Hallmarked for London, 1792, this is the dealer's description: "Pair of Plain Old English sauce ladles - mark of Peter & Ann Bateman overstruck by Thomas Olliphant (take a look at the close-up picture and you can see AB under the TO ! Part of the PB is above)."
... I do wonder if this type of overstamping was common or even legal! Technically maker's marks are really responsibility marks - the guy that takes responsibility should the item not be sterling quality silver. So was responsibility transferable? For new silver, was the seller automatically the responsible party, requiring the over-stamp?
I should be very interested if anyone could clarify this procedure!
A very good question and I think it is worth its own thread.
Below is an image of a Hester Bateman teaspoon of 1785 with a tandem maker's mark "CT" (not traced). Does anyone have any info or theories on tandem marks or overstrikes.
Regards, Tom
There are a number of theories but they remain theories as nothing can be proved either way. One is that makers going out of business sold their stock and overstriking took place by the new 'owner' of stock.....another is that items made by a reputable maker were overstruck to give the overstriker some credibility as to the quality of his goods....another is that vendors overstruck (which is a good possibility although illegal) to identify the goods they sold....If I could just remember a few of the others...all plausible of course. I would love to see what the experts say about it.
Best wishes, Mike.
.
I read an article in The Finial (spoon collecting magazine) on the subject of an overstriking by Thomas Wallis and Jonathan Hayne on a 1787 spoon, which is 23 years before they had even registered their mark. The article suggested that Thomas Wallis and Jonathan Hayne simply sold second hand wares as well as their own work. However, one would imagine that if overstriking were illegal, the smiths in question would have taken more care in erasing or covering the previous marks than in this case and many others.
.
Last edited by Granmaa on Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can we have a clarification on English Hallmarking sequence for the other interested readers (and me, as well)?
As I understand it; silversmith made piece, marked it with his maker's mark, then brought it to assay office for hallmarking which included - town mark, date letter, standard mark and duty mark.
If this is the correct sequence, it raises a number of questions.
Would the assay office accept a piece that clearly had its maker's mark overstamped with another's mark?
I don't see a reason why they wouldn't, as a maker's mark is truly a responsibility mark and overstamping essentially a statement that equates to "I now take responsibilty for it being of sterling standard and I am willing to pay the duty on it"
What happened when a hallmarked piece entered the secondhand market? Was it overstamped with the new seller's mark?
We know that, in earlier times with banks being none too secure, acquisition of household silver was a form of banking wealth against leaner days. If liquidity became necessary, out went your sterling tea set to the local goldsmith/banker.
What happened when a piece of foreign made silver was brought to 18th c. England?
The London of the time was the hub of a worldwide empire. Diplomats, sea captains, military officers, international traders and the like would all have brought home silver from foreign lands. Did they have to pay duty on it, was it hallmarked at that point?
What happened when a piece of foreign made silver entered the secondary market in 18th c. London.
Let's say Lord C** has to pay off his son's gambling debts and to do so he sells off a tea set (stamped only with a maker's mark) presented to him during is stint as Governor General of Bermuda. Out it goes to a discreet silversmith for ready cash. Would this silversmith have to have it assayed for resale?
.
Here is another overstrike example from Thomas Ollivant (Olliphant??) These 3 photos from different angles of the same mark come from a Cream Jug that I THINK was made by Peter and Ann Bateman - although it could be Peter & Jonathan. I believe I can clearly see the top of the PB above the TO mark, and I can very clearly see the _B below, but I have had difficulty finding any lighting that will reveal that first initial of the lower pair. Anyone have any guesses based on the short use date of the "PB over JB" mark??
My thoughts on WHY we see these overstrikes:
1. Ollivant was said to be from, and sell in, Manchester. He also must have had the skills to completely disguise the original mark.
2. He may have acted as a merchant of silver made by others, as well as that made by himself.
3. If he sold to his customers in Manchester works by others in London, he may have felt it necessary to, in effect, "guarantee" the quality of the piece on his own. To indicate this personal, "local" guarantee, he overstruck the original mark with his own, but made no effort to claim the piece as his own.
4. This would fit a true British sense of honor and honesty!! And it may have been an informal canon of ethics among British silversmiths?
However, I don't know if this logic extrapolates to the others who engaged in overstriking!! These are just thoughts from a "Colonial" who really does not know!!
Jim
.
