Hi,
After studying this interesting post: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... JD#p116958 , if I have my facts right, then Sheila's spoon was assayed at Utrecht in 1928 and made by Fa. A.J. Driesen. What does stump me is reason for the silversmith's overstrike. Can anyone enlighten me?
All thoughts appreciated.
Trev.
Help With Sheila's Spoon
Re: Help With Sheila's Spoon
Hi Trev,
Yes, you have it right. The year letter S for 1928 and assayed in Utrecht(B). Both makers’ marks, the big and small one, are of the Fa. A.J. Driesen and used during the same period 1923-1943. The reason of the overstrike, the only plausible explanation I can come up with. The first original and correct mark used for big items, like Sheila’s spoon, was a mis-struck and made with a damaged punch mark which deformed the D in the maker’s mark A.J *D*. To correct the error, a new punch mark, normally used for small items; A.J.D was used to overstruck the deformation, to clearly show the D for Driesen. Alternatively, could we blame Sheila, did she asked for it?
Best,
Peter
Yes, you have it right. The year letter S for 1928 and assayed in Utrecht(B). Both makers’ marks, the big and small one, are of the Fa. A.J. Driesen and used during the same period 1923-1943. The reason of the overstrike, the only plausible explanation I can come up with. The first original and correct mark used for big items, like Sheila’s spoon, was a mis-struck and made with a damaged punch mark which deformed the D in the maker’s mark A.J *D*. To correct the error, a new punch mark, normally used for small items; A.J.D was used to overstruck the deformation, to clearly show the D for Driesen. Alternatively, could we blame Sheila, did she asked for it?
Best,
Peter
Re: Help With Sheila's Spoon
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, in this case, let us blame Sheila!
Trev.
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, in this case, let us blame Sheila!
Trev.