Hallmarking of jewellery and household articles was known from the Middle Ages. For example, in Germany this was practiced from the 12th century, in Britain from the 15th century and in France from the 16th century.
The attitude of government authorities towards articles made of precious metals may vary due to historic peculiarities, arbitrariness of rulers, vocational regulations and folk customs. There are great differences in such aspects as assaying precision, systems of testing hallmarks for their genuineness, hallmarking techniques and punishments for violations.
In those countries, where assay proceedings are supervised by the government, the trade in items made of noble metals and bearing no hallmarks is forbidden, and counterfeited hallmarks are persecuted by law (involving heavy fines and imprisonment). Hallmarks of various shapes and figures are used to stamp items. The hallmark figures (usually, these are the emblems of a country, a city, etc.) are combined with assay numbers (for instance, in the United Kingdom) or with conventional numbers 1, 2, etc., where each number corresponds to a certain assay grade. One such example is Italy. In the Eastern countries, hieroglyphs are used for this purpose (Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey).
In the 60s, the United Kingdom initiated a discussion of a Convention on the Control and Marking of Articles of Precious Metals, the name of which was abbreviated to Hallmarking Convention. In 1972, seven European countries signed a joint document. There was established an Association of European Assay Offices (AEAO) joined by 15 countries. Such non-European countries as Bahrain, Canada, China, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka and Japan entered the Hallmarking Convention as observers. An International Laboratory Accreditation Committee (ILAC) was set up to discuss unification of assay offices. It is important to note that no one from G-7, except Britain, joined the Convention. In November 2003, the representatives of the European Union met to discuss an all-European convention on the assay supervision, but the draft document was not passed. In other words, so far in the field of hallmarking globalization is not discussed (even within the frames of united Europe). It is evident that only the United Kingdom managed to persuade its former colonies and satellites to accept the system, so to say, within the British Commonwealth.
“Hallmarking individualism” is the contemporary reality.
Table 1. Countries grouped by their attitude to hallmarking supervision.
|
Mode of freedom |
Obligatory alloy hallmarking by manufacturer or importer |
Government hallmarking |
|
Greece India Pakistan Hon Kong Indonesia Japan Korea Singapore Taiwan Thailand |
Germany Italy China Malaysia USA* |
Austria Great Britain Bahrain Netherlands** Egypt*** Spain UAE Portugal France**** Switzerland |
* The quality (assay) of alloys is to be defined by all means, but the information is not obligatorily stamped on the article with a hallmark; any alloys are permitted from 10 ct to 24 ct (from assay .415 to assay .999); ** only assays exceeding .833; *** only assays exceeding .500; **** only assays starting from .750.
On such a background, it would seem that Russia may do anything at its own free will and there would be no one to reproach. In other words, there is a rare opportunity to synthesize an ideal system based on the latest scientific and technical achievements, doing so as if there were no one around to care. Besides, it is evident that each of the “one hundred flowers” will be anxious to have the Russian Federation on its side providing arguments and sharing experience. However, the Finance Ministry and the Assay Chamber are so far dormant.
United Kingdom
As far back as 1300 the United Kingdom established a constituent procedure for assaying and marking (hallmarking) precious metal objects and determined a permissible copper content in the silver alloy. It was equal to 75 parts of copper per 925 parts of silver. Only this type of metal was accepted as silver and had the .925 assay value, which was confirmed by the official hallmark. The hallmark itself was in the form of the British crowned lion’s face known as the “Royal Mark”. It is assumed that this hallmark and the silver quality standard were introduced by the Silversmiths’ Guild as early as the 11th-12th centuries by the order of King Johann. In England the first silversmiths were called “easterlings” (literally, people from the East), that is proceeding from the Baltic Sea countries and Hanse cities. They were the first people in England to engage in silversmithing. This is why the first English assay grade was called the “easterling standard”, which later was shortened to “sterling”, more convenient to pronounce.
Up to 1378 assaying was performed in London only and artisans from all over the country had to bring their handicrafts to the Guild to obtain the “Royal Mark”. This was troublesome and very dangerous, so provincial artisans very often ignored the royal decree selling their wares unmarked and untaxed. The London Guild unable to control all the artisans in the country settled on a compromise in 1363 by obtaining a royal decree, which spread supervision functions to mayors of the cities engaged in silversmithing. Every city magistrate was obliged to have a distinctive hallmark. For example, in Edinburgh the hallmark was in the shape of a castle, in York they used a gibbous two-fold hallmark in the shape of a shield bearing one half of a leopard’s head and one half of a lily connected together, while in Exeter it was a cross-and-crown combination.
