posted 07-23-2011 08:28 PM            

I received this item as a gift and I have been unable to identify the time period or country of origin because I have been unable to ID the figural mark used.

The mark I am inquiring about is on the hinged ivory bracelet shown in the last image.

The mark is used on all the separate metal parts.

The top of the pin for the clasp also includes the initials P and M along with the figural mark.

Thanks in advance for your help.

(Edit: I have re-sized the images to 490 wide cleared my cache but they are still showing 640. Sorry for the mistake.)

posted 07-23-2011 11:33 PM            

Nice photos.

posted 07-24-2011 12:22 AM            

I am a trying to be a collector of Victorian and European Silver Jewelry. As a collector I love to research items. Its like treasure hunting for me. Going out and looking for items and then finding out about them.

I asked this question because I hit a wall with research on my (anniversary) gift but found this Forum and thought I would give it a try to solve the mystery of this bracelet's origins.

I hope this helps.

posted 07-24-2011 10:17 AM            

The Sterling Silver Mark of Zimbabwe:
This mark depicts a Sable antelope head within a triangle. The mark was originally awarded to the Colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1923.

The Patrick Mavros mark is registered at the Assay Office in the Goldsmiths' Hall in London.

Patrick Mavros

posted 07-24-2011 10:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
The Sterling Silver Mark of Zimbabwe:
This mark depicts a Sable antelope head within a triangle. The mark was originally awarded to the Colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1923.

The Patrick Mavros mark is registered at the Assay Office in the Goldsmiths' Hall in London.

---

Thank you so much for solving the mystery for me. I have a few other smaller pieces of jewelery from Africa (South Africa.) I am thrilled to have this piece in my collection.

I have a limited knowledge of Silver Marks but would be happy to participate in your community if I have something to share

Thanks again, I really appreciate your prompt reply.

Edit: To adjust the quote for image-less content.

posted 07-24-2011 03:29 PM            

This was just a lucky coincidence. A few weeks ago while in a middle of our annual eye exam, the doctor mentioned going to a Patrick Mavros gallery opening.

Since our eyes weren't completely dilated he showed us Patrick Mavros website.

quote:

---

I have a limited knowledge of Silver Marks but would be happy to participate in your community if I have something to share

---

Limited knowledge is not a problem. For many SSF members if it wasn't for your post they might never have heard of Patrick Mavros, his mark or the Sterling Silver Mark of Zimbabwe.

We look forward to your continue participation.

posted 07-25-2011 11:26 AM            

Scott, It is a wonderful bit of luck that your eye doctor was excited and wanted to share the information with you

Art, I am glad that I came across this forum and decided to post here. I do my best to familiarize myself with the policies of boards I participate on.

Kimo, I understand your concerns. This bracelet was purchased at a second hand store. The gift was my choice and we did consider issues around ivory.

Paul, I noticed that too. Learning this bracelet was newer was disconcerting at first but I agree with your assessment.

To begin with I was thinking along the lines that this might have been a much earlier South Asian or Middle Eastern piece. The hinge style reminded me of ones on Victorian lockets I have and the pin closure was a well constructed version of ones used on modern bracelets from India and thereabouts.

Finding out the true history was a thrill. I equate it with finding a piece of Bill Reid Haida (First Nations) jewelery at a yard sale

posted 07-25-2011 12:11 PM            

I also realize that many individuals have personal objections to the existence of any item made from ivory.

I did not take this purchase lightly and it is to date the only piece of ivory in either mine or my husband's collections. I much prefer Victorian hard stone jewelery.

Edit: To all it may concern, I apologize for posting the maker's mark as displayed on an item I own. I did not understand that this was copyright infringement and therefore against board policies.

posted 07-25-2011 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

---

posted 07-25-2011 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

Edit: To all it may concern, I apologize for posting the maker's mark as displayed on an item I own. I did not understand that this was copyright infringement and therefore against board policies.

ahwt, I'm sorry but I don't understand the legalize. I did find the page for this forum though that indicated that posts could be edited without notification or explanation. I saw earlier that my first image in my OP is no longer available to be cached even though I have not deleted it from my storage. Maybe it is best that I refrain from posting.

---

It is good to be cautious but lets not get carried away.

