Is this just one of those anomalies that seem to pop up, or is there a better explanation.
Miles
.
Thomas Peirce Spoon?
Thomas Peirce Spoon?
I bought a Thomas Peirce rat-tail table spoon yesterday and was curious to see that the date was 1727, whereas Grimwade, I believe, says he entered his mark in 1730.
Is this just one of those anomalies that seem to pop up, or is there a better explanation.
Miles
.
Is this just one of those anomalies that seem to pop up, or is there a better explanation.
Miles
.
Hi Miles,
Is it Thomas Peirce? I would have yes, if I was not in possession of two similar spoons.
The top image is from the same year as your example, 1727, and the second is marked for 1725, this one is backed with an engraved date of 1726.
The extra mark that mine both carry appears to be a maker's mark, but unfortunatley it is too obscured to be sure.
If my 'extra' mark is that of the maker, then the 'P' mark becomes all the more interesting. I doubt it is that of a retailer , I've never noted anything nearly so early, I also doubt it the mark of a journeyman, due to it's position, especially in relation to the maker's mark. A personal inventry mark? It's possible, but all three spoons are engraved with different initials, and to me the 'P' mark looks to be period with the other marks.
My spoons were acquired some years apart and from different sources.
I'm stumped!
Regards Trev.
.
Is it Thomas Peirce? I would have yes, if I was not in possession of two similar spoons.
The top image is from the same year as your example, 1727, and the second is marked for 1725, this one is backed with an engraved date of 1726.
The extra mark that mine both carry appears to be a maker's mark, but unfortunatley it is too obscured to be sure.
If my 'extra' mark is that of the maker, then the 'P' mark becomes all the more interesting. I doubt it is that of a retailer , I've never noted anything nearly so early, I also doubt it the mark of a journeyman, due to it's position, especially in relation to the maker's mark. A personal inventry mark? It's possible, but all three spoons are engraved with different initials, and to me the 'P' mark looks to be period with the other marks.
My spoons were acquired some years apart and from different sources.
I'm stumped!
Regards Trev.
.
Very interesting.
There is what now seems like another mark on my spoon. It is so worn that I thought it was a dent or scratch, but from looking at your spoons it does look deliberate.
I would post a new photo but there is nothing to see.
There are two possibilites it seems to me:
The assay office struck the mark around this time for some reason.
The silversmith or journeyman struck it.
If it was the assay office, I can't think of any reason why.
It seems an unlikely coincedence that on these three spoons not one has a maker's mark legible; not impossible, but unlikely. Could the silversmith, on getting his spoons back from the assay office, have reworked the stems to errase his mark so that he could stamp them with his new one?
I'm without my reference books at the moment, what information do we have on Peirce?
Miles
.
There is what now seems like another mark on my spoon. It is so worn that I thought it was a dent or scratch, but from looking at your spoons it does look deliberate.
I would post a new photo but there is nothing to see.
There are two possibilites it seems to me:
The assay office struck the mark around this time for some reason.
The silversmith or journeyman struck it.
If it was the assay office, I can't think of any reason why.
It seems an unlikely coincedence that on these three spoons not one has a maker's mark legible; not impossible, but unlikely. Could the silversmith, on getting his spoons back from the assay office, have reworked the stems to errase his mark so that he could stamp them with his new one?
I'm without my reference books at the moment, what information do we have on Peirce?
Miles
.
Very little, I'm afraid.
Grimwade has it that he entered one mark 'P' as a smallworker on the 24th February 1730 and a further incuse mark 'T.P' as a Casemaker on the 23rd November 1736. He was the son of Francis Peirce, a yeoman of Tunbridge Wells. Apprenticed to Samuel Wallington of the Fishmongers Company in June 1698 and later turned over to John Trubshaw. He was Free 30th May 1712.
Heal has no mention of him.
I do not think the maker's mark has been deliberately errased, there is enough left on one of the spoons to enable further research, I could not, however capture an image of it, but will try again.
Perhaps some kind of local export mark? Portsmouth, Plymouth maybe?
Trev.
.
Grimwade has it that he entered one mark 'P' as a smallworker on the 24th February 1730 and a further incuse mark 'T.P' as a Casemaker on the 23rd November 1736. He was the son of Francis Peirce, a yeoman of Tunbridge Wells. Apprenticed to Samuel Wallington of the Fishmongers Company in June 1698 and later turned over to John Trubshaw. He was Free 30th May 1712.
Heal has no mention of him.
I do not think the maker's mark has been deliberately errased, there is enough left on one of the spoons to enable further research, I could not, however capture an image of it, but will try again.
Perhaps some kind of local export mark? Portsmouth, Plymouth maybe?
Trev.
.
Hi Miles,
I wear that same expression when I compare my pay cheque to my bills!
I have noted that 'E' on 1802 and 1804 teaspoons asayed at York and also 'U' on a pair of 1806 basters.
To quote from Martin Gubbins:
There are two types of mark, occasionally seen on York flatware, which cannot be described as hallmarks. First there are workman's marks, very simple incuse symbols such as a cresent, triangle or line of dots. The other, a rarer and quite different mark, is a tiny well-formed Roman capital letter in cameo. It's lack of any similarity to a normal workman's mark suggests that it may have a somewhat greater significance and may perhaps may be associated with the Assay Office.
The following letters have been noted, on articles dated according to Jackson's tables.
