Silver purse, Haarlem?
Silver purse, Haarlem?
Very special silver purse, named in the book of Wttwaal on page 63, photo 124. The book says there is no makersmark, but I doubt it. I found one which looks like a can? Yearletter B stands for 1760. I did not find a silversmith in Haarlem with a can, but it could also be something else. Help is appreciated.
Re: Silver purse, Haarlem?
Pseudo marks.
The sword is wrong and is too long, sticks out above the flanking stars.
It should represent 2nd standard silver Haarlem but letter B but the year letter B on the bracket looks different than the original year B used in Haarlem in 1760
In short, pseudo city mark Haarlem, pseudo year letter B and pseudo maker's mark.
Peter.
Source; K.A. Citroen Haarlemse zilversmeden en hun merken 1988
The sword is wrong and is too long, sticks out above the flanking stars.
It should represent 2nd standard silver Haarlem but letter B but the year letter B on the bracket looks different than the original year B used in Haarlem in 1760
In short, pseudo city mark Haarlem, pseudo year letter B and pseudo maker's mark.
Peter.
Source; K.A. Citroen Haarlemse zilversmeden en hun merken 1988
Re: Silver purse, Haarlem?
We see Haarlem, next to it the B = date letter of 1760. The purse must, given the nature and appearance of such an object, be "advanced" 18th century; the B from the eleventh Haarlem alphabet (1736) is a curly script - this one is not. The B from the twelfth alphabet does match, so 1760. It seems very likely that we are dealing with the large mark, so first grade - remarkable given the small size and given the fact that objects intended for daily use were often of the second grade (somewhat more copper --> somewhat sturdier, so more wear-resistant). In the small mark the date letter is attached to the city mark; here they are clearly separated.
The large mark must be recognizable by the fact that the provincial mark Holland has also been struck, the Dutch lion (since 1663). That mark seems very vaguely to be to the left of the city mark.
Then the master's mark. I think I see the V, and to the left of it the I. Then it is still the question whether there is also something to the right of the V. Perhaps a very badly struck and worn D. According to Arno J. Bruitsman (Het Haarlemse zilversmidsgilde en de Zaanstreek [1500-1800], published last month) this could be Jan Verdoes; born 1703, master 1732, died 1768. The strike we see on the purse most resembles the second version of the master's mark, in use after 1735. The third version is also possible, but that looks sharper than the strike we see here. In both the second and third version as seen by Bruitsman, the D is clear, unlike on the purse, but that could be the result of wear, one-sided pressure exerted by hand, the somewhat unfortunate place where the mt was struck.
The large mark must be recognizable by the fact that the provincial mark Holland has also been struck, the Dutch lion (since 1663). That mark seems very vaguely to be to the left of the city mark.
Then the master's mark. I think I see the V, and to the left of it the I. Then it is still the question whether there is also something to the right of the V. Perhaps a very badly struck and worn D. According to Arno J. Bruitsman (Het Haarlemse zilversmidsgilde en de Zaanstreek [1500-1800], published last month) this could be Jan Verdoes; born 1703, master 1732, died 1768. The strike we see on the purse most resembles the second version of the master's mark, in use after 1735. The third version is also possible, but that looks sharper than the strike we see here. In both the second and third version as seen by Bruitsman, the D is clear, unlike on the purse, but that could be the result of wear, one-sided pressure exerted by hand, the somewhat unfortunate place where the mt was struck.
Re: Silver purse, Haarlem?
A whole story with many assumptions without clear facts. The so-called expert of the auction house was also not clearly convinced and noted possibly 1784 instead of 1760. Certainly not 1784, see here and better not waste words on it.
See the Haarlem hallmarks for 1760 and compare with the marks on the purse
Again it appears that on the purse, the Haarlem town mark is wrong, the sword too long and wrong cartouche. The letter B is not for haarlem 1760, far too "fat"and the openings in the B are too narrow.
In my opinion there is only one conclusion, the marks on the purse are fake.
I do not recognize the mark IVD in a monogram of Jan Verdoes, however his mark has been encountered as a falsification.
Of course it's your purse and as far as I'm concerned you are free to have your own opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
Peter.
See the Haarlem hallmarks for 1760 and compare with the marks on the purse
Again it appears that on the purse, the Haarlem town mark is wrong, the sword too long and wrong cartouche. The letter B is not for haarlem 1760, far too "fat"and the openings in the B are too narrow.
In my opinion there is only one conclusion, the marks on the purse are fake.
I do not recognize the mark IVD in a monogram of Jan Verdoes, however his mark has been encountered as a falsification.
Of course it's your purse and as far as I'm concerned you are free to have your own opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
Peter.