posted 03-01-2006 06:13 PM            

Are there guidelines to go by regarding silver with no marks? Have 3 things that are some type of silver, either silver plate, sterling or coin. One I really, really would be surprised if it was not coin, the other 2 are iffy. Don't think any of them were made in China or India. Maybe Godinger or some other maker who uses labels, but kinda don't think so either. I will post the pictures if any one thinks that may help. Any reason that a maker would not mark them?

posted 03-01-2006 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

I will post the pictures if any one thinks that may help.

---

Venus: Pictures always help!!!

posted 03-02-2006 11:33 AM            

People tend to gravitate to the "acid tests" because it seems quick and easy. They ignore the dangers of using a very caustic and dangerous acid. They ignore the fact that any time you apply acid to something you are destroying some of the item and lessening its appeal. All of the acid tests take some skill to do properly and to interpret the seemingly easy results.

I realize this is what the majority do but it is not the best. Experience, research, and several other non-destructive tests are so much better.

posted 03-02-2006 05:29 PM            

I am afraid that there is no way that acid testing can prove reliable without being destructive, as the acid must be left on long enough to dissolve a hole in the surface (since one of the last steps in the finishing process of "solid silver" - the "pickling" - removes some of the inpurities in the alloy and leaves a more nearly pure layer of silver on the surface).

I have seen many experienced dealers, and even jewellers, pronounce coin pieces as sterling in this way, and worn (or buffed) coin pieces (with the surface layer gone) as plate ("if it isn't sterling, it must be plate, right?"). Smelters who care nothing beyond the melt value often file gouges in the surface to expose the deeper layers for testing; many scarred pieces, rescued from these smelters with acid burns around the gauges, appeared on the market during and shortly after the "Great Meltdown" precipitated by the Hunt brothers.

posted 03-02-2006 06:45 PM            

Like read the mark! I once had a very nice medallion cup holder that someone had sawed a big chunk out of. To see if was a solid metal. The piece was marked: Made and Plated by Reed and Barton.

posted 03-03-2006 12:53 PM            

tea kettle (has 2 "bands" on each side of handle)

dish?

posted 03-03-2006 01:44 PM            

The other two are department store better holloware. Sometimes these are not marked, for no clear reason. Or they appear with a bewildering array of marks. I have seen matched sets where pieces had different marks.

The reason for this seems to be that department stores frequently had their own label for their silverplate holloware. One store would call it something like 'Old Englishy' another would use 'Finer Traditions'. The makers were happy to produce for this market. And sometimes let the store do the marking.

The practice of private, one store only brand names seems to have begun in the early 1910's . It was very prevelent during the 1920's and 30's.

Stores would frequently offer a coordinated table top ensamble: silver, china and crystal all in one style. The unmarked silver would have a paper label put on at the store. Which would coordinate with the name the store was using at the time.

Oneida was the one silverplate maker that offered this service. IS tried but seems never to have gotten it together. The Oneida china I have seen is usually German which suggests that it was made to order for Oneida. There is not a lot of this around, but china breaks while silver ware doesn't. Plus the war put an end to the china supply.

Most silverplate made after 1900 can be understood as a 'brand name' not as part of traditional silver artistry.