www.925-1000.com

Hello all,

Just purchased the second of what I hope to be many 18th century sterling mugs. The seller indicated the piece is John Scofield. I found an early thread which echoed the apparent inconclusive opinion of Grimwade.

Anyone care to confirm, deny, or possibly offer some additional sources that might help me out?

Hi Whitecross,

Welcome to the Forum.

Do you see a pellet or a star, between the 'J' and the 'S'?

Trev.

Thanks Dognose. Some mark definitely separates the two initials. If pressed I'd say it was a star, though a pellet or period is possible.
To my untrained eye, the mark looks identical to several pieces I've found listed as Grimwade 3709. So I'm after confirmation, and if it is the same mark, to what degree do we believe that mark really is Scofield (Schofield), or if there are any other strong contenders. Thoughts about the date, too?

Well, there's no doubting the date letter, 'U' used 1775-1776.

Grimwade suggests that this mark, if with a star, may be that of John Scofield, but if with a pellet, it may be that of James Stamp. Neither mark is traceable in the registers.

Grimwade states that Scofield's first mark, that of his partnership with Robert Jones (R.I over I.S) was registered on the 10th February 1776, this would appear to rule out Scofield as the maker, as his second mark, alone, was not registered until 1778, but little is known of Scofield's earlier period, if any, and it is quite possible that the star mark was registered prior to his partnership and was contained within the now lost Largeworker's Book (1758-1773). Whether or not Scofield did appear in that book would only be speculation, but one thing that makes it unlikely is the fact that Scofield was likely to have been the junior partner to the perhaps elderly Jones (Jones is thought to have died before 1783) and with Scofield's undoubted skills, it would seem unlikely that he would depart from a solo career to joined such a partnership.

James Stamp, however, was a prolific silversmith and working alone at the time your mug was assayed, he entered several marks and on the balance of probability, perhaps a more likely candidate for the maker of your mug, but it would be impossible, I believe, to say so with any degree of certainty.

Hope others will add their opinions.

Trev.

Awesome. Thank you so much! I appreciate the information and the analysis!

Incidentally, the baluster mug is John Payne, I believe, London 1774. Care to check my math?

I agree, 1774.

Trev.