Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Could I comment that the Goldsmiths' Hall, the assay office for London, do not get involved with punching of the maker's mark ?
The procedure is that the person who takes responsibility for the items submitted to the assay office is obliged to put his stamp onto all silver he submits for assay, such mark having been dully registered with that office some time in the past. Technically it is not the mark of the maker, but that of the sponsor of the item, who may or may not be the maker. He is the guy who has to pay for the assay, and who carries the can if the silver is below the set standard.
Incidentally the work submitted is often not complete and although it is illegal to add solder or any metal after assay, you can carry out removal of metal by piercing etc. The high labour cost of fine piercing versus the risk of having a fully worked piece fail assay and being broken is the reason many piercings semi - obliterate the marks. The piercings were done post assay as at this stage you were sure your metal was okay and you could spend the time working without fear of losing the work.
Whether overstamping was post or pre assay is a vexed question. Certainly silversmiths who did not have registered mark would need a sponsor, usually the silversmith to whom they sold the piece and their work would bear his mark only. Retail silversmiths who did no manufacture would I suspect overstrike after assay.
The old terminology of "hallmarks" is often wrongly used to include both assay and markers/sponsors marks.
Thanks Buckler, good point raised - admittedly I did not realise it was the maker or sponsor that struck their own mark - I learn something new.
Therefore there could be any number of scenarios on how this came about, I wonder if SH sold stock to IL at any time, or even if IL made it initially but had SH send it in a batch to be assayed...
Interesting that both silversmiths had a registered mark at the time which makes me query the story behind these tongs, part of the intrigue of collecting.
As you state, there could be any number of scenarios as to why these tongs were overstruck. Many silversmiths at this time did not carry large stocks of silverware, and I believe it was quite common for those in the same line to help each other out when pieces were needed in a hurry. Perhaps Lamb had a customer who, say, wanted a dozen teaspoons and a pair of tongs straight away, then if he knew that Hougham made the type required, he would send a boy with a note to Hougham's requesting such a piece. It was probably less than half a mile through the alleyways between Lambe's premises in Fetter Lane, and Hougham's in Aldersgate Street. In the meantime Lambe, or another of his employees would be engraving the initials onto the spoons (it was, I believe, usually done on the spot) and the boy would have returned (hopefully) before the last spoon was finished. Lambe, of course, would overstrike Houghham's mark, to ensure that if the customer required further pieces, he would return to Lambe with the order.
