Foreign K.H.C. mark and J.R mark - SMP Silver Salon Forums

SM Publications

Silver Salon Forums - The premier site for discussing Silver.

SMP | Silver Salon Forums | SSF - Guidelines | SSF - FAQ | Silver Sales

The Silver Salon Forums
Since 1993
Over 11,793 threads & 64,769 posts !!
Continental / International Silver Forum

Silver Salon internal search
or

How to Post Photos

REGISTER (click here)

SMP Silver Salon Forums
tline

Continental / International Silver
tline3

Foreign K.H.C. mark and J.R mark

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Foreign K.H.C. mark and J.R mark
flabob Posts: 39 Registered: May 2004	posted 10-02-2010 05:25 PM [26-2051] Hi Again - Since it appears that the pics are coming through OK, have three more foreign marks that I have been unable to locate. The J.R mark is on a 6" down turned fiddle spoon also on heavy gauge and with a pronounced drop, the K.H.C. is on a medium gauge 5.5" down turned fiddle with a pronounced drop. The BO is on a 5.25" light gauge shouderless coffin end with a etched "v" drop. Thanks again! IP: Logged
adelapt Posts: 418 Registered: May 2003	posted 10-02-2010 09:20 PM KHC - this is Khecheong, identified in the same source as the reference mentioned for your other enquiry (maker SS). Most prolific maker, Canton, mid-19thC. IP: Logged
flabob Posts: 39 Registered: May 2004	posted 10-02-2010 10:07 PM Hello and thank you again Adelapt for your quick and useful attribution of yet another Chinese maker. I am fairly confident that that will make them the only two Chinese makers that I have. It's also quite interesting that they were so adept at imitating our Western spoons so well, and of the thick gauge silver they used. Do you know if they, at that time, also matched the 90% purity standard generally used in the US? Thanks again. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 10-03-2010 02:29 PM Your second spoon is Canadian - Joseph Robinson & Co., Toronto, w. 1859-1880. (Reference: Canadian Silversmiths 1700-1900, by John E. Langdon. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 10-03-2010 02:48 PM I believe the third spoon mark to be B&O, with the ampersand being incomplete. I am not familiar with the mark, but, based on style and period, one possibility might be Butler & Osborn (Nathaniel Butler & John Osborn) adv. 1805-1807 in Utica, NY. IP: Logged
Kimo Posts: 1627 Registered: Mar 2003	posted 10-04-2010 10:02 PM I'm not sure I would be quick to agree that the purity standard in the U.S. in the first quarter of the 19th century was 90%. The big silver strikes in the U.S. did not happen until later so most silver smiths scrounged for whatever silver they could get. Sometimes they reused old continental silver that had become damaged or was out of style and that had varying silver content, sometimes they reused silver coins from a number of different countries which had varying silver content. The result would be silver that could range anywhere from as low as 80 percent to as high as 95% or anywhere in between depending on what was tossed in the melting pot. There was no silver guild like they had in England or many other European countries to test and assure silver content of the products made by American silver manufacturing companies or smiths. IP: Logged
flabob Posts: 39 Registered: May 2004	posted 10-07-2010 12:13 AM Thanks Swarter for the JR Toronto attribution, and looking closely, yes, there is an ampersand between the B and the O, an unusual styled one, but one nonetheless. Good eye! Kimo, thanks for the info on the coin silver content. Quite a varying percent, and your point is well taken, and, of course, makes 100% sense for the era. I imagine in the orient, as well as here, there were many country's silver coins flowing through, so there was a continuing variation of recipes for the silversmiths' raw material supply. IP: Logged
Kimo Posts: 1627 Registered: Mar 2003	posted 10-07-2010 04:02 PM Keep in mind that so called 'coin silver' was not always made from coins. It just as likely was made from silver objects that had gone out of style or were broken. Sometimes the owner of the 'old fashioned' silver gave it to a smith to melt down and remake into the current fashion. It was a whatever was available situation. Late in the 1800s and ever since some companies have been making silver at the 90% standard and marking it 'coin silver' to give the impression of age and get a better price for the nostalgia factor, just like making silver in old patterns has been going on for such a long time. Using 90% silver and convincing buyers that it is special also gives them a bit more of a profit from the savings on the lower purity silver than the sterling quality most buyers have insisted on for so long. They can make 21 objects to sell for the raw metal price of 20 if they used sterling purity. IP: Logged
Kimo Posts: 1627 Registered: Mar 2003	posted 10-07-2010 04:32 PM Here is some more information on 'coin silver' being created as an official U.S. standard at 90 percent silver from an old posting by Dragonflywink: Section 296 of the National Stamping Act of 1906 defined .900 coin silver as one of our two silver standards and so far as I know, it remains the same. There was a 1961 amendment requiring that if a quality mark is used, there must also be the maker's name or registered trademark present. The following is from the 1996 Federal Trade Commission's Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries � 23.6 Misrepresentation as to silver content. It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent that an industry product contains silver, or to misrepresent an industry product as having a silver content, plating, electroplating, or coating. It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as "silver," "solid silver," "Sterling Silver," "Sterling," or the abbreviation "Ster." unless it is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver. It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as "coin" or "coin silver" unless it is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver. It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with silver unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of silver that is of substantial thickness.8 The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.9 Note 1 to � 23.6: The National Stamping Act provides that silverplated articles shall not "be stamped, branded, engraved or imprinted with the word "sterling" or the word "coin", either alone or in conjunction with other words or marks." 15 U.S.C. 297(a). ~Cheryl IP: Logged
Kimo Posts: 1627 Registered: Mar 2003	posted 10-07-2010 04:41 PM And to answer your question on silver purity used in Chinese silver made for selling to tourists and the European and American markets, they also did not really have a standard. The assays I have heard of done by people who had such silver tested seem to come up with purities in the range of 80 percent to 90 percent or anywhere between. There were official Chinese government silver assayers and government licensed private silver assayers who assayed individual things for purity and hammered their chop marks into them, but for the most part I have seen those mostly on sycees (the lumps of silver cast into boat-like shapes that were used for trade and as money) and on silver coins from many countries (you find US silver dollars and Spanish eight reals and many other countries old silver coins with Chinese chop marks hammered deeply into them) to confirm their individual silver content and weight. I do not think most foreigners were all that concerned about silver content and if they were they would not have been able to read and understand Chinese assay chops. [This message has been edited by Kimo (edited 10-07-2010).] IP: Logged
flabob Posts: 39 Registered: May 2004	posted 10-17-2010 07:10 PM Hi Kimo, Thanks again for that interesting information, as well as the excerpts from the 1996 FTC precious metals mis-representation guidelines. That explains to me how some items were advertised as "solid silver", which would be legal as long as the content was at least 925/1000 (sterling) standard. That still does sound deceptive to me, because in my mind, solid would represent 999/1000, so now I know. Thanks again Kimo! IP: Logged

All times are ET	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a

^1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums.
Click here to Register for a Free password

^2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development).

^3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post.

| Home | Order | The Guide to Evaluating Gold & Silver Objects | The Book of Silver