www.925-1000.com

Nice ladle with makers mark TE who might this be? date 1778 below are a few pics. Thanks

Looks to be either Thomas Ellis or Thomas Evans, but I leaning more to Thomas Evans as the maker.

Thomas Evans’ mark registered in 1774 had a pellet (dot) between the initials (Grimwade 2742). His mark without a pellet was registered for use in November 1779 after the 28th May 1779 when the date letter on the ladle was last used.

Thomas Ellis’ mark without a pellet (Grimwade 2743) was registered in 1780 again after this date letter was last used. In the maker’s biography Grimwade mentions Ellis’ inclusion in the list of silversmiths prepared for the Parliamentary report of 1773 and speculates that an earlier mark may have been noted in the London register now lost however there is nothing to confirm this mark or its comparison to the one on the ladle.

Thomas Eustace of Exeter registered a London mark (Grimwade 3442) in April 1778 which was available for use at the start of this date letter sequence.

Of the marks reproduced by Grimwade those of Ellis and Eustace were rectangular in shape with cut corners as is the one on the ladle. The nick in the top line does not appear but this could well have been caused by damage to the punch used.

Eustace seems to me the more likely candidate.

Mike

Hi all,

Mike, my copy of Grimwade says Thomas Eustace of Exeter entered his mark on 20th April 1779, not 1778. This means the date letter C was being used for 39 days after he entered his mark.
However, I'm very reluctant to attribute London silver with TE to Thomas Eustace. In my researches into Exeter silver I haven't yet found any proveable reason why he should have taken his silver to London at this time, when his house was around 300m from the Exeter assay office. It may be that he had a supplier of (for example) buckles in London, and had the supplier mark the buckles with his TE mark before sending them to the London assay office and then on to him in Exeter. That's one theory.
Another theory: going by memory, I recall a letter written to the assay master at Exeter by, I think, one of the Williams family of Bristol. It was a complaint that a batch of their silver had been found worse than 92.5 and destroyed at the Exeter assay office. They took the liberty of sending the returned silver remains to London where it was found better than 92.5. To do this, they may have had to register a mark at London first. Thomas Eustace may have had a similar reason.

I may just be overly cautious because of my research, but I would plump for Thomas Evans. Grimwade does say his mark had no pellet until 1779, but I don't put much faith in pellets!

Miles

His mark with an Exeter Lion passant on a pair of c.1780 pre-duty tongs.

Hello Miles,

I really should order some new specs! Eustace did indeed register his London mark in 1779 rather than 1778. As you say it was available for use with the date letter "C" for only a few weeks rather than for over a year.

We will have to agree to disagree on the merit of a pellet in attributing a maker's mark.To my mind, although silversmiths did use unregistered replacement punches omitting or including pellets, attributing such marks is made much more uncertain.

Essentially all of what has been said leaves this uncertainty. Did Evans use a replacement punch without a pellet prior to 28th May 1779 or did Eustace have some silverware, including the ladle, assayed at the London office using the registered stamp? In the end, as always, the owner of the item has the last word.

Regards,
Mike

Hello, just wondering how you eliminated the possibility of "TF" for this mark.

Although the possibility of TF was considered there seemed to me to have been a bottom line to the second letter which ended with an upward serif and so a probable letter E.

Mike