|
|
|
 |
 |
By Anthony B. L. Dove F.R.S.A
| The subject of this short paper is a vinaigrette by Nathaniel Mills assayed at Birmingham in1829 (figure 1). At a later stage in its life, it has been stripped of any gilding and two fake 18 carat gold marks applied (figure 2). This appeared a few years ago at a well-known saleroom described as a rare white-gold vinaigrette. It was spotted by a dealer who realised that white gold was not used for items of this type in the 1820s and was withdrawn from the sale. | ||
 Figure 1Click on images for larger version |
 Figure 2 |
This is an interesting example of an attempt to turn a genuine article into an even better one by applying fake marks. A vinaigrette contained a sponge soaked in an aromatic substance that would have reacted adversely with silver and consequently, at the very least, the grille and interior would have been gilded even if the outside was not. The fact that there is now no trace of gilding is in itself highly suspicious as, however rubbed this may be from use, it would be impossible for every trace to have been removed from the interstices of the grille by natural wear. The lion passant struck in the lid, to the right of the maker, has been obliterated by a rather crude “18" punch. An additional 18 has been struck in the base next to the anchor. The impression of this punch can be clearly seen on the outside of the box (figure 1). | |
| Another point arises here which should arouse suspicion, apart
from the non-existence of white gold vinaigrettes at this early date. All 18
carat gold marks had to include the crown, as can be seen from the marks on a
mourning ring of the same date (figure 3). This crown was an essential part of
the standard mark and could be amalgamated in the same punch (as here) or shown
separately. Its non-appearance here should have alerted the saleroom to the
possibility of this item being spurious. It would also be interesting to know whether the choosing of an 1829 hallmark was a deliberate choice or a matter of chance. If the date had been 1823 or prior it would have been instantly recognised to be a fake, as Birmingham had only been empowered to assay gold since 1824. If the perpetrator of this deception had such knowledge of gold hallmarking this would probably have included the fact that in 1829, 22 carat gold had exactly the same marks as silver (which continued until 1844). If it had been the intention to pass off this piece as gold, an extra layer of gilding all over would have had the desired superficial effect, although neither this nor its present condition would have withstood re-assaying. There would therefore have been no need to apply fake marks and thus risk prosecution. |
 Figure 3 |
Reference Some observations on gold and its hallmarks by Anthony B. L. Dove
Photography by Simon Moore MiScT FLS Cons Reg AMUKIC ACR
| Telephone: +44(0)20 7431
0866 Mobile: +44(0)7836 660008 Fax: +44(0)20 7431 3224 |
 |
Third Floor,
Elliott House, 28a Devonshire Street, London, W1G 6PS |
 |
||
 |