posted 02-28-2006 12:03 AM            

Hello,

I'm doing some research on an antique Scottish belt buckle I bought at auction not too long ago in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, the auction company didn't tell me if it was silver or not. As a result, I don't know if it is steel or silver, however, I have put a magnet to it and the magnet wasn't attracted to any part of the buckle. I don't know how old it is either. It also has no makers marks on the back. It appears to have some rust and oxidation on the back in one corner which leads me to believe that it could be steel. I suspect that it might be a Victorian (19th century) belt buckle but I'm not sure. I also wanted to know if Scottish belt buckles were traditionally made in steel or silver? Thanks for any information you can provide to me.

Sincerely,
Todd

posted 02-28-2006 12:35 PM            

It looks silver to me, but it's hard to tell from a picture.

Why would the rust just be on the back?

I have seen old silver where the copper that is mixed in it has oxidized to green at the seams or solders, but this is a solid piece. Where was it stored, I wonder.

Is the rust coming from the actual buckle or could it have been stored near something else like stainless?

Did you give it a thorough cleaning?

posted 02-28-2006 02:18 PM            

Sorry, about my problems with the pictures.

I will give it a good thorough cleaning like you suggested, however, I have read some posts in one of the forums that recommends not cleaning silver. That is, if it is silver. I guess I wouldn't be jeopardizing the integrity of the piece if I cleaned it, right? Plus, all that I would probably clean is the back corner.

Since I know nothing of it's history, I also imagine it could have been stored near an already rusting steel item.

As far as dating it, I know that there are a number of Scottish antiques in both silver and steel like Scottish steel flintlock pistols (dating from the 18th century) that have been engraved like this buckle.

posted 03-01-2006 08:59 AM            

I don't think the intent of most people's posts on cleaning silver is that it should not be cleaned, rather I think if you read through them again you will likely see that they are saying it should not be over-cleaned or over-polished. Over-cleaning removes not only tarnish but also patina and if taken too far can remove the tarnish in the crevices which give it that three-dimensional look. If cleaned with a heavy hand or, horror of horrors, with a buffing machine, you not only remove tarnish but you also start to remove small amounts of metal which over time can degrade the fineness of the design.

There is nothing wrong with cleaning and polishing silver if done in moderation and with an eye towards maintaining the patina.

Given the lack of any hallmarks on your buckle and knowing it is Scottish, I would start with the assumption that it is not solid silver as they have had strict legal requirements for hallmarking silver for a very, very long time. It is always possible that it could have missed hallmarking by being a non-commercially produced or sold buckle, but even so I would find it unlikely that a silversmith would not have taken enough pride in his workmanship to at least put his makers mark on it. My guess, given its lack of attracting a magnet is that it is either silver over copper or silver over nickle. The overall result however is a very nice buckle.

posted 03-01-2006 10:54 PM            

My calculation of the specific gravity for the belt buckle did come out to about 10. Therefore, the buckle must be silver!

In addition, I also believe your comment about the 'rust' being a probable oxidation/deposit caused by contact with a moist/salty leather.

I also had another question to everyone. I heard not too long ago that not all antique Scottish silver is hallmarked.

I have a wonderful mid 19th century silver hilted Scottish dirk made by a great family of silversmiths and engravers named R&HB Kirkwood in Edinburgh and it is not hallmarked.

I also believe that the Scottish haven't always felt obligated to follow the hallmarking requirements laid down by English law. As a result, with this in mind, does anybody know about when the silversmiths in Scotland were asked to adopt the present English dating and hallmarking process? Or was the hallmarking of a silver product left up to the discretion of each individual silversmith.

I really don't know much about the history of the hallmarking process in the U.K., so I thought I would ask.

posted 03-02-2006 06:53 PM            

Catch here; it applies to marketable silver. If something is privately commissioned it does not need to be marked. Or at least this appears the consensus understanding. Or if the client supplies the silver to be made for him on custom order, it does not need to be marked. Which is why there appear items not marked. Some of which are clothing related.

posted 03-03-2006 01:23 PM            

I believe that it's Scottish because they tend to be on the larger size. For example, most Scottish belt buckles tend to fit a 2 inch belt. Some Scottish belt buckles also fit up to a 3 inch belt. This particular belt buckle has a 3 inch loop on the back. It demensions are approximately 3 1/2 inches by 4 1/2 inches. Yes, it may not be Scottish but it definitely European. Plus, I bought it at auction in Edinburgh. At the National Museum of Scotland there are many similar examples of engraving in other Scottish objects.

posted 03-05-2006 12:44 AM            

Could it be nickel alloy or EPNS? Is that a mark on the tongue of the buckle?

Both the engraving and style look fairly generic for England and English-settled countries c1890-1910, as is the size.