that a professional uses stamps or real engraving, and anybody can
mark anything 18kt with an electric engraver. It's not that it's
illegal or anything, just that it's frowned upon...
Frowned upon by whom, John? You, obviously, but nobody in any
official or legal capacity, or anyone in any sort of judgmental role,
if there even is any such person or entity who’d make such a
judgement. It’s faintly possible that it could be an issue in
entering a few shows or competitions, but even than, I think you’d
have a hard time finding anything like that beyond back room
chatter. At least here in the U.S. I’m talking here, of course, about
hand made one of a kind work, not manufactured or “line” commercial
jewelry. In the strict commercial venue, people do expect stamps, as
you say. But it’s more a question of convention and tradition than
anything else, and certainly need not apply to art jewelry or one of
a kind / hand made work.
As it happens, I do the repair work and sizings, and similar stuff
for a local art jewelry gallery. Work by everyone from newcomers to
old timers, some of them with international reputations, but for the
most part, one of a kind work, or at least, limited editions, and
all intended as art jewelry, not commercial jeweler. I can tell you
that the use of vibro gravers, hand engravers, scribers, etc, is
quite common in this type of work. Many also use stamps, but you
can’t make a judgement on the quality of the work by the method of
marking. The vibro graver, though easy, is still a bit slower and
harder to use well than a stamp, and anyone can buy a stamp, after
all. Simple karat stamps cost less than the vibrograver even. I for
one have lots of various stamps, and use them. But I also sometimes
use the vibro graver. Under a microscope, with the aim of a nice
calligraphic look, or when signing my name, as a good ledgible
signature. I don’t generally make the choice of which to use based on
whether stamping is impossible, since it seldom is, if planned in
advance. Instead, I chose it for the look. Some pieces I simply want
to look hand signed. Rather than making it look amateurish, I think
if well done, it can make it look even more unique. Kind of like
painting. Most painters sign their work, not rubber stamp their
signature (Except in oriental work, of course, where the rubber or
actually, wood block, stamps are artworks in their own right…) I
see no great distinction between jewelry art and 2 D art here. The
mark needs to identify the maker, and the quality. Some degree of
durability to the mark is desired. In some cases, this means a stamp
is better. In others, not. It’s true that in some semi-commercial
jewelry, the stuff made as custom made one of a kind pieces, but made
by those with less than great skills, one sometimes sees unattractive
marks, which might be vibro engraved, or choppily hand engraved, and
on such work, the nature of the mark may tend to reinfoce the visual
appearance of the work being less than stellar in quality or skill
level. But when that’s the case, usually the work itself is already
the cause of that judgement, and the poor marking just backs it up.
When you’ve got a really well made and unique piece of work, and it
happens to be hand signed instead of stamped, I don’t find that at
all objectionable. Stamps have lots of tradition behind them, and of
course, in the British system, you pretty much have to use them to
get the hallmark markings too. But here in the U.S., the system
doesn’t limit you that way, and it’s a shame if one ends up making
judgements about a piece based on that traditional bias.
cheers
Peter