'E'....1800-1806 and also 1855
'W'....1808-1810
'B'....1817, 1821
'S'....1813, 1818-1820, 1831, 1836, 1837
'H'....1826-1828
It so happens that this overall period, except for the much later 'E' of 1855, approximates to that when William Graves North was Assay Master and is quite likely that the period is presisely that of his tenure. His prime concern being his whitesmith business, it may well be that an occasional assistant was employed whose identifying mark was added at such times . Were this so, York's largest firm of silversmiths would have been a natural source for such assistance. The letters 'S' and 'B' could thus stand for Stead and Burrill each of whom later became Assay Master. 'W' and 'H' might stand for two other former apprentices of the firm, but the letter 'E' from 1800 to 1806 cannot be similarly assigned. There remains the 'E' of 1855 for which no explanation is apparent. In regard W. G. North's own employees, whose involvement in the work of the assay office should hardly have been permitted, only the letter 'H' would fit a surname of any of his eight registered apprentices.
Whatever validity, if any, these surmises possess, the fact remainsthat these tiny cameo letters occur almost exclusively during the time of a particular Assay Master who was not a silversmith and had his own unrelated business. Their significance must therefore surely lie with the Assay Office rather than the manufacturer.
The 'U' that I have found does not seem to fit into the possible theory, unless of course it relates to one of North's employees.
Trev.
.
I wear that same expression when I compare my pay cheque to my bills!
I have noted that 'E' on 1802 and 1804 teaspoons asayed at York and also 'U' on a pair of 1806 basters.
To quote from Martin Gubbins:
There are two types of mark, occasionally seen on York flatware, which cannot be described as hallmarks. First there are workman's marks, very simple incuse symbols such as a cresent, triangle or line of dots. The other, a rarer and quite different mark, is a tiny well-formed Roman capital letter in cameo. It's lack of any similarity to a normal workman's mark suggests that it may have a somewhat greater significance and may perhaps may be associated with the Assay Office.
The following letters have been noted, on articles dated according to Jackson's tables.
'E'....1800-1806 and also 1855
'W'....1808-1810
'B'....1817, 1821
'S'....1813, 1818-1820, 1831, 1836, 1837
'H'....1826-1828
It so happens that this overall period, except for the much later 'E' of 1855, approximates to that when William Graves North was Assay Master and is quite likely that the period is presisely that of his tenure. His prime concern being his whitesmith business, it may well be that an occasional assistant was employed whose identifying mark was added at such times . Were this so, York's largest firm of silversmiths would have been a natural source for such assistance. The letters 'S' and 'B' could thus stand for Stead and Burrill each of whom later became Assay Master. 'W' and 'H' might stand for two other former apprentices of the firm, but the letter 'E' from 1800 to 1806 cannot be similarly assigned. There remains the 'E' of 1855 for which no explanation is apparent. In regard W. G. North's own employees, whose involvement in the work of the assay office should hardly have been permitted, only the letter 'H' would fit a surname of any of his eight registered apprentices.
Whatever validity, if any, these surmises possess, the fact remainsthat these tiny cameo letters occur almost exclusively during the time of a particular Assay Master who was not a silversmith and had his own unrelated business. Their significance must therefore surely lie with the Assay Office rather than the manufacturer.
The 'U' that I have found does not seem to fit into the possible theory, unless of course it relates to one of North's employees.
Trev.
.
Here's another rat-tail tablespoon with the mysterious P mark dated to 1724. This time the maker's mark is clearly William Scarlett. Trev, one of your spoons looks like it could be Scarlett as well.
It's possible that it could be a journeyman's mark or even an early retailer's mark, but I haven't seen either on spoons of this date. Perhaps if we knew the names of any of his jouneymen working at this date we could either rule out or add weight to the theory.
Miles
.
It's possible that it could be a journeyman's mark or even an early retailer's mark, but I haven't seen either on spoons of this date. Perhaps if we knew the names of any of his jouneymen working at this date we could either rule out or add weight to the theory.
Miles
.
Hi Miles,
It's looking very likely that all of these spoons are the work of William Scarlett.
I remain unconvinced that this 'P' is a journeyman's mark, due to the position. Scarlett's mark would have been struck pre-assay, along with the journeyman's mark. I can't see the two marks being struck so widely apart, forcing the marker at the assay office to strike his marks into the allowed space. I feel the 'P' mark must have been struck post-assay.
I could only find the names of four of his apprentices:
George Cox c.1691
William Jewson (Juson) 1694
Henry Clarke 1700
Richard Scarlett 1710
No fit there, but of course the list is probably incomplete and does not include the journeymen.
My feeling is that this 'P' is going to turn out to be something much more interesting, and I'm sure we'll get to the answer in the fullness of time.
Regards Trev.
.
It's looking very likely that all of these spoons are the work of William Scarlett.
I remain unconvinced that this 'P' is a journeyman's mark, due to the position. Scarlett's mark would have been struck pre-assay, along with the journeyman's mark. I can't see the two marks being struck so widely apart, forcing the marker at the assay office to strike his marks into the allowed space. I feel the 'P' mark must have been struck post-assay.
I could only find the names of four of his apprentices:
George Cox c.1691
William Jewson (Juson) 1694
Henry Clarke 1700
Richard Scarlett 1710
No fit there, but of course the list is probably incomplete and does not include the journeymen.
My feeling is that this 'P' is going to turn out to be something much more interesting, and I'm sure we'll get to the answer in the fullness of time.
Regards Trev.
.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests