Page 1 of 1

T L on small buckles of c1760 -1784

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:41 pm
by buckler
Two marks from small buckles.
Top is from a stock buckle, the bottom from a knee buckle, both with Lions Passant of the London 1756 —1784 form.
I think both are two examples of the same mark. Both have pellets


TL silversmiths suspects include
Thomas Latham - his only recorded mark , a bucklemaker mark of 1774 had, according to Grimwade no pellet.
Thomas Lownes - his sole recorded mark was a joint one with Edward Lycett as bucklemakers .
Thomas Liddiard - his only recorded mark , a smallworker mark of 1770 had, according to Grimwade no pellet. He was one of the deputation of six that presented the bucklemakers petition to the King in 1792 although he himself seems to have moved on to better things by then. He retired in 1794
Thomas Lamborn (Grimwade 2824 ) had two smallworker marks, one without pellet registered in 1759, and another “similar” according to Grimwade in 1769. I have no references to him as a maker of buckles
Thomas Lovidge a silversmith not in any of the registers, but who had buckles broken in the 1763 to 1769 period by Goldsmiths Hall is another possibility. He does not appear in the PR1773 .

The matter is complicated by the existance of a third TL mark, on a knee buckle that stylistically cannot be much earlier than 1780, nor, due to absence of duty mark be later than 1784.


I think it has a pellet, but after staring at it on numerous occasions am still not able to say for sure !
I am very uncertain if this is the same punch as the two first marks.
If it is the same mark then datewise I think Lovidge is out of the running.
If a different one, my guess is a late unregistered mark of one of the other suspects and Loveridge is still on the list for the first mark.

Re: TL mark - c1760 -1784

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:27 pm
by MCB
Hello Clive

Having revisited this post once again without being able to point a finger to a name for the buckle maker I think it time to let you know what conclusions have come to mind from looking at the images.

It seems to me that in the third image there is a fair possibility that the damage scar running across the stem of the letter “T” has also taken off the top right hand part of what was a circular pellet; also that the stem of the letter “L” has become flattened and widened by damage. Close up is this possible such that the second and third marks were made by the same punch, the letters seemingly formed and spaced the same and the centre of the pellet being identical in both?

You indicate that the first and second are examples of the same mark but I’m uncertain whether this means you consider they were made by the same punch or by the same maker. The first seems to have slight differences in spacing, thickness and location of the centre of the pellet but these might, of course, have been due to the mark having been made by the same punch as the other two but when it was newer and sharper.

Whether or not the first mark was made by the same punch and assuming there is evidence enough for a pellet in the third example the fact that the pellets are all in the same odd position tips the scales for me that the marks are all those of the same buckle maker, whoever he was!

Hope this helps a little.

Re: TL mark - c1760 -1784

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:48 pm
by buckler
Many thanks Mike
I tend to agree that all three marks could be by the same maker, perhaps even the same punch. The other thing that goes through my mind is that as I understand it some punches were first made as a die, ie an incuse - then the actual punch for use made as a cameo version from the die . Knowing the parsimony of most manufacturers, did the silversmith have more than one punch struck from each die ? Presumeably the cost of further punches from a die would be cheaper than cutting another.

Someone recently advised me that several such dies survive for assay lions , to the great embaressment of the office - they and the punches should have been destroyed !

This would give fractionally different punches, which in use would suffer different wear, hence giving differing marks on silver work pieces . This would go a long way towards explaining the minor differences from Grimwades images to actual marks.