Mike’s attribution of this being the mark of George Fenwick looks good to me too, and opens the field to some interesting questions.
Firstly, why would this spoon be marked in this way?
George Fenwick was in partnership until c.1807 with George McHattie so we can safely date the GF mark as being after that date, and it is noted that he worked as an ‘UnFreeman’ until 1810. This could possibly be for two reasons that I can think of. It maybe because he was working outside of the city limits of Edinburgh, so that it would not be a requirement for him to be a Freeman, or it may simply be that he was not able, or did not care to pay the dues that on becoming a Freeman that he would be required to pay. If it was a case of him being resentful of paying such dues, then maybe it follows that he was also resentful of paying Duty and assay fees.
But Hallmarking in Edinburgh by this time was quite formalised, (as against the rest of Scotland) and the practise of ‘Duty Dodging’ by an Edinburgh registered silversmith would, I think, be quite unusual at this date. So maybe there is another reason. (At this point, it will be remembered that in line with previous posts of mine that the imagination tends to run riot!)
George Fenwick’s son, also George, and a former apprentice to his father, emigrated to Tobago in 1820. GF I had become Deacon to the Incorporation of Goldsmiths of Edinburgh in 1819, maybe at this point he ceased being an active silversmith and passed everything of his trade, including his punches to his son, to assist him in his new life in the West Indies. If so, then we could be looking at a very rare colonial spoon, rather than a Scottish one.
Miles, you said the spoon was somewhat crudely made. Could this be because it was made by an unwell silversmith? George Fenwick II died within months of his arrival in Tobago.