UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum Some Jewelry Terminology

Hi guys.
Yes i have seen a photo with a catalogue of Degner's rings. I will search for it and post it later.
Mikee, so a silver marking shouldn't be called a hallmark? What would a correct term be? I am referring to German rings of course.

Maybe too a problem in translating.
In german translated the english word "hallmark" has a lot of similar meanings: Punze, Echtheitsstempel, Feingehaltsstempel,Beschauzeichen....

With my not so good english comprehension i think to be correct it would be best to differentiate in: hallmark, content mark and manufacturers mark

odal,

I absolutely agree. We should differentiate and as well call it what the country of origin calls it.

- the real problem guys is that we all confuse the term with 'MAKERS MARK' and sometimes the MAKER has their own symbol for content to confuse even more! There are other terms like 'Assay' marks and others,,but we must get something simple and we can all agree on.

SO,,the Definition of "HALLMARK" I am using in my book is [as it relates to jewelry] whther right or wrong but must come up with a common term for all in my book.

An official mark and / or number stamped on gold and silver articles to attest their purity or genuineness...

In reality guys,,,it is just the 'content mark' we all see in our rings,,800, 835, 900. etc.

"Makers Marks":

What I am using [but some have different view]. But I must get something down for us all to use,,so again in my book I am using:

Maker's marks:
The initials of the manufacturing firm/jeweler or other symbol stamped into a gold, silver that provide the only evidence that a certain piece of jewelry has been manufactured by a certain firm and or jeweler. Sometimes these markings also provide the time period the piece was manufactured.

Hey G,

I agree that we mostly see content/fineness marks on German rings. But I wouldn't agree to call German content/fineness marks, Hallmarks. If I understood that correctly, but maybe I didn't. I believe the definitions should come from the laws of the country of origin. Not our own definitions because then it is confusing and IMO wrong to do so. German law has these terms defined already. The assayer term is what confuses a lot people, Germany has no such mark.

I would like to see some of these confusing marks when you get some time, that would be very interesting to see. Thanks

It's very simple since we collect German 3rd Reich stuff. Forget the term Hallmark/Assayer mark. Just take it out of your dictionary because it doesn't exist in our German collecting field.

1."The form of the stamp symbol" for gold and silver; mentioned above in more detail. Note: Not every crown and crescent moon are going to look alike, many variations.

Silver; Crescent moon and Imperial crown, with variations. (This is not a Hallmark/Assayer mark.)
Gold; Imperial crown within a circle, with variations. (This is not a Hallmark/Assayer mark.)

2."Maker mark" as we call it; Is the firm or the "registered" brand mark of the company; name of owner or company name, in word, letter, abbreviated, or in figure form. More than likely yes, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the company which marked the item manufactured/made it. (This is not a Hallmark/Assayer mark.)

3.Indication of silver/gold "fineness mark" or "content mark"; Is represented in parts per thousand; .800.835.900.925.935,etc. (This is not a Hallmark/Assayer mark.)

And that's it, simple right.

While an interesting discussion, Let me introduce you to a guy named Webster. Here is what Webster has to say about Hallmarks.
"a mark or device placed or stamped on an article of trade to indicate origin, purity, or genuineness.".

I believe all English Speakers know Webster. He was around long before I was born and he updates the English language for us when we need it..

Now, just because we collect something that is German, does not mean we have to recreate the English language. All these marks are hallmarks. Webster says so, so does every book on silver marks I own.

Say Gaspare puts out a book in English and instead of using the terms that everyone knows Webster uses, Gaspare goes off on this multi faceted explanation of the German Hallmarks. People will think there is something wrong with him. They will doubt his publication because he is attempting to make a very simple English concept, very obtuse.

So, they are in fact hallmarks and it does not matter where they are struck, or by who. In English, they are Hallmarks.

Just my and Webster's opinion.

And that is simple

Also, while we are discussing dictionaries, Try running Silber-Stempel through your German English dictionary. I believe the translation will be Hallmarks.

