www.925-1000.com

In the period 1700-1770 Grimwade’s biographies of the London Goldsmiths and Silversmiths shows Goldsmiths Hall recording addresses which, at first sight, would require Officers of the Company to have acquired a strong tolerance to drink in their work of visiting business premises. A small sample of addresses is:

John Alderhead at “Ring & Pearl” in Bishopsgate Street in 1750
Edward Aldridge I & II at “Golden Ewer” in Lillypot Lane from 1739-62
William Alexander at “Anchor & Key” in Wood Street from 1742-59
Peter Archambo I & II at “Golden Cup” in Green Street from 1721-50
Frances Archbold at “Golden Cup” in Green Street in 1700
Hugh Arnett & Edward Pocock at “Blackamoors Head” in Foster Lane from 1719-24
William Ashbee at “Black Boy & Crowne” in 1750
Jeconiah Ashley at “Golden Acorn” in Strand in 1740
William Atkinson at “Golden Cup” New Fish Street Hill from 1725-36
Ralph Ayscough at “Ring & Pearl” in Ludgate Street from 1753-77

The list goes on.

It seems unlikely these smiths were making their wares there so why are so many listed at what appear to be inns?
.
The majority of registered addresses for workshops recorded at this time did name a street, usually with no number, and were presumably easier to find. Otherwise it seems it may have necessary to visit a named local hostelry and ask there if the smith’s actual address was nearby. Perhaps there was no adequate street map of the City?
Or is there another reason?
Goldsmiths Hall registration of addresses with the names of inns diminishes quickly after these dates and house numbers start to be shown. This rather seems to take the fun out of the search for an address doesn’t it?

Mike
.

Hi Mike,

Your question needs to be divided into at least a couple of answers. The premises you speak of, were not inns, they were the workshops of silversmiths and in most cases also their place of abode, not just because of financial necessity, but also for security as the loss of stock or the tools of the trade, could in those days cause starvation.

So, why signs instead of numbers? Well, a written address is not of much use if you cannot read and at this time a majority of the population could not, so easily identifiable signs were a must.

We still today have some remnants of this form of identity, the pawnbroker still uses the sign of the three balls and on occasion the barber still has a red and white striped pole outside his shop and of course the pub sign is the commonest of them all.

So, why the, sometimes, strange names that mark these premises? Well that is often for a variety of reasons. Silversmith 'X' was the former apprentice to silversmith 'Y', 'Y' used the sign of the 'Golden Ewer', 'X', wanting to be associated with the fine reputation of his old Master, may well have chosen the 'Golden Ewer and Lamb' to represent a new generation of his trade. A shop that had been for years a bootmakers, and a familar local landmark, on becoming the premises of a silversmith, may have been given the new name of 'The Boot and Cup' to remain connected with the fame of the old premises. Other names were sometimes more directly related to the goods that were being sold, such as a jeweller using the 'Hand and Ring' or 'Ring and Pearl'. An 'Anchor' may be an indictor of a riverside premises and the 'Crown' to imply royal patronage.

The British Museum's collection of trade cards is well worth a look. See: viewtopic.php?t=18763

Regards Trev.
.

Hello Trev,

Thanks so much for the explanation. Quite how the likes of, for example, George Boothby at "The Parrott" Temple Bar from 1720-41 or Stafford Briscoe at "The Bunch of Grapes" Cheapside from 1711-12 fit the general proposition is a little hard to follow but using my imagination might get me there.
It comes as a disappointment to learn that the "Golden Cup" isn't a place serving foaming cask conditioned ales. I was quite looking forward to looking deeper into London hostelries when next there to gather information to write a Forum article entitled "London's Inns & Taverns Used As Business Addresses of 18th Century Silversmiths; A Survey of Their Ales & Stouts". I was even thinking of asking our Administrator for expenses.

Regards,
Mike
.