Photos that were taken by you, of items (including marks) IS NOT a problem. This is not copyright infringement.

We have numerous members who are lawyers. Most are lurkers. But the minute they see something (which is not often), our email is flooded with questions/suggestions. No floods today or anytime recently.

No one edited the images in your OP (original post). The images are still there for rest of us. If you are not seeing them it must be something at your end. We did do some internal housekeeping and added [26-2183] to the beginning of the post.

posted 07-25-2011 06:09 PM            

I have disliked this Windows 7 OS since I was forced into it. Not only does it have less than user friendly components (including but not limited to the image download utility) I keep running into crazy-making issues like this. Surfing the web with Windows 7 is not friendly at all.

Edit: I'm not sure if this did the trick but I changed my settings in Firefox to disable the Windows Live Photo Gallery plug-in and now I can see the picture again (at least for now.)

posted 07-26-2011 11:42 AM            

The advice from the others on the photos of the markings being perfectly legal is correct. I think the term you mean is not copyright but rather trademark. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic (like a painting) or literary (like a book) work. A patent protects the right to use an invention (like a new technology). All three are for the purpose of giving someone exclusive legal rights to profit from their work for a set period of time. For example, if you made some jewelry and used this marking on it then you would run afoul of trademark laws. But, since all we are doing here is nonprofit and educational discussion and giving the maker credit for his design then there is no issue.

posted 08-19-2011 01:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by agleopar:
I am coming late to this but would just like to clarify that all of Mavros's ivory work was pre ban. The reason he became a silversmith and not just a carver of ivory animals was because of the ban. He started molding and casting the carvings in silver when he could no longer sell them.

I have heard that he has a barn full of pre ban ivory waiting for the ban to end but this is gossip (from friends who saw his place in Zimbabwe years ago before the current troubles) and who knows what is happening there now (sadly)?

---

Thank you for finding and replying to this Topic.

posted 08-24-2011 11:11 AM            

The ban is on importing and exporting ivory that was taken in 1992 or later. The hard part is to prove without question that a given piece of ivory was taken before that date rather than afterwards. Relying on the way a piece of ivory 'looks' or going by a story that someone tells is not acceptable as black market sellers know how to treat new ivory to look old. The underlying laws on this are based on an international treaty call the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES for short. Virtually every country in the world is now a part of this treaty and has passed internal laws to enforce it. For example, if you were to ship or personally wear some ivory from one country to another country you would need to get special CITES export and import permits from both governments. For something like ivory that is not going to happen unless you can provide absolute proof of the age of that particular piece of ivory.

In the bracelet that is the subject of this post there is no proof. Having someone say that it is general knowledge that the maker stopped using ivory before 1992 is not adequate since there is no hard proof that this is the case and it could be later than 1992 and black market. If you were to try to wear it, or carry it in your luggage, with out the CITES permits from both countries and if the customs people in either your own country or the country you were entering discovered it you would not only have it confiscated with no recourse, but you would also then be subject to that country's laws concerning smuggling black market items which can have quite serious consequences ranging from stiff fines to jail time depending on the laws of that particular country. Trafficking in black market wildlife and wildlife parts has now grown to the third largest source of funding for criminal organizations and armed insurgents and is now behind only trafficking in drugs and arms. As a result countries are getting more serious about dealing with it. Even INTERPOL recently created a new division to fight it.

As for fossil ivory from mammoths and such, I would not trust that a given piece of it is not artificially aged by a black market seller unless the seller provides a CITES certificate to fully document it is legal. A CITES certificate is issued by the government of the country in which it originates. I have recently read some articles on some research work going on now to figure out how a given piece of ivory can be scientifically tested at the DNA level to determine whether it is really fossil or not and where it came from, but that is still in the testing stage. It would also then have to get beyond the overall hurdle of many countries simply banning all trade in ivory with the purpose of trying to make it have a zero open trading value as part of the effort to combat black market trading.

A similar question that is asked is what happens to all of the ivory that is confiscated by customs agents or other government authorities, and since it is already in existance and does not involve killing of more animals why not just sell it? There are occassional and rare sales from some countries but it has to be done with the approval of the CITES treaty members and that is not easy. The problem, is that it continues the market for ivory which stimulates the killing of more elephants and whales and such for their ivory.

