FP,
Yes you�re correct. . I believe the solder was also taken into account though. I remember reading something very important concerning secondary metals used as alloys or was it reinforcement devices consisting of other metals. Dang! Let me stop while I�m ahead!
Not surprising to me that G has found some articles that came up short of what the actual content was stated as. I�m sure it happened and on occasion as we know still happens. There�s always someone trying to scam a buck or in this case a reichmark. They might have tried to scam the little guy, but I don�t believe any would�ve had the gonads to scam Himmler or any of the other big dogs, do you think. In any case, the law is clear as to who to blame when this occurs.
The law also states a margin of error �may� not exceed ten thousand-parts. FP,G, maybe this answers your question in some way. Notice the word �may�, and again there was no official assay office, no government agency, nix, nada, nothing, in other words, unregulated by any official means to check content or marks, so no one to turn a blind eye to in either direction and no one to suspended the content marking laws either, because the laws were in place to follow, but I will say in the same breath in some instances it�s the lack of a law. lol. But I understand what G is stating and agree.
Yikes, I�m in trouble!
What I do differ with is mandatory marking. . Prior to 1886 �all� gold and silver articles had to have punzierungspflichtig (marks required by law) and were under the control of the masters of the cities guilds. The next set of laws took effect as of 01 January 1888 and no mandatory marking by these laws. However, it does explain the requirements if one were to do so, the form of the symbols to be used, with what to use them with and how they are arranged.
Again this isn�t strict UK law where every little detail is covered and restricted and controlled by the government. These early German laws concerning gold and silver didn�t have a law for every little thing, no need to, it was all about getting everyone on one sheet of music to help ease the process of selling and trading and left a lot of breathing room for businesses to operate freely. It�s the intent of this law that makes it what it is. It was all about trade.
As I hinted above, let me put it to you all this way and I truly believe this is the way it was viewed a lot of the times by these businesses such as Gahr. We�re not talking murder here okay so let�s keep it in context. For example, would a person�s actions be considered lawful or unlawful in the absence of a law? Well, it depends on ones few or on what side of the fence you�re on right. I believe most businesses thought because there wasn�t a law that stated to the contrary, that their actions were lawful. Look, it was all left up to the maker to decide, either to mark or not, but once he did then he was to apply his �registered trade mark�, which is the very reason for marking in the first place, but not always did he have to apply a content mark. It depends and then again it was up to him anyway. See how generous these laws were.
I�m just curious; I wonder how Gahr (if original of course) viewed these Gahr connectors and chains as, jewelry, ornament or military equipment, or pieces of Schei�e. Hmmm! Only kidding, shouldn't really matter.
.
