Thanks bakers for furthering my knowledge of british sterling. So, do you feel these are intended as a single set?
Ok. I think I have put the pieces of this puzzle together. These are two different sets. The pieces with the ivory handles 1879 where the other...
With two more dumbs posts, I am surprised that Josh and the powers to be haven't banned me from further participation!! 1. Sorry, I missed...
So, paying $22/ounce for approximately 60 ounces wasn't out of line? Sometimes, I cannot resist the urge to go over my initial limit ($1000, in...
I just wanted a little help with british mark! The "c" indicates 1878. I thought the panther is the london assay office mark and rh is robert...
You mean these other three pieces?! :happy: [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
I was surprised to see the mark on the side, in a spot that would attract so much attention
These new ivory rules can be so intimidating though. Not sure I can ever sell it, johnny. It is clearly 100 years old but how do I prove that it...
Thanks cxgirl. That is a fairly common one, not sure how I overlooked it.
Once again struggling with my british hallmarks. Please confirm 1878 London sterling interpretation. These look like ivory handles. Also, not...
Yeah, every once in awhile I just take a flyer on something like these native american photos. The auction house kind of set me up with their...
Yes, I was puzzled by that term. I just bid online but thought they compared more to this, which is listed on ebay as item described as "Native...
I saw the calendars but unfortunately , I could not pull up your second link. What did that go for, kronos?
Okay, need some help in asessing my purchase today. These five prints were part of a 1903 marketing promotion by the Cudahy Packing Co of Omaha,...
Good observation on the labels. No imprint and obviously, I cannot examine the back for a mark. I was thinking about donating the photos to the...
I thought these photos may have been taken the same day. The second one being inside the hangar prior to take off. Just a wild guess though
I am sorry fig. Were you referring to the second photo?
Sorry 1912, not 2012. I need to do a better job of reviewing my postings!
That is a nice concise synopsis, fig. The date is on the bottom left of the photo, July 1, 2012. I assume that this is printed from the original...
sure thing, fig. Type i - developed from original negative within two years Type ii - developed from original negative after two years Type iii -...
Separate names with a comma.