All of the legality aside, I think that there is an equally large matter of personal ethics. On an ethical basis, would a person want to even own or use a piece of ivory today, much less buy one. This includes having the knowledge that buying ivory, even legal pre-ban ivory, contributes to maintaining a high market demand and price that encourages more smuggling. I think it also includes the change in most of the world's cultural views towards ivory where the majority of people are now at the point of finding it repugnant when they see someone wearing or displaying ivory. It is like the way they look at someone who wears a real leopard or tiger fur coat in public.

It is a complicated topic.

Kimo

posted 08-24-2011 04:42 PM            

I recently repaired a tea pot that needed a new insulator on the handle. I used some material here at ONC that has been here for years. I was under he impression that it is synthetic, but as I filed it it seemed to give off a biological smell, so I fear it was some old ivory. I, too, am against any use of ivory for it all encourages further killing.

I recently got an address from Jeffrey Herman for a source of Mycarta (sp?) so I never again have to worry about the use of ivory.

posted 08-24-2011 11:11 PM            

I do not want to encourage the use of Ivory and until the world figures out how to balance poaching with common sense harvesting of ivory from dead animals I do think that the Asian market is the last "problem" from the point of view that they have no peer pressure to stop.

posted 08-26-2011 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kimo:
All of the legality aside, I think that there is an equally large matter of personal ethics. On an ethical basis, would a person want to even own or use a piece of ivory today, much less buy one.
[This message has been edited by Kimo (edited 08-24-2011).]

---

Kimo,

I will respond to this. I believe that it is within the rules to do so as there is nothing specifically forbidding a topic to evolve.

I personally do not make the connection between what is wrong with humanity and the buying of pre-ban ivory.

In fact the opposite. It is the lack of empathy and appreciation for the creativity of people and nature that enables the need for profiteering.

Humans have always created art from what nature has supplied. It is only when the innate capacity for reverence gives way to greed that any form of nature is exploited.

posted 09-10-2011 08:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahwt:
A picture for comparison would be interesting. I would love to see it.

---

I couldn't find images of the one I was thinking of but came across this brooch in one of my older PB accounts. The face /head on this Lea Stein piece has the same finish.

Edit to include additional image.

This is a Les Bernard Choker from c1980.

posted 04-20-2012 12:01 AM            

quote:

---

Antique Ivory Sales Banned in California, Consignments Seized

by David Hewett

California recently began to strictly enforce a much-amended state law, and it has already caused dealers and auctioneers much grief.

On Sunday, February 5, a dealer couple in their 60's set up at an outdoor flea market. A visitor to their booth picked up an item and asked, "What's this made of?" "It's ivory," the man answered.

Wrong answer. The customer flashed his badge and identified himself as an agent with the California Department of Fish and Game. He then proceeded to seize all eight of the pieces in the booth that contained ivory. He cited the couple for committing a misdemeanor and gave them a court appearance date of April 12. The man estimated his loss at between $1500 and $2000. He told M.A.D. that another dealer had lost upward of $10,000 worth of material.

That dealer, like others who spoke with us, was afraid of publicity. He said he'd heard we were working on a report about the seizures, and that's why he'd made the cold call to us. He refused to give his name or even the location of the seizure. The reason? "People are saying if you make a stink about it or get your name in the papers, they could sic the IRS on you or make it a federal case," he said. "My wife is a schoolteacher. They could change the misdemeanor charge to a felony, and then she'd be out of a job."

That couple's loss is but a fraction compared to what the owners of Slawinski Auction Company suffered. The Scotts Valley, California, firm was raided on February 18 by agents enforcing the new law. When the agents left, they took all the ivory lots with them—ivory worth approximately $150,000.

Some in the auction trade learned about that event through a February 20 e-mail warning sent out by Rosie DeStories, co-owner of Fairfield Auction in Monroe, Connecticut.

DeStories wrote: "The State of California Department of Fish and Game is ACTIVELY raiding auction houses and antique shows, confiscating ivory. It is now illegal to sell or have the intent to sell ANY IVORY within the State of California or to sell it to any bidders within the State of California REGARDLESS OF THE AGE of the ivory. The fine is a minimum of $1000 per violation and a maximum up to $5000 per violation."