So, why do you believe the concept of grouping these marks under one heading of Hallmarks should not occur for Germans when their language has this same heading? And that is all we are speaking of here. Everyone agrees on what the marks are. We put them under a general heading of Hallmarks. You simply want that heading removed. But, the heading is correct. They are hallmarks, or Silber-Stempel or Gold-Stemple marks.

I believe your argument has no legs. Your premise that there is no entity to enforce the regulations is credible when viewing the accuracy of the hallmarks, but it does not change the use of common language and terms that are accurate and used historically. They are still Hallmarks.

Again, just my opinion.

If i am right the words Punze (german) and hallmark (english) are in their speachs the broader term for a lot of similar words.
I think to describe a Punze/hallmark it would be correct to use the special word for this kind of hallmark. Or the describtion comes with the context.
In the case of a hallmark par example "800" there is no doubt that this is a content mark.

I totally agree odal. And, it is still under the general English category of hallmarks as defined by the dictionary.

If I was to question the validity of the German purity mark I would say the German purity mark is a questionable hallmark because of the lack of government enforcement of the purity standard. There is no basis to deny it is a hallmark.

Of course, if we were speaking German there are a number of different terms we could also use. But, we are not speaking German.

[quote=Mikee]3.Indication of silver/gold "fineness mark" or "content mark"; Is represented in parts per thousand; .800.835.900.925.935,etc. (This is not a Hallmark/Assayer mark.)

.quote]

Help!
I have read on another forum, in connection with fake RKs', that .925 was an English standard and will not be found on silver items made in the TR period.Is this reliable information?

.925 is Sterling Silver, a British main stay.

Traditionally German items were made of coin silver, .800 which is the normal German content/purity hallmark.

If there were other silver content items, Gaspare or Mikee will probably know.

Hey Jim,

"Soft voice" okay, I'm in no way trying to change this definition. I didn't literally mean to take it from the dictionary, I meant from our vocabulary, but that's okay I'll address your American definition. This isn't an argument, this is what is already known. G, in my opinion is the most knowledgeable when it comes to rings and there's absolutely nothing wrong with him using the term Hallmark if ever he writes a book and as well as you stated authors know exactly what true Hallmarks are and the history behind it. As I stated in my above post, I understand the words meaning to encompass all marks. But that doesn't mean I have to totally agree with it. I also stated in my opinion it's a mistake with German items because most equate the term Hallmark with British Hallmarking and believe that German items that are marked, as being marked from some official office or the British way of Hallmarking, which is totally false.

I remember a few discussions with Alisby, who actually believed it. Why? Because he's British and understands what true/original hallmarking is and so he believed that Germany had an assayer office that stamped official hallmarks during the 3rd Reich. Which isn't correct. In fact everyone on the discussion believed it. So, I see nothing wrong with it's usage as long as it's understood, but it's not. It makes understanding German marks much easier when we leave those terms out.

As collectors we should attempt to understand it in the context of the country of origin. The text specifically states, the form of the "stempel" or stamp. It's with this stamp that you mark with and although the term isn't used in any text that I know of, when you are specifically talking about jewelry only, in German it's understood the type of stamp/marks and what it's called. Their are many different types of stamps and marks in German. But like odal stated, its easier to understand, if you call it what it is and I agree. If it's a content mark then call it a content mark. etc. It's less confusing in my opinion.

This isn't the American English version, but the British English definition from which the word originated from. After reading it's true definition explain how German marks can be identified as true Hallmarks/Assayer marks.

This is the root of the confusion that most can't accept or seem to grasp. Germany doesn't have a Hallmarking system in place as per the true historical definition. Germany has a more simplified system which I hope they keep...Thanks.

British definition; hallmark,
( Brit ) an "official" series of marks, instituted by statute in 1300, and subsequently modified, stamped by the "Guild of Goldsmiths" at one of its "assay offices" on gold, silver, or platinum (since 1975) articles to guarantee purity, date of manufacture, etc

named after Goldsmiths' Hall in London, where items were graded and stamped.

