Posts: 730
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 08-25-2005 02:41 PM            

---

I recently acquired this small creamer. The marks are shown below and are for London 1727, but I am somewhat suspicious about them. There looks like another mark next to the date mark and in some light, the side looks like there could be a mark smudged out on the right side. Am I imagining things?

And does anyone have any idea about the maker's mark? I couldn't find it in Jackson's or any of my other sources.

IP: Logged

Posts: 450
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-25-2005 07:55 PM            

---

Very difficult to assess the marks from the photo but the Lion Passant although looking Guardant appears to be in the post-1755 punch, i.e. the pointed or nippled bottom punch. The correct Lion Passant for the 1720 -1740 period is in a rectangular punch and the Lion himself is rather emaciated , and not nearly is chunky and full maned as the 1756 onwards Lion.

The actual marks also looks to me as if they have been later applied to the piece like a duty dodger. Style is odd as well. Sorry - not happy ! But I have been known to be wrong !!! Many times !

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-26-2005 12:49 PM            

---

These marks look OK to me for 1763/4, as does the style, but I am not sure if the decoration is original.

IP: Logged

Posts: 336
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 08-28-2005 07:34 AM            

---

Okay, so we have the Lion Passant, Crowned Leopard's Head, and date letter 'H'. Is the 'M' part of the maker's mark (David Mowden?) or something else? It looks to me like 'DM' or 'OM'

[This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 08-28-2005).]

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-28-2005 09:45 AM            

---

It is the maker's mark. The mark is partially obscured and the remainder is unclear in the photograph, so I cannot do more than guess - the first letter is either a "D" or "B". It could be either David Mowden or Benjamin Mordecai, or perhaps even Benjamin Montegue, depending on the first letter, presence of a pellet, shape of the outline, etc. If there is actually a notch in the outline between the letters, it likely would be Mowden.

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 08-28-2005).]

IP: Logged

Posts: 450
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-28-2005 10:52 AM            

---

Benjamin Mordecai effectively changed his name to Benjamin Mountigue in 1771. Probably to avoid being thought Jewish as this was not fashionable at the time. But his first recorded mark was 1770 , and he classed himself as a smallworker, or a bucklemaker.

Looking at the photo of the mark again, I still have dark thoughts that perhaps a disk of metal with existing marks has been (fraudulently) inserted ,probably pre 1800.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-28-2005 06:44 PM            

---

Clive: Perhaps we should ask doc whether there is a visible solder seam visible inside the bottom of the bowl. As a piece of this time and age should have been raised from a single piece of silver, that alone should tell. If it is the sloppy solder where the stem joins the bowl that bothers you, not every smith bothered to clean up seams thet were not normally exposed to view. The crowding of the marks suggests to me that they were originally applied in a space of this size.

IP: Logged

Posts: 730
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 08-29-2005 10:48 AM            

---

Thank you all for your replies. I apologize for the quality of the photo, but that was the best I was able to do, given the piece's size and the location of the marks. Clive, I should have mentioned in my initial posting that I shared your concern about the lion passant, which does not look correct for the 1720-1740 period. To respond to swarter, there is no solder seam on the inside-it is very clean. I believe the maker's mark to be O M, but as noted, it is worn.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-29-2005 01:43 PM            

---

Perhaps this will help:

IP: Logged

Posts: 730
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 08-29-2005 02:24 PM            

---

Thanks, Swarter-the photos are much clearer than mine. I just got back from vacation, so I apologize for my fuzziness. When I first looked at this, I thought that the maker's mark is the mark that shows up best in swarter's second photo, which looks like a TE (or perhaps the first letter is a G or J). I thought the M was a date mark, which adds to the mystery because what is the O next to it?

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-29-2005 04:57 PM            

---

There seems to be some confusion here. The date letter is a Gothic letter "H," upright in the first photo; the maker's mark, possibly D•M, which is inverted in the first photo and upright in the second. Since there is no seam visible inside, It is likely that there has been no replacement of the bottom.

The maker's mark is overstamped with the date letter, and was therefore stamped first. If there is a problem, it is that the maker's mark, which looks like David Mowden's second mark, was entered after 1763, when the date letter should have been applied. Either Mowden used a mark before it was registered, or used a similar unregistered mark, or there is a mistake in Grimwade, or the mark is not Mowden's and belongs to someone else. Since the maker's mark is incomplete, the date letter should be given preference.

IP: Logged

Posts: 363
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 08-30-2005 04:23 AM            

---

It is a pretty little jug, and although it is hard to say for sure, the chased decoration looks o.k. from here.

The date latter is (I know this is what Swarter meant) a Gothic H (1763-64) exactly the right date to expect to find a little rococo decoration. It is nice to see that the marks are struck over the excess solder and that the assay marks were struck after the sponsor's mark.

As to the identity of the maker hmm.

This a period when the registers containing the maker's marks are lost.

David Mowden, to my knowledge, really only made salts and other smallish items (that isn't to say that this couldn't be a mark of his!). I don't think that a clear response is possible.

Keep Hunting!

IP: Logged

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

posted 08-30-2005 12:30 PM            

---

Thank you, Silver Lyon - yes, it was a typo. It has been corrected.

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 08-30-2005).]

IP: Logged

Posts: 730
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 08-30-2005 02:01 PM            

---

Thank you all for your input and for slogging through this with me! Sometimes you cannot see the forest for the trees-I stared at that date mark so many times and failed completely to see a Gothic H, although once pointed out, it's quite obvious! I also can never stare at those dotted pictures and see images, either!

This was one of those relative bargain finds that people talk about, so I am quite pleased with the final analysis, and I'll keep searching on the maker's mark. Thanks again to all!

IP: Logged

Posts: 730
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 09-08-2005 06:13 PM            

---

Just a follow up-now that I have the date straightened out, I took a closer look at the maker's mark and my Jackson's, and I think it is the mark of David Mowden. As Swarter noted, Mowden's mark has a notch between the letters, and looking at it through a loop, the notch is there and the first letter is a D. Because of the uneven solder, the D of the maker's mark did not punch in as strongly. It also did not indent to the inside of the creamer's bowl, while the other three marks did.

Anyway, thanks again for assistance, and I think mystery may be solved.

IP: Logged

All times are ET