DeStories's message continued: "Two days ago during an auction preview approximately 25 uniformed and armed State of California Department of Fish and Game officers stormed into my brother's auction preview. They confiscated approximately 40 lots of antique ivory that was scheduled to be auctioned yesterday on February 19."

DeStories's brother is Robert "Rob" Slawinski. He and their father, Robert "Bob" Slawinski, run the Slawinski Auction Company. We spoke with the elder Slawinski on March 6.

"This was a screw-up that didn't have to happen," he said. "We checked with Fish and Wildlife well before the auction. We have always worked with the idea that ivory has to be genuinely antique in order to sell it; I mean older than one hundred years. I've been very careful about that. We even refused a couple of pieces for that sale because we couldn't prove they were that old."

Slawinski went on to say that he had called the Department of Fish and Game and spoken to a woman there. "I explained I had an auction coming up in a few days and needed to know if there was something going on. We had heard there might be changes relating to ivory. I said I was selling antique ivory and needed to know if I was doing everything I needed to, legally, and was told they'd get back to me. She called me back a couple of hours later and said she wasn't able to talk to anybody.

"The night they showed up, they covered the parking lot. We had probably twenty armed agents here. There was no reason for that level of intimidation. They were uniformed and armed to the teeth. I have some young girls working here, and those kids were just shaking.

"I tried to work with them. About midway through the evening I told the chief, 'Look, this whole thing could have been resolved if you'd just had somebody in the office to give me the information I needed.'

"I pulled out my iPhone and showed him and said, 'What's your number?' Then I scrolled down and went to Friday and 10:41, and said, 'Here's when I called you.' He took the phone out of my hand and said, 'That's my number, and you were on the phone for five minutes.'

"I said, 'Somebody in your office answered the phone and told me no one was available,' and he said, 'No, that's not true. I was in the office all day.' He said he knew some calls came in, but 'she didn't say anything to me, and her desk is twenty feet from my desk.'

"They gave me a receipt [for what they took], but what they didn't give me was any kind of a summons. I think at that time they realized I'd done everything humanly possible. But apparently that's not enough."

Slawinski said his record was spotless, he'd been involved with the local community for 40 years, had run numerous charity auctions, and had actually received an award for saving the life of the local sheriff.

"This is impacting far more than my business," Bob Slawinski said. "One of my consignors brought me a collection that had been in the family for years and years with things going back to 1800. They needed to raise money for medical bills.

"I've called most of my consignors, and they'll be taken care of," Slawinski said. "They'll be paid whether we get the ivory back or not. My reputation is important to me. Integrity is everything in the auction business."

Slawinski said he'd learned from those conducting the raid that they had sent in two undercover agents that afternoon.

When California Department of Fish and Game law enforcement spokesman Patrick Foy heard about the raid, he laughed. "I doubt we're able to get twenty-five 'uniformed and armed' officers together in this state at any one time," he said. "That's a little over the top."

"It is illegal to sell any ivory or other material from any animal on the endangered species list in California," he pointed out. "It's legal to possess it, but you cannot sell it. Possession with intent to sell is illegal. It's a misdemeanor level crime."

We asked where they got their leads. Foy said, "If I'm at a trade show or something like that kind of event, and I find someone with elephant ivory, that's illegal. It is not legal to sell elephant ivory in California. It doesn't matter if it's antique. There is no provision in the law for how long it has been possessed or when it was made. It's still illegal to possess ivory with intent to sell in California," Foy said. "It's important to know that we are not in the business to put antique dealers out of business; that's not what we're after. Our intent is to prohibit the business of selling wildlife parts."

The portion of the law identifying the species covered lists more than just elephants, though. Whales, dolphins, porpoises, and polar bears are also included. Here's the first full paragraph of the relevant criminal code:

California Penal Code Section 653o:

(a) It is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf (Canis lupus), zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise (Delphinidae), Spanish lynx, or elephant.

Crocodiles, alligators, and seals are covered in subsequent paragraphs.

The next section, Penal Code Section 653p, repeats some of 653o, makes possession illegal, and identifies the root source of the law:

It is unlawful to possess with the intent to sell, or to sell, within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any species or subspecies of any fish, bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, invertebrate, or plant, the importation of which is illegal under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Title 16, United States Code Sec. 1531 et seq.) and subsequent amendments, or under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (Title 16, United States Code Sec. 1361 et seq.), or which is listed in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the above acts. The violation of any federal regulations adopted pursuant to the above acts shall also be deemed a violation of this section.