Word Origin & History; hallmark,
1721," official stamp" of purity in gold and silver articles, from "Goldsmiths' Hall in London, site of the assay office". General sense of "mark of quality" first recorded 1864.

Barry,
I don't know anything about these fakes, but I do know that German precious metal items were marked .925.. If the item is marked as silver but it's not, then it's a no brainer as you know.. I think G will know and has much more experience in this type of collecting than I ...Thanks..

Thank you Mikee.

I believe the confusion here is that you keep using Hallmarks and Assay marks as interchangeable. While all assay marks are hallmarks, not all hallmarks are assay marks. So, if you simply remove your link between the two, I totally agree.

Guys, I'm just trying to make it simple when reading the book. There will be many who know nothing about jewelry and it must be made easy for everyone to understand.

Yes different countries will have different meanings for the content/symbols.
In the future lets use 'Hallmark' for content, or o.k., say the 'silver content' is,,,.
And 'Maker Mark' when we see a symbol
of a firm / jeweler [the maker]

Oh yeah the .925 'hallmark'
That of course is the same as seeing 'Sterling'. You will see the .925 on some Imperial German pieces,,very rarely if at all after the war started.
You will see .925 on some WW1 EK1s,,The Presentation photo frames [AH photo inside!] and some of the Stahlhelm badges

Gaspare, all I am doing is presenting the terminology used in several silver hallmark books. the Webster definition I listed above is from the British version and you will find it even clearer in the English verson.

My point to you would be they are all hallmarks. Some are official government hallmarks(Assay office) and some not. but, under the general category of hallmarks you have a variety of hallmarks for each country. Each of those is what they are. England has it's 4 hallmarks. Germany has a minimum of two after 1888, and more traditional hallmarks before that.

I believe Mikees point is valid and it should be made clear that the German hallmarks (as well as others) are not from the Assay office but rather the producer. I think that is the crux of this discussion.

If I was you I would use the simple English. Not using the work hallmark will throw me off and I suspect many others.

Gaspare, try this modification I made of Mikee's explanation.


Germany used several hallmarks starting in 1888. From 1888 to today, there is no government asset office to attest to the hallmarks, so some reservation should be made for their accuracy.

Hallmark 1."The form of the state symbol" for gold and silver;. Note: Not every crown and crescent moon are going to look alike, many variations.

Silver; Crescent moon and Imperial crown, with variations. (This is not a Assayer mark.)
Gold; Imperial crown within a circle, with variations. (This is not a Assayer mark.)

Hallmark 2."Maker mark" as we call it; Is the firm or the "registered" brand mark of the company; name of owner or company name, in word, letter, abbreviated, or in figure form. More than likely yes, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the company which marked the item manufactured/made it. (This is not a Assayer mark.)

Hallmark 3.Indication of silver/gold "fineness mark" or "content mark"; Is represented in parts per thousand; .800.835.900.925.935,etc. (This is not a Assayer mark.)

Sorry - first law in germany is from 1884.

odal,

That's correct, and it took effect 1 Jan 1888.

Trying to keep it to just a few terms so not to get their heads spinning.
One thing for sure I'm recommending right at the beginning is,,,buy a Tardy Silver book!!,easy reading, shows just about all the hallmarks,makers,state marks, date codes etc.

Well I have the choices,,
'Hallmark' and 'Makers Mark'
'Hallmark' and 'Content'
, just 'Hallmark'

What do all you think is best for the regular collector out there picking up the book?
Speak now or forever hold your,,,

G,

IMO, I guess use whatever term(s) all the other authors are using. Is it going to be a reference type book with lots of pictures with descriptions?

I think this is your decision, G.

Here is another one right out of the book.

German Hallmarks:
The German Federal Act of 16 July 1984 which took effect 1st January 1888 provides that silver shall bear:
1. The maker mark registered at the Reichspatentamt.
2. the fineness in figures, and
3. The German mark (crown and moon) struck by the maker on all silver of a fineness of .800 or more.