In the beginning of the 16th century, there were more and more cases of forgeries, so the London Guild decided to set up its own quality mark and in 1544 there appeared yet another hallmark with a lion passant looking over its shoulder and arching its tail. Soon this mark replaced the “leopard’s head” as the silver standard guarantee mark, i.e. the sterling mark.
After introducing the right for cities to set their individual hallmarks, it appeared to be necessary to introduce a system of personal responsibility of assay inspectors to observe the silver standard, for which purpose a special annual hallmark was established. Since the inspectors were re-elected every year, starting from 1478 in London every single year was assigned its own sequential letter of alphabet. After one alphabet cycle was completed, the next one was again started with an “A”, changing either its pattern or the shape of the shield on which it was engraved. An obligatory maker’s hallmark was introduced to make the control of metal quality more rigorous and to have a possibility to find cheating artisans at any time.
The Britannia standard stayed in force up to June 1720, when the sterling hallmark and the old English silver marks were restored. It turned out to be too expensive both for jewellery makers and for buyers. This led many petty manufacturers to bankruptcy. It is remarkable that because of the English legislative tradition this standard has not been cancelled up to now and even today it may be used by any maker.
By the middle of the 17th century, the commenced wanton economic growth in the country led to significantly swelled well-being of the middle class and that of the major part of English population. Literacy seized to be rare and turned into a vital necessity for the prosperous bourgeois society. From the 20th, artisans’ personal hallmarks included not only symbols, but also letters. Initially, makers used two first letters of their names and later included their initials. By this time, the English hallmarking system was a reliable guarantee of quality and gave detailed information as to when, by whom and what of an object was made.
Although this system has not been changed in the course of two hundred years, new hallmarks continue to appear while some old ones disappear. Thus, on December 1, 1784 there was introduced a silver tax, the so-called punitive tax amounting to 1/6 of every ounce of object weight. It was collected by the Lord Privy Seal responsible for domestic proceeds coming into the treasury. It was introduced as a temporary measure. However, as usual, it stayed valid for over 100 years, up to 1890. A hallmark bearing the King’s profile was introduced to indicate this tax was paid. During the first year of its existence, this hallmark was intaglio shaped as if upturned in relation to other hallmarks made in the form of cameos, but from January 1, 1785 this hallmark, too, became cameo shaped.
Since the artisan inspector was re-elected in May only, the alphabet letter was changed exactly from May, so the objects of this period (from 1.01.1785 to 1.05.1785) are so much adored by some collectors.
The modern legislation is based on the Hallmarking Act 1973. See www.britishhallmarkingcouncil.gov.uk/publications.htm for its full text. The law uses the term “hallmarking” to denote assay marking under government control.
There is a subsidiary document of technical character called the Hallmarking (Approved Hallmarks) Regulations 1986. In particular, it allows simplified marking for small articles, which can be damaged by the regular hallmark. The other innovation is to permit adhesives along with solder to join parts in precious metal articles.
This figure depicts the standard set of hallmarks in the United Kingdom: 1) the hallmark of a sponsor, manufacturer, importer or seller, i.e. that of a corporate entity, submitting the article for hallmarking; this hallmark may be stamped individually or by employment; 2) designation of alloy type: the crown denotes gold, the lion’s head denotes silver, the globe (orb) denotes platinum (from 1999 this hallmark is not obligatory); 3) precious metal content in alloy; 4) the mark of the Assay Office (in the City of Birmingham in this case); 5) the conventional sign of the hallmarking calendar year (form 1999 not obligatory).
The following alloys are enacted:
Table 2. Permissible jewellery alloys in the United Kingdom.
Number of parts for one thousand
Metal 375 585 750 800 850 900 916 925 950 958.4 990 999
Silver X X X X
Gold X X X X X X
Platinum X X X X X
It is important to note that not all articles are liable to obligatory hallmarking. There are three groups to be excluded:
1. foil and metal sheets; gold bullion and gilt;
2. articles, where gold content is less that 1 gram, platinum content is less than 0.5 gram and silver content is less than 7.78 grams; mouthpieces for musical instruments; articles made of gold and silver before 1920 and made of platinum before 1975;
3. coins, medical implants, technical and scientific devices.