Hi All,
Does anyone have access to the Dec. 2004 issue of "The Finial" (journal of The Silver Spoon Club of Great Britain). It contains an article by Ronald Grant on dutymarks. I found it referenced in a footnote that indicates it may shed some light on silver wholesaling within Great Britain.
Just to add a little to this thread. Although Grimwade records him as a plate worker Thomas Olivant was primarily a retail jeweller and silversmith in Manchester, with his nephew, and later in partnership with John William Botsford, from 1855 until his death in 1868. The firm of Olivant & Botsford had premises in St. Anne’s Square, Manchester until the 1980's. It was swallowed up by the Mappin & Webb group, as were many regional businesses such as this, and its name and identity was changed to fit in with the corporate identity of Mappin & Webb.
The issue of over stamping in this instance, I would suggest is an early form of, what today is called a sponsors mark, the mark of the person who commissions and sell the piece, rather than the one who actually makes it.
With regard to the item in the Finial 15/01 about a Richard Ferris spoon with only RF, the tri-cusp duty mark and the lion. In Finial 15/02, Ronald Grant responded with reference to his article in Finial 8/06, where he had stated that, from his research, this tri-cusped duty mark appears to have been “closely associated with the wholesale trade in volume production silver bought in, unmarked or part marked, by retailers to apply their own sponsor’s mark and fully or part marked at whatever local assay office they chose.”
To the other questions, to the best of my knowledge:-
Would the assay office accept a piece that clearly had its maker's mark overstamped with another's mark?
Yes, as long as that maker’s mark was registered.
What happened when a hallmarked piece entered the secondhand market? Was it overstamped with the new seller's mark?
No. Otherwise the majority of older silver would be overstamped.
What happened when a piece of foreign made silver was brought to 18th c. England?
It was just kept in circulation. If someone took it to Goldsmiths’ Hall to check its authenticity, they could pay duty to have the assay applied, if it was of sufficient standard, otherwise foreign plate was sold as white metal.
What happened when a piece of foreign made silver entered the secondary market in 18th c. London.
See above.
.
The Company of Goldsmiths of London, being determined to prevent frauds in the trade, and to preserve the standards appointed for wrought plate, have directed me to send you the within extracts, and to give you notice, that they are resolved to prosecute every person who shall be detected in offending against any of the acts of parliament now in force for regulating the same.
By order of the Wardens, JOSIAH SHARP, Deputy Warden.
EXTRACTS from Acts of Parliament for preventing Frauds in Gold and Silver Wares, and preserving the Standards appointed for Wrought Plate.
The 12th Geo. II, chap. XXVI, recites, That the Company of Goldsmiths of the City of London have been a Corporation time out of mind, with divers privileges confirmed and enlarged by several Charters, for the searching, assaying, supervising, marking, and regulating Wrought Plate, in order to ascertain the standard thereof, for the good and safety of the public.
Sect. 1st, enacts, That no person making, trading, or dealing in gold or silver wares, shall make, or cause to be made any manufacture of gold whatsoever, less in fineness than 22 carats of fine gold per pound troy ; nor any manufacture of silver whatsoever, less in fineness than 11 ounces two pennyweights of fine silver per pound troy ; nor shall sell, exchange, expose to sale, or export any manufacture of gold or silver of less fineness, upon pain, for every such offence, to forfeit ten pounds ; and for default of payment, to be committed to the house of correction, and kept to hard labour, for any time not exceeding six months, or until payment.
Sect. 5th, enacts, That no person making, selling, trading, or dealing in gold or silver wares, shall sell, exchange, expose to sale, or export any manufacture of gold or silver, until marked with the maker's and the company's marks, upon pain, for every such offence, to forfeit ten pounds, or be committed.
Sect. 21, enacts, That every person who shall make, or cause to be made, any manufacture of gold or silver, shall first enter his mark, name, and place of abode, in the Assay office, upon pain to forfeit ten pounds, and ten pounds more for using any other mark, or be committed.
The Act then provides, that nothing therein contained shall extend to any jeweller's works, that is to say, any gold or silver wherein any jewels or other stones are or shall be set, other than mourning rings, nor to any jointed night ear-rings of gold, or gold springs of lockets.
