.
Edinburgh makers mark Mc
-
carlislepaul
- contributor
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Carlisle
Edinburgh makers mark Mc
Can anybody please help identfy the makers mark Mc on a Toddy ladle with marks for Edinburgh 1805/06, no castle. Could the mark be Jas McKenzie as suggested in Jacksons page 551. Is the absence of a castle town mark to prevent transfer of marks to a larger item?
.
.
Hello and welcome to the forum.
Page 563 of Jackson's suggests J McKenzie first appeared on the scene in 1827, too late it seems to have made this ladle.
Matthew Caw is a possible candidate for the piece. Jackson's pages 550-1 suggest the date and the shape of the punch mark are right and further suggest the second initial on the makers mark is smaller than the first. Caw is also recorded as having made flatware.
Other than by simple omission I don't know why the town mark should be missing.
Hope this helps.
Mike
.
Page 563 of Jackson's suggests J McKenzie first appeared on the scene in 1827, too late it seems to have made this ladle.
Matthew Caw is a possible candidate for the piece. Jackson's pages 550-1 suggest the date and the shape of the punch mark are right and further suggest the second initial on the makers mark is smaller than the first. Caw is also recorded as having made flatware.
Other than by simple omission I don't know why the town mark should be missing.
Hope this helps.
Mike
.
-
carlislepaul
- contributor
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Carlisle
Edinburgh makers mark Mc
Mike
Thank you for the reply.
Does anybody have a photograph of a Mathew Craw mark they could post for comparison?
Regards
Paul
.
Thank you for the reply.
Does anybody have a photograph of a Mathew Craw mark they could post for comparison?
Regards
Paul
.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
-
carlislepaul
- contributor
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Carlisle
Edinburgh makers mark Mc
Thank you Patrick.
A photograph of a mark identical to 'Mc' attributed to Matthew Craw circa 1805 appears at http://www.silversugartongs.com/edinbur ... raw/MC.htm
A photograph of a mark identical to 'MC' above attributed to Matthew Craw circa 1800 appears at http://www.bexfield.co.uk/thefinial/pdf/15-04.pdf (page 32).
Did he have 2 marks? A mystery that is unlikely to be solved.
Paul
.
A photograph of a mark identical to 'Mc' attributed to Matthew Craw circa 1805 appears at http://www.silversugartongs.com/edinbur ... raw/MC.htm
A photograph of a mark identical to 'MC' above attributed to Matthew Craw circa 1800 appears at http://www.bexfield.co.uk/thefinial/pdf/15-04.pdf (page 32).
Did he have 2 marks? A mystery that is unlikely to be solved.
Paul
.
Hello again Paul,
A check on the Edinburgh Assay Office website http://incorporationofgoldsmiths.co.uk shows no mention of a Matthew Caw but does refer to a Matthew Craw active from 1781-1816. Whether we are looking at one person or two seems lost to history. Unfortunately the website doesn't reproduce an image of any maker's marks to compare with the two you are interested in.
Normal use over a long working life would have worn out more than one maker's punch and replacements would have had to be cut. Replacements often had subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences from the original registered at the AO and often the new punch wasn't re-registered.
For what it's worth I suspect there was only one person (Caw or Craw) and the difference in the marks is due to replacement.
Regards,
Mike
.
A check on the Edinburgh Assay Office website http://incorporationofgoldsmiths.co.uk shows no mention of a Matthew Caw but does refer to a Matthew Craw active from 1781-1816. Whether we are looking at one person or two seems lost to history. Unfortunately the website doesn't reproduce an image of any maker's marks to compare with the two you are interested in.
Normal use over a long working life would have worn out more than one maker's punch and replacements would have had to be cut. Replacements often had subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences from the original registered at the AO and often the new punch wasn't re-registered.
For what it's worth I suspect there was only one person (Caw or Craw) and the difference in the marks is due to replacement.
Regards,
Mike
.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
Hello Paul and Mike.
My scan of the mark came from Rodney and Janice Dietert's book on Edinburgh Goldsmiths.
I'm embarrassed to say I got carried away with the eraser feature when I enhanced the scan. Also included was the word "unfreeman".
After looking at the other marks listed in appendix C (additional Edinburgh marks) it occurs to me this might be his early mark, before he became a freeman.
Could not find any more information on Matthew Craw in the book.
Pat.
.
My scan of the mark came from Rodney and Janice Dietert's book on Edinburgh Goldsmiths.
I'm embarrassed to say I got carried away with the eraser feature when I enhanced the scan. Also included was the word "unfreeman".
After looking at the other marks listed in appendix C (additional Edinburgh marks) it occurs to me this might be his early mark, before he became a freeman.
Could not find any more information on Matthew Craw in the book.
Pat.
.
-
carlislepaul
- contributor
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Carlisle
Edinburgh makers mark Mc
Thank you gents.
The more I look at the mark above I can see a small dot under the 'c' which appears to be part of the 'c'. This is as the mark on my toddy ladle and on the sugartongs (much better photo) referred to above.
So this 'Mc' appears to be Matthew Craw, and given the circa dates in the 'Finial' article on the 'MC' mark, I think you are correct.
Many thanks
Paul
.
The more I look at the mark above I can see a small dot under the 'c' which appears to be part of the 'c'. This is as the mark on my toddy ladle and on the sugartongs (much better photo) referred to above.
So this 'Mc' appears to be Matthew Craw, and given the circa dates in the 'Finial' article on the 'MC' mark, I think you are correct.
Many thanks
Paul
.
Return to “Scottish Hallmarks”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest