22ct Gold Hallmarks

[Foster88]

I’m struggling to find what year the hallmark is on this 22ct ring that I have.

I know that it is hallmarked Birmingham but I don’t know what year the design of the letter C is.

Could anyone advise?

[BackyardBullion]

Looks like a 2002 mark to me

https://theassayoffice.com/date-letters

[Foster88]

15 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

Looks like a 2002 mark to me

https://theassayoffice.com/date-letters

I thought that but then it looks like 1901/1902 also, that’s what is confusing me. It’s also got SH stamped which is, I think, Samuel Hope jewellers who were renowned for making wedding bands but this is a 22ct diamond solitaire ring.

[BackyardBullion]

Definitely not the 1901 mark, the border around the C does not have the little squiggle at the bottom

[AndrewSL76]

Isn’t that an 1851 stamp?

[BackyardBullion]

1 minute ago, AndrewSL76 said:

Isn’t that an 1851 stamp?

The roundness of the C would suggest not. It doesn't have the little lip on the top either

[Foster88]

57 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

Definitely not the 1901 mark, the border around the C does not have the little squiggle at the bottom

I got that wrong, I mean’t to say 1902. 

Here’s a clearer photo.

[BackyardBullion]

2 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

I got that wrong, I mean’t to say 1902. 

Here’s a clearer photo.

It's not got the squiggle in the border, it's just a plain square

 

[Foster88]

Also, I have another, a 22ct wedding band with a very strange toning inside which I have never seen before.

I think this is 1962 (possibly 1987). Has anyone else ever seen this type of toning on 22ct gold?

[watchesandwhisky]

Could be fake on that last one? hallmark looks off..

Id guess 1902 on that ring. does not have squiggle but the C font is correct, also look at the thickness of the Birmingham anchor, the 2002 is thinner at the bottom where as that one is thicker.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Madstacks

[Foster88]

5 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

It's not got the squiggle in the border, it's just a plain square

 

Wasn’t the shape the letter was in just for hallmarked silver?

I was always under the impression that gold hallmarks were always a square with angled corners but the date letters follow the silver letters and not the shape the letter was in.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Foster88

[Foster88]

I’m resurrecting an old post of mine with another hallmark query if anyone can help.

I have a 9ct gold, plain band ring, with makers mark SH for Samuel Hope. But looking under the loupe it has a letter ‘T’ and a ‘O’.

Does anyone have any idea what year this could be?

I’m wondering if the ‘T’ is the date letter and the ‘O’ could be the ring size.

[Foster88]

Another ring I’ve been looking at is this 22ct band I have. Again, SH for Samuel Hope so an older ring. I think they closed sometime in 1960’s.

I can see the date is letter ‘P’ but that could be 1864-65, 1914-15 or 1939-40.

The fonts are very similar.

Can anyone narrow it down?

[SidS]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be), but from 1999 it became a legal requirement to mark the  fineness as .916 primarily, rather than 22ct.

So if the fineness isn't marked millesimal then it's either older than 1999 or from elsewhere other than within the sphere of the EU. Since it has UK hallmarks, I would suggest it's earlier than 2002.

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by SidS
Punctuation.

[sixgun]

The first Birmingham hallmark is certainly 2002. The shape of the C and the surrounding shape is right for 2002.

Edited August 29, 2021 by sixgun

[SidS]

Just goes to show that even in a highly regulated system there's still much variation, even in modern times.

[sixgun]

 

14 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Another ring I’ve been looking at is this 22ct band I have. Again, SH for Samuel Hope so an older ring. I think they closed sometime in 1960’s.

I can see the date is letter ‘P’ but that could be 1864-65, 1914-15 or 1939-40.

The fonts are very similar.

The P looks like 1864 - this is off the Birmingham assay office website.

[sixgun]

14 hours ago, Foster88 said:

I’m resurrecting an old post of mine with another hallmark query if anyone can help.

I have a 9ct gold, plain band ring, with makers mark SH for Samuel Hope. But looking under the loupe it has a letter ‘T’ and a ‘O’.

Does anyone have any idea what year this could be?

I’m wondering if the ‘T’ is the date letter and the ‘O’ could be the ring size.

i would go with the T being the date letter - it is inline and in the row of other marks. The O is not in the same line as the other marks - if is higher places and at a slightly different angle.

I take it that is a Birmingham anchor.
Additionally the O is inside a right angled square shape and there as i see it there aren't any Birmingham right angle square shapes for any years. BUT i don't know what year it is. You would think it would be 1868/9 as the T is the right font and that year series began with that shape of surround BUT it then changed to a circle in 1867/68 so the T for 1868/9 looks like this according to the Birmingham Assay Office.

[LawrenceChard]

On 08/09/2020 at 20:58, Foster88 said:

I thought that but then it looks like 1901/1902 also, that’s what is confusing me. It’s also got SH stamped which is, I think, Samuel Hope jewellers who were renowned for making wedding bands but this is a 22ct diamond solitaire ring.

The shape of the cartouche is also important.

It also may be a diamond ring which has been using a wedding band as a shank, or re-purposed in some other way.

[CollectorNo1]

I read somewhere that the Birmingham anchor changed from vertical to a right angle in 2000???

[Foster88]

3 hours ago, sixgun said:

The first Birmingham hallmark is certainly 2002. The shape of the C and the surrounding shape is right for 2002.

I think I’m slightly more swayed to this being 1902. Something I have learned from the Birmingham Assay Office website is that gold hallmarks from 1824 are all square with cut corners.

The style of the ring is also more late Victorian/ Edwardian.

I could be wrong. This is a photo of the whole ring from my original post.

[Foster88]

3 hours ago, sixgun said:

 

The P looks like 1864 - this is off the Birmingham assay office website.

I think you’re right having looked again.

The date letter for P is very similar in style for all of those years.

It would be much more helpful if they stamped the actual year instead of letters that look similar.

But then again, why change centuries old practice.

[SidS]

Is there a .916 mark on it anywhere?

I've looked at the regulations again (including Birmingham assay office's info sheet). Any gold hallmarked after 1998 must have the purity marked in millesimal. I can't find any example of exemptions to this, but as it is now the law, there doesn't seem to be a way around it. The crown mark however and the date letters are now optional.

I'd err on this evidence to the earlier date. I know rings can be altered and resized, if the area with the hallmark is damaged or requires repunching during this process, would they assay it as a new item with the date of the amendment, or would they restamp the original hallmarks? I would assume the former option of the current date, but I do not know.

[Foster88]

9 minutes ago, SidS said:

Is there a .916 mark on it anywhere?

I've looked at the regulations again (including Birmingham assay office's info sheet). Any gold hallmarked after 1998 must have the purity marked in millesimal. I can't find any example of exemptions to this, but as it is now the law, there doesn't seem to be a way around it. The crown mark however and the date letters are now optional.

I'd err on this evidence to the earlier date. I know rings can be altered and resized, if the area with the hallmark is damaged or requires repunching during this process, would they assay it as a new item with the date of the amendment, or would they restamp the original hallmarks? I would assume the former option of the current date, but I do not know.

The two 22ct rings mentioned above with the C and P date marks are stamped ‘22’. They don’t have a .916 mark on them.

So I’m thinking the C marked ring is 1902 and the P market ring possibly 1864, 1914 or 1939. The P date letters for these years are very similar.

[SidS]

I'd go with 1902 as well.

As for the other I'd narrow it down by going off the maker's mark, if present.