Note: According to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an article, even if it is not liable to assaying and hallmarking, must be meticulously described in the enclosed documents.
In case of law violations, the court may impose a fine up to 5000 pounds and even more, or sentence to imprisonment.
In 1999, the Hallmarking Act was conspicuously reformed, however not touching the fundamentals of the total government control over jewellery hallmarking. Since then there are only three compulsory hallmarks: the sponsor’s mark, the standard mark and the city’s assay office mark. The traditional lion’s head and date may be affixed at the jewellery owner’s discretion. However, the main thing was the recognition of jurisdiction of the European Court based on the case of Ludomira Neeltje vs Barbara Houtwipper (c.293/93). The Court took two decisions: 1) additional hallmarking will NOT be required within the European Hallmarking Convention for imported articles bearing legitimate hallmarks; 2) the countries, which practice only independent hallmarking, will be obliged to trust other independent hallmarks from Europe.
The British hallmarking system is noted for its hierarchical pattern. It is topped by the British Hallmarking Council including 16-19 members, of whom ten are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the other six happen to be the chief executives of four Assay Offices. Assay masters cannot be members of the Council.
Table 3. Financial results of the British Hallmarking Council, in thousands U.K. pound sterling
|
Indicator |
2002 |
2001 |
|
Payments for hallmarking |
36.0 |
70.3 |
|
Selling guideline publications |
2.0 |
1.4 |
|
Total |
38.0 |
71.7 |
|
Overhead costs |
(38.0) |
(71.8) |
|
Result |
00 |
(0.1) |
It is evident that their budget is very modest and it is only sufficient to cover expenses for the secretariat and the Chairman’s salary (12 000 pounds a year). In other words, all the work is done in assay offices, which are not government-owned unitary companies, but have state accreditation.
The Council has four major subordinate Assay Offices in London, Sheffield, Birmingham and Edinburgh. They have their branch offices in provinces, the so-called sub-offices. In 2002-2003, some of the hallmarking sub-offices received government certificates: Carrs of Sheffield (Manufacturing) Limited, 2) Curteis Limited, 3) Cookson Precious Metals Limited, 4) Gecko and 5) Optima Limited.
All the assay offices are audited by the Royal Mint experts. Thus, in 2002, all the auditing inspections gave positive results.
The functions of the British Hallmarking Council are set out in Section 13 of the Hallmarking Act and include:
1. ensuring that there are adequate facilities for assaying and hallmarking;
2. advising the Secretary of State with respect to hallmarking matters;
3. fixing the maximum charges for assaying and hallmarking articles;
4. issuing directions in regulations as to the procedures in the assay and hallmarking;
5. taking steps appearing to be open to the Council for ensuring enforcement of the law;
6. advising with respect to the amendment of the law;
7. authorizing an Assay Office to carry on business at a location other than its main place of business.
The British Hallmarking Council is also keeping watch over violations of the law and tracking back punishments.
The Council is fixing the maximum charges for hallmarking.
Table 4. Maximum charges for hallmarking gold articles in the United Kingdom in 2003
|
Item type |
Maximum charge |
Spread |
|
Bracelets and chains up to 5 g |
£0.45 + £0.015 per one gram |
£0.465-£0.525 |
|
Bracelets and chains up to 10 g |
idem |
£0.525-£0.6 |
|
Bracelets and chains up to 30 g |
idem |
£0.6-£0.9 |
|
Brooches |
idem |
- |
|
Earrings |
idem |
- |
|
Cuff links |
idem |
- |
|
Rings |
idem |
- |
|
Other items up to 2 grams |
- |
£0.465-£0.48 |
|
Other items up to 10 grams |
- |
£0.48-£0.6 |
|
Other items up to 20 grams |
- |
£0.6-£0.75 |
|
Other items up to 50 grams |
- |
£0.75-£1.2 |
|
Second-hand items |
£6.00 |
- |
|
Minimum charge for any packet |
£20.00 |
- |
In 2002, the total number of hallmarked gold items amounted to about 43 million pieces. If spaced out by hallmarks, the picture is as follows (in tons): 375 – 101; 585 – 1.2; 750 – 11.3; 916 – 8.8; 980 – 0.2; 999 – 18.0.
