Beautiful Pendant from Birmingham, need help!!!

scorpion_strike · Post by **scorpion_strike** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:40 am

G’day,

What a wonderful site!!! It is hard to believe that I found it while trying to date an old South Australian bottle!

Generally I detect for gold, but sometimes will go to a local park in Melbourne (Vic, Australia) to test the detector to make sure that it works properly.
Somehow I stumbled on an old house site — it was a roundish hill with a tree and nothing more… only by detecting it, I started finding old buttons, etc. An info board to the park entrance mentions that this area was settled by a wealthy fella in 1830’s till early 1860’s (when the house was destroyed by floods), but nobody knew where the house stood. Two interesting items came from that place — a 1825 half penny and the silver pendant/locket shown below.

Can anyone please help me to get the exact date and maker of this item???

The “M” doesn’t fit any Birmingham “M” on this site or Birmingham register. This is definitely an old item, since it was found right next to the coin (both of the items are damaged — looks like they fell together and a horse stepped on them) and at the same depth (10”).

The dating of this item is important to me from a historical point of view, as it appears to be a personal pendant of one of the first residents of Melbourne. My goal is to have it restored to its original condition.

There is the makers stamp below the date/city/purity sequence. It appears to be "J (dot in the middle) (???)". Because of the demage, it is impossible to see what the (???) is.

There are no other marks on the pendant.

Thanks a lot to anyone willing to help or just taking a read.
Best regards,
Scorp.

Post by **Granmaa** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:12 pm

This is quite a strange piece; it seems a strange thing to wear as a pendant with the hallmarks on the front. Does it open at all? Could we have a look at the back?
The arrow ended legs of the M make it look most like 1886 rather than 1911, but the pattern discourages me. It could be Joseph Gloster as I've seen his pieces, marked with J.G, date from 1860 to 1905, and then he continued with J. G Ld. He made a wide range of pieces in both the Art Nouveau and Art Deco styles; this pendant looks like a cross between the two, which suggests 1911. Very confusing! A second opinion most definitely needed.

Miles

scorpion_strike · Post by **scorpion_strike** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:40 pm

Thank you Miles for your reply,

I’ve attached the photo of the front of the pendant below. The first photo was of the back. The pendant doesn’t open up, it had a picture of some sorts inside behind the glass.

The “M” also has an arrow on the rightmost leg but at the top. This is very distinctive and could not be a misprint. The “M” in 1911 is also in a totally different box, and of an entirely different shape.

The site where it was found was destroyed in 1864 — nothing was ever build there, the area overgrew in 2 years cutting off access. The overgrowth was only cleared in 1994 to encourage kangaroos to this area. I detected every target in that area where the house presumably stood and found nothing modern — even post 1994 era the site is very difficult to access.

In the same area I also found a 1880’s farmhouse that functioned until 1915 — the finds from that place are in a much better condition.

I also mentioned that the pendant was found with a coin dating back to 1825 — the style of this coin came out of existence in 1840’s — when a different sized penny and half-penny were introduced. It was simply too late to use this style of penny post 1860’s. In 1907 Australian coins came out — therefore the pendant can’t be 1911 in any way… the British coins were not used at all.

This is indeed a confusing find. To add to the confusion — even if the pendant was made in 1886 — where’s the queen Victoria’s head? The style does look a bit modern — but it is in fact a very delicate work.

The next close match “M” is in 1810 — the style of the box is more appropriate and the timeframe of the household (a wooden hut as I found no bricks — this is how the first settlers of this country lived) doesn’t fit the later dates. The fella to which the pendant belonged left Australia back to England after the horrific flood.

I’ve also scanned one of the military buttons (found about 11 of them). I know that they belonged to him, since there were only two households in the area — one know… a farmhouse where I found regular buttons (called miners buttons here in Australia) and the other household with the military buttons… it is known that this fella served in the navy for few years and the buttons do seem to confirm that.

Looking forward to more information.
Best of wishes.
Scorp.

Post by **Granmaa** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:52 am

Scorp,
It is not uncommon for Victoria's head to be left out, particularly on small pieces.
1810 is very unlikely; everything about the piece is incongruous with such an early date.
I've included two pictures of 1886 hallmarks which I think are pretty similar to yours, especially the bottom one.
Also, have a look at this post:

http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... vesta+case

It has a similar pattern to your locket: it has a zig-zagged border and stemmed leaves which aren't quite as angular as yours but pretty close nevertheless. It was made in 1887, one year away from when I think yours was made.

Of course, the fact that the area was inaccesible at this period is a bit frustrating. Perhaps we could invent a romantic theory such as: a lady wails heartbroken, and, furious, she stares at his picture in her locket, then hurls it into the woods, never to be seen again.

Miles

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:29 pm

The first thing I noticed was the order the hallmarks take. They are not in the correct order as displayed by the assay office. The date would appear to be as suggested by Granmaa 1886-7...the reason I say this is the pattern is most definitely from the 'Arts and Crafts' movement which was the lead up to Art Nouveau...1880 to 1900 ish. The concern over the shape of the hallmark boxes can be allayed by the fact that they did vary from time to time from those published in our reference books. Hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Mike.

Waylander · Post by **Waylander** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:10 pm

Scorp

I'm in agreement with Miles and Mike. Notwithstanding difficulties with the exact shape of the hallmarks, the thing that is definitive for me is the style; which, as my learned colleagues have stated, is vert Arts n Crafts., and would therefore date to 1886. I have one or two pieces from the same vintage, and the A&C design is very distinctive.

Waylander

scorpion_strike · Post by **scorpion_strike** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:22 am

Dear Miles, Mike and Waylander,

Thank you very much for your help and sharing your knowledge.

I agree with you all that is made in 1886 - after all, Mile's theory sounds fantastic and very possible!!!
Thank you Miles for the photos - the bottom "M" is exactly the same.

For future reference, I found out that the "laid down" anchor was used between 1860 and 1890 - so all the pieces of the puzzle fit.

Many thanks and the best of wishes,
Stan.