There are thousands of objects that may contain ivory from the teeth of endangered species. All whales, including beluga, blue, bowhead, finback, humpback, killer, North Atlantic right, sei, and sperm, are listed as endangered in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Similarly, all elephants are listed on the endangered species list. Since almost all ivory found on antique objects comes from elephants and/or whales, anything containing ivory is illegal to offer to sell in California.

Antique pianos often have ivory key veneers. Some antique silver or plated tableware may have an ivory ring between the handle and knife blade. Federal and country-made furniture sometimes has bone or ivory key escutcheons, and then there is the vast amount of carved ivory Orientalia that makes up whole subsections of auction offerings and is found in countless gift and curio shops throughout California.

Bonhams' March 13 Asian decorative arts sale in San Francisco included well over 125 lots that contained ivory. On March 9 and 10, all of those lots were abruptly withdrawn. Many of those lots contained multiple objects (some with as many as eight pieces), and most were described as 20th century in origin.

The law's strict enforcement is going to have an impact on those who make a number of objects, such as knives and pool cues, and repairers of antique musical instruments. Custom knife maker Al Warren of Roseville, California (who uses several types of ivory on his knives), thought he was operating legally when he wrote on his Web site: "In 1987 I secured a good supply of elephant tusk and have the 1975 bill of lading for its entry into the USA. Copies are available upon request with purchase of a knife with elephant ivory."

Warren is well aware of the pitfalls involving selling objects containing whale products. "I have a very limited number of registered teeth that belong to me that I can use for knife handles, but due to a stipulation in the law, I cannot ship them to any address outside the state of California [his emphasis]."

Warren said, when told about the California law being strictly enforced, "I guess I better get to my Web site and change some things."

The penal code banning the sale of ivory isn't the only law affecting the sale of animal parts. "If an animal exists in the wild in California," Patrick Foy said, "it's illegal to sell parts from that animal. As an example, if you hold a valid hunting license and shoot a nice big buck and have the head mounted, it's illegal to sell that head to another person. You can give it to your buddy, you can transport it somewhere, but you can't sell it."

eBay, based in California, already has made its decision about how to handle ivory. It placed a global ban on the sale of all types of ivory, stating: "This global ban will be effective January 1, 2009."

California's law will have no effect on the root cause. The demand for ivory from Asia is driving the mass murder of elephants in Africa. Poachers in Cameroon's Bouba Ndjida National Park, using modern automatic weapons, slaughtered up to 450 elephants for their tusks in just one bloody raid in mid-February.

According to TRAFFIC, a conservation group that tracks trends in wildlife trading, a record number of large-scale ivory seizures happened around the globe in 2011. TRAFFIC estimated that over 23 tons of ivory was seized in raids by authorities last year.

"I'll get beyond this," auctioneer Bob Slawinski said. "This will not affect my reputation because everybody knows me, but some homeowner who sells a used piano with ivory keys who gets busted will be liable for six months of jail time and a fine.

"They are not interested in sending people to jail; California wants the money, one to five thousand dollars fine per item."

Agents Charge the Real Traffickers in Endangered Species Parts

On January 6, 2011, a California task force working under the name Operation Cyberwild announced it had brought charges against 12 people who allegedly sold clothing, footwear, and rugs made from parts of endangered species, plus live birds and fish that appear on the endangered species list.

The arrests were announced in Los Angeles by several Assistant U.S. Attorneys, by Scott Flaherty of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and by Patrick Foy of the California Department of Fish and Game (see his comments in the main story).

The accused allegedly offered the prohibited material on two Internet services, Craigslist and eBay. Those who face federal charges were said to have sold a pair of boots made from loggerhead sea turtle leather, a leopard skin coat, a pair of sea turtle leather shoes, a tiger skin rug, and a hawksbill sea turtle shell.

The two defendants facing California charges were said to have sold an elephant foot, a bearskin rug, and mounted hawks and birds.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announcement of the arrests reported that they were aided by "[f]ive volunteers from the Humane Society of the United States who searched the Internet for suspicious items and referred the listings to investigators."

---