Miles
Enamelled butterfy brooch
Enamelled butterfy brooch
There have been a couple of similar brooches on the forum before, but not one with these marks which I assume are American. Does anyone know the maker/retailer and how old it is?
Miles
Miles
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
Hello Miles.
Just a possibility here, not sure.
There have been British companies, Ellis-Barker and Hunt Silver come to mind, that sold sterling items in the United States without British hallmarks.
This brooche might have been made in England and sold in the USA.
Have seen that mark before on enameled jewelry attributed to John Atkins & Sons, Birmingham, England, in auctions.
Have not been able to confirm this however.
They did produce this type of jewelry.
Pat.
Just a possibility here, not sure.
There have been British companies, Ellis-Barker and Hunt Silver come to mind, that sold sterling items in the United States without British hallmarks.
This brooche might have been made in England and sold in the USA.
Have seen that mark before on enameled jewelry attributed to John Atkins & Sons, Birmingham, England, in auctions.
Have not been able to confirm this however.
They did produce this type of jewelry.
Pat.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
All British manufacturers have to do in the US is mark the piece sterling or 925. The US does not require the British hallmarks as far as I know.
We have never even had an import mark.
Like I said, other British companies have sold sterling in the US without the traditional British hallmarks.
So, I'm guessing the British hallmarks regulations apply to items sold there or imported to England.
Pat.
We have never even had an import mark.
Like I said, other British companies have sold sterling in the US without the traditional British hallmarks.
So, I'm guessing the British hallmarks regulations apply to items sold there or imported to England.
Pat.
Hi Miles,
As I understand (fuzzily) British marking exemptions, there were three basic categories.
1. Under a certain weight (10 dwt. i think)
2. In the event that marking could damage the piece.
3. Marking would interfere with the aesthetics of the piece.
If a piece qualifed for any of these reasons, marking was left to the discretion of the maker.
Your piece could easily have qualified on two, if not all three counts. The identifying marks on it are part of the manufacturing process, part of the same die stamp that formed the butterfly and the detailing under the enamel. As to the "Sterling Silver", I've also seen it on Murrle, Bennett & Charles Horner pins that were only accompanied by makers marks. Seemingly, its an accepted practice and I'd guess legal to boot.
While I'm guessing, I've never seen anything written about, or any references, to British Export Marks. I'd guess there were none and marking was again left to the discretion of the maker.
Given that there are so many examples of exempt goods that do bear hallmarks, I have to believe that many makers chose to have them hallmarked because it gave them added cachet and increased saleability.
What I know about the subject is distilled from the little section in Tardy and I'm none too sure of its accuracy. I'd very much like to read the Silver Plate Act of 1790 & the Gold and Silver Wares Acts of 1844 & 54. Have tried unsuccessfully to track them down on the web. If anyone knows where they can be had, please let us know.
Regards, Tom
note - member "dognose" was kind enough to reply with a transcription of the pertinent sections of the Silver Plate Act of 1790. It has been given its own thread and can be found here -> http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8085" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As I understand (fuzzily) British marking exemptions, there were three basic categories.
1. Under a certain weight (10 dwt. i think)
2. In the event that marking could damage the piece.
3. Marking would interfere with the aesthetics of the piece.
If a piece qualifed for any of these reasons, marking was left to the discretion of the maker.
Your piece could easily have qualified on two, if not all three counts. The identifying marks on it are part of the manufacturing process, part of the same die stamp that formed the butterfly and the detailing under the enamel. As to the "Sterling Silver", I've also seen it on Murrle, Bennett & Charles Horner pins that were only accompanied by makers marks. Seemingly, its an accepted practice and I'd guess legal to boot.
While I'm guessing, I've never seen anything written about, or any references, to British Export Marks. I'd guess there were none and marking was again left to the discretion of the maker.
Given that there are so many examples of exempt goods that do bear hallmarks, I have to believe that many makers chose to have them hallmarked because it gave them added cachet and increased saleability.
What I know about the subject is distilled from the little section in Tardy and I'm none too sure of its accuracy. I'd very much like to read the Silver Plate Act of 1790 & the Gold and Silver Wares Acts of 1844 & 54. Have tried unsuccessfully to track them down on the web. If anyone knows where they can be had, please let us know.
Regards, Tom
note - member "dognose" was kind enough to reply with a transcription of the pertinent sections of the Silver Plate Act of 1790. It has been given its own thread and can be found here -> http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8085" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you both very much; I've had a look around and found the exact same brooch hallmarked Birmingham 1916 with JA&S in a one-line cartouche.
Like Pat, I've seen this attributed to John Atkins & Sons, but never by a reliable source. Does anyone have The Silversmiths of Birmingham and their Marks 1750-1980?
Miles
Like Pat, I've seen this attributed to John Atkins & Sons, but never by a reliable source. Does anyone have The Silversmiths of Birmingham and their Marks 1750-1980?
Miles