common practice in Canada, Australia and South Africa (Cape silversmiths). In Canada, for example, that situation persisted until the early 20th Century but by that time the marks were beginning to be accompanied city indications for Montreal, Quebec and Halifax plus (sometimes) the word “Sterling”. Without a city mark or date lettering system, there’s no easy way to put an age to pieces like this, unless the maker and his period of activity can be traced.
It's a nicely made piece but I’m uncomfortable with the style of the handle and the prominence of the ‘hallmarks’ for a period Georgian piece. Technically, the Georgian period ended in 1830 (or 1837 if you include William IV, which most people do) but experienced a Colonial revival from about 1870 onwards. My gut feel is that, if it proves to be silver, it might be Canadian from the early part of the 1800s or possibly Georgian revival from the latter part of the 1800s with an anachronistic copy of a George III duty mark.