The 13th Geo. III, chap 1, enacts, That if any person shall forge or counterfeit, or cause to be forged or counterfeited, any stamp used for marking gold or silver plate, by the Goldsmith's Company, or by any maker of gold or silver plate, or shall cast, forge, or counterfeit, or cause to be cast, forged, or counterfeited, any impression, in imitation of any mark made with any stamp used as aforesaid ; or shall mark, or cause to be marked, any wrought plate of gold or silver, or any wares of brass or other base metal, silvered or gilt over, and resembling plate of gold or silver, with any mark forged or counterfeited, in imitation of any mark used as aforesaid ; or shall remove, or cause to be removed, from one piece of wrought plate to another, or to any vessel of such base metal, any mark, made with any stamp used as aforesaid ; or shall sell, exchange, expose to sale, or export any wrought plate of gold or silver, or any vessel of such base metal as aforesaid, with any such forged, counterfeit, or removed mark thereon, knowing such mark to be forged, counterfeited, or removed ; or shall wilfully have or be possessed of any forged or counterfeit mark or stamp ; every person offending in any of the cases aforesaid, being convicted, shall be transported for fourteen years.
The 24th Geo. III, LI, chap.11, sect. 8. enacts, That no person making, selling, trading, or dealing in gold or silver wares, shall sell, exchange, expose to sale, or export any manufacture of gold or silver whatsoever, until marked with the new mark by this Act directed ; that is to say, the King's head, besides all other marks already directed by law to be marked thereon, upon pain, for every such offence, to forfeit fifty pounds, or be committed, and also upon pain, to forfeit the goods.
Sect. 16 enacts, That if any person shall forge or counterfeit, or cause to be forged or counterfeited, any mark directed by this Act to be used, or shall cast, forge, or counterfeit, or cause to be cast, forged, or counterfeited, any impression in imitation of any mark made with any stamp to be used as aforesaid, or shall mark, or cause to be marked, any wrought plate of gold or silver, or any wares of brass or other base metal, silvered or gilt over, and resembling plate of gold or silver, with any mark forged or counterfeited, in imitation of any mark to be used as aforesaid ; or shall remove or cause to be removed from one piece of wrought plate to another, or to any vessel of such base metal, any mark made with any stamp to be used as aforesaid ; or shall sell, exchange, expose to sale, or export, any wrought plate of gold or silver, or any vessel of such base metal as aforesaid, with any such forged, or counterfeited, or removed mark thereon, knowing such mark to be forged, counterfeited, or removed; or shall wilfully have, or be possessed of any forged or counterfeited mark or stamp ; every person offending in any of the cases aforesaid, being convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and suffer death. This punishment is subsequently altered to transportation for seven years.
The 38th Geo. III, chap. LXIX,enacts, That any goldsmith, or other person, trading or dealing in gold wares, may make, sell, or export manufactures of gold of the standard of 18 carats of fine gold in every pound weight troy; but that such manufacture shall not be sold, exchanged, exposed to sale, or exported, until marked with a crown, and the figure 18. And that if any person shall make, sell, exchange, or expose to sale, or export out of this kingdom, any manufacture of gold not duly marked with one of the marks by law required, to denote one of the respective standards of 22 or 18 carats, such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds.
The foregoing penalties and forfeitures to be recovered in any Court of Record at Westminster; one moiety of them to his Majesty, and the other moiety, with full costs of suit, to the person who shall sue for the same.
N. B. Every shopkeeper who shall strike his own mark over the workman's mark, is liable to a penalty of ten pounds, unless his own mark is entered at Goldsmiths' Hall.
It is the last line of this notice that is of interest here. This perhaps is the answer as to why some of the provincial silversmiths, like Thomas Ollivant of Manchester, registered at the LAO even though they did not appear to have any work assayed there, instead choosing to use the office at Chester, as noted by Mike (MCB), for the assay of his own work.
I had always assumed that silversmiths, like Ollivant, registered at London purely because, at this time, there was a certain kudos about 'London Made' pieces, but could not understand why they did not use oversize punches, as did George Gray, if the intent was to make the public think that they had a manufactory in London.
The provincial silversmith made trips to London to buy silverware usually because he could obtain it cheaper or better made than he could do it himself. The reason he overstruck the maker's marks could have been manyfold, perhaps to advertise himself, perhaps to prevent the final purchaser, who if they liked the items and wanted more of the same, going direct to the source, or maybe he just marked them as a security measure in the event that his shop may be robbed. If he had been a bigger fish, then, like Paul Storr, he could have used the services of Barnards to fufill his order and have his mark used from the outset, but the provincial smith who would have purchased just a few dozen spoons at a time would have to mark his own.
It seems that Thomas Ollivent's registration at London was merely to comply with the law.
