Miles
.
T H (cursive) - on salts of 1785 - Hatton or Heming?
T H (cursive) - on salts of 1785 - Hatton or Heming?
Is the maker of these rather fine 1785 salts Thomas Hatton or Heming?
Miles
.
Miles
.
-
Tongtwister
- contributor
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:29 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
Certainly not Thomas Hatton the smallworker who died 7th March 1764 according to the St Jame's Chronicle of 8 March 1764. His will , Thomas HATTON, Silver Bucklemaker of St Anne in Westminster was proved at the PCC on 15 March 1764.
As mentioned in that will he was the brother of Samuel Hatton, another silver bucklemaker in the same area.
He left most of his estate to a lady called Margaret Murphy, Widow .
She was given as resident , like himself, in the Parish of St Annes, Soho and in the will was treated as one would expect if she was his wife. The lady was described in one part of the will as "the reputed Wife " of Thomas Hatton and her daughter, Mary Murphy was also described as the "reputed daughter" of Thomas Hatton. Whether reputed was what we would call "common law" is open to debate - language usage changes over two centuries and legal language is always a minefield
I think although Grimwade gives his first recorded mark as 26 June 1762 as smallworker at Frith Street ("Thift"), Soho he may have had marks in the lost register since he describes himself as a Silver bucklemaker in an Old Bailey trial of 16 Apr 1760. He may of course have been only a journeyman who subcontracted
Since his brother Samuel entered bucklemaker marks , all St Annes from 1758 to 1779 it seems likely that either Thomas was considerably the elder of the two, or died fairly young. A Samuel Cooke was apprenticed to Thomas in December 1762, so I imagine was turned over to his Samuel on Thomas's death. As it seems likely this Samuel Cooke was the long working ( 1776 - 1817) silverbuckle maker at Crown and Sceptre Court off St James Street if any one could shed light on this I'd be interested.
.
As mentioned in that will he was the brother of Samuel Hatton, another silver bucklemaker in the same area.
He left most of his estate to a lady called Margaret Murphy, Widow .
She was given as resident , like himself, in the Parish of St Annes, Soho and in the will was treated as one would expect if she was his wife. The lady was described in one part of the will as "the reputed Wife " of Thomas Hatton and her daughter, Mary Murphy was also described as the "reputed daughter" of Thomas Hatton. Whether reputed was what we would call "common law" is open to debate - language usage changes over two centuries and legal language is always a minefield
I think although Grimwade gives his first recorded mark as 26 June 1762 as smallworker at Frith Street ("Thift"), Soho he may have had marks in the lost register since he describes himself as a Silver bucklemaker in an Old Bailey trial of 16 Apr 1760. He may of course have been only a journeyman who subcontracted
Since his brother Samuel entered bucklemaker marks , all St Annes from 1758 to 1779 it seems likely that either Thomas was considerably the elder of the two, or died fairly young. A Samuel Cooke was apprenticed to Thomas in December 1762, so I imagine was turned over to his Samuel on Thomas's death. As it seems likely this Samuel Cooke was the long working ( 1776 - 1817) silverbuckle maker at Crown and Sceptre Court off St James Street if any one could shed light on this I'd be interested.
.
Hello Miles,
We know that in 1782 Thomas Heming was out of his position as principal goldsmith to the king. We also know he used unregistered marks.
In George Heming's biography (page 542) Grimwade mentions that Heal had located George to his father Thomas' business address in 1784. Grimwade draws the conclusion this was when Thomas had quit.
Thomas would no doubt have had to remove the crown which had adorned his previously registered rectangular punch but perhaps didn't get around to registering the one used here which in style is quite similar. Is it possible the salts had Thomas' mark on them and were still in the shop until 1785 when George sent them to assay? They look well made enough for that.
Regards,
Mike
.
We know that in 1782 Thomas Heming was out of his position as principal goldsmith to the king. We also know he used unregistered marks.
In George Heming's biography (page 542) Grimwade mentions that Heal had located George to his father Thomas' business address in 1784. Grimwade draws the conclusion this was when Thomas had quit.
Thomas would no doubt have had to remove the crown which had adorned his previously registered rectangular punch but perhaps didn't get around to registering the one used here which in style is quite similar. Is it possible the salts had Thomas' mark on them and were still in the shop until 1785 when George sent them to assay? They look well made enough for that.
Regards,
Mike
.