This is from a French publication.

For citation, the book is:
International Hallmarks on Silver, by Tardy, 6, rue Milton, 75009 Paris,1985. Page 50.

All collectors should own a Tardy!!

Mikee, yes plenty of photos,,1000 right now but will be cut down to 400 to 600. Each have to be captioned with description etc. plenty of work ahead of me!

when I get the time I'm going to start a topic about Hallmarks and move most of the Hallmark related posts to it.

Ok, trying to move some posts from another topic.


We ended up getting into a very interesting and informative discussion about hallmarks, content stamps, date codes etc.

This is important because this will blend into many other areas of our hobby. We look for markings in everything we collect. Maker marks on medals & badges , daggers/blades , even for cloth we look on the back of buttons for marks, on buckles etc. So here we go hope this works:

Since this topic is on "terminology", I would like to respond to statement number 1 below on "ring seams".

That statement about ring seams, isn't on it's own an indication of casting and we can't say "because a ring has a seam that it was "probably" cast and that most wedding rings are re-sized this way". Maybe it was cast, maybe it wasn't. There are other "indicators" that must be looked at.

It is however an indication of casting if the ring is seamless or joint less. Wedding rings in Germany during the period in discussion "were made" seamless, or joint less. Not all but none the less our focus should be on silver, wedding rings in general are made of gold and platinum.

In Germany these joint less or seamless rings, were and still are referred to as, "Fugenlose" Ringe; meaning "joint less" rings, which "are made" by casting, punch or cut from tubes. This isn't opinion but fact. Will have more terminology for you if interested. Thank you.


Craig Gottlieb stated;
Hi Jim. I have answered these questions before, but here goes again . . .

1) Ring seams are an indication that the rings were probably cast in a very large size, and cut down. Most wedding rings are re-sized this way.

2) Skulls were cast separately, because the would NEED to be, so they could be welded on after the ring was resized.

Both of these interpretations make sense, and are supported by the above-illustrated evidence in support of the investment casting method of production. Although I respect others' opinions, one cannot ignore the Brumm ring showing evidence of being a poor CASTING (a ring that both Don and I agree is 100% original). One also cannot ignore the evidence, presented above, that rings routinely appear, in mint condition, with varying degrees of sharpness. If die-struck, this would not happen.

I do of course respect other opinions on the subject.

Mikee,,, "Fugenlose" Ringes and indeed seamless. But,,once they are resized they will have a seam.
In my opinion [and most others] Craig is wrong on many accounts IF you are talking about 3rd reich mens rings that were manufactured for retail sales..
Rings with a seam were made in the flat. When 'rounded' they had a seam which also was for size. I have seen a few ring dies over the last 30 years,,and own one myself,,most 3rd reich mens rings were made in the flat...
The HR is a whole other story that has a few possibilities on construction. IF anyone would like to open a HR construction methods topic that would be fine.

Hey G,

With Fugenlose rings, or with this type of band ring, I think it depends on what the ring is made of and how it was re-sized. If soldered yes, it will have two seams for upsizing and one seam to downsize, but yes of course it's possible to see the seam(s), but not always because some Smiths just did a fantastic job on these type of rings. If a ring stretcher/reducer machine is used to re-size the ring, then still no seam and no need for all the time and work involved, plus it's cost effective. So it's not always obvious that a ring is re-sized or has a seam, it depends. Dublee rings are made seamless as well.

You get no disagreement from me on that, it's proof positive that rings were mass produced by a Press "Pressen". Which of course involved pressing of goods. It just made good business sense. Pressed goods were cheaper to produce and was the alternative to expensive handmade jewelry, but the downside is that it doesn't enjoy the high esteem of handmade goods as we know, but then again we put a high price on the rings we collect. The condition was that the pressed product had to be viable, so that the high cost of the mold(die)spread over the largest possible number of items. The steel engraver, the mechanic and the presser participated in the production. Thanks.