Any information on this countermark would be greatly appreciated. 1720 George I half-crown Many thanks.
The most common name would be John Smith, but any silversmith would have had a similar personal punch if their name started with I or J and S. They may simply have tested a newly made punch on a handy piece of silver, a coin from their pocket.
I agree silversmiths punch test, could even be the other way around SJ or SI Samual Jacob or Samual Inman
I doubt it, his mark is just "Sanford" In section #2 of the 925 site under "City Marks" you might find the initials in the makers marks, but it doesn`t make any difference whose it is. http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html
What an odd reply. Is this the sort of reception one should expect here? Sanford used at least three marks in his career, including one as shown above, besides those of his various partnerships. It may be of no difference to you, but it is not your thread, your coin, nor your question.
Why is it an odd reply, in your link there are no images remotely like the one shown on the coin. I know it is not my thread or coin nor question, but the same could be said of your post. The coin is British, located in the UK and the OP is based in the UK. Why would it have some obscure American silversmiths mark on it? Just because the coin is dated 1720 doesn`t mean the mark was punched then, it could have been punched hundreds of years later. Here are two Birmingham silver makers marks that appear similar, but there were thousands of makers at the time and the mark might not have been recorded.
There is every probability that the coin might have been in normal circulation in the early 1800s. Even the late 1800s are possible, the size weight and value was constant over the 2 centuries.
Interesting thread. I'm always learning something. Geez, Davey, why so belligerent? The coin mentioned above was official currency in America for more than a half century. (Don't forget "Americans" were British citizens till 1783...till they demanded and fought for the unalienable rights and freedoms expected by British citizens.) As mentioned above, the coin could have been used in everyday transactions after the Revolutionary War, too. And what better coin to deface than a German (George I) posing as a British monarch? Even you can not miss the ironic symbolism. guy
I`m not being belligerent. When a one hit wonder comes here and says "attributed to Isaac Sanford (1763-1842)." without any proof whatsoever and no similar marks are attributed to said silversmith. The OP is in the UK, the coin has probably never been to the US, it is quite common to see old silver coins marked in this way, there are still thousands of them about, as AF said more of a silversmiths test punch rather than deliberate defacing.
Balance of probabilities. It would not be remarkable for a coin that circulated in Britain for 100 years or more got a test stamp, probably many years after George's death, whereas it would be extremely remarkable if a coin found its way to the colonies, got stamped somehow and then found its way back to Britain at a time when US 900 silver was circulating and the logical thing to do with a slightly purer silver coin would be to chuck it in the melting pot.