Hi Mike,

Sir Ambrose Heal in his 'The London Goldsmiths, 1200-1800' wrote 'The Blackamoor, or the Black Boy, the peacock, and the Unicorn were emblems generally adopted in conjunction with luxery trades as denoting elegance or rarity', I would think that the 'Parrott' could well fit in with his thoughts on this category. As for Stafford Briscoe's 'Bunch of Grapes', this could well have been a former inn for when he moved it appears he did not take the name with him, calling his next premises the 'Golden Ball'.

You should not discard your thoughts on writing that article, even though it may take years of diligent research, but I fear it may be too much for one man and it is only right that I give you a hand.

Cheers, Trev.
.

Hello again Trev,

Pawnbrokers and barbers apart do you happen to know why locating shops by looking for these sorts of sign was dying out towards 1800 as it seems to have done? Education and the ability to read didn't get much better for a long time.

Parrots seem to me more exotic than luxurious but perhaps this is a modern interpretation. In any event orders have come from a higher authority that looking for the sign of The Parrot is not allowed though a Bunch of Grapes sign is still said to be acceptable.

That you should offer to lay down your beer mat to ease the burden of my quest deserves recognition beyond my abilities. Could we be heading for sponsorship from a Forum senior personage do you think?

And cheers to you too,
Mike
.

Apologies for intruding on a discussion between those keen to locate the pubs beneath the signs. Just wanted to point out that there was a deal of urban improvement to London through the 18th century and particularly from the 1760s. Roads were paved, old overhanging signs pulled down and buildings began to be identified by numbers rather than signs. At the same time literacy will have been improving as well. It wasn't a question of no progress on this front until the 1870 Education Act.
.

Thank you for the information.
Searching for family trees gave the impression that literacy was markedly improved after 1870. Prior to that there was a lot of signing names with a cross.
The urban improvement you mention occurs at exactly the time the addresses given to Goldsmiths Hall start to change and readily explains why the signs lost their place.
Thanks again.

Mike
.

Hi Mike and David,

There is another element that may perhaps, in some small way, have contributed to the downfall of the signs, that of the 1738 Plate Act that came into force in 1739. A clause in the Act required all workers in gold and silver to enter new marks at Goldsmiths Hall consisting of the initials of their Christian and surnames and to be different than those previously submitted. It was at this point that we see the device that was contained within many of the maker's marks, disappear.

The device, mentioned above, in many cases linked the maker's mark to the sign board, as can be seen below.



William Darker(att) (Grimwade 441) who Heal records at the 'Acorn' in Foster Lane.



Simon Pantin (I and II) (Grimwade 2606-7) who Heal records at the 'Peacock', St Martin's Lane, at the 'Peacock' at Castle Street, Leicester Fields.

I'm unsure if the loss of the device was because of the wording of the Act, or simply because of the fact that every silversmith in London required new punches to be made in such a short space of time, that the makers of these punches could only produce less complicated designs given the time they had to work with.

For whatever reason, however, the link was broken, and by now, as David suggests, perhaps the rise in literacy, especially in that part of society that could afford silver, meant that this form of direction to a particular silversmith was perhaps not so longer important.

Regards Trev.
.

To flesh out my earlier comments, the legislation to set up the arrangements for street improvements in Westminster was passed in 1760. I believe the City of London followed very shortly thereafter. Allow a few years for implementation and it does indeed fit very well with the timing of changes in the way addresses were recorded.

I hadn’t meant to imply there was near universal literacy in the late 18th century, just that there was more of it. It is interesting that street signs lingered on at businesses most likely to be frequented by the less educated as well as the middle classes: pubs, pawnbrokers and the like.

On the matter of signing with a cross, a ghoulish thought occurs. Was this mostly on wills and if so death-bed wills? I have visions of a dying man too weak to sign properly, or even his dead fingers being folded round a pen to make a mark and ensure that there was a will! However, I am sure there would indeed still have been illiterates in surprising places (e.g. Hester Bateman)

Regards, David
.

Hello David & Trev,

Civil registration of births, deaths and marriages was introduced to England and Wales in 1837, Scotland and Ireland somewhat later.
Early signatures required under the legislation were very often completed by making a cross (an "X") and indicative of a general lack of literacy existing up to and well beyond 1837.

In my experience Wills tended more often than not to be signed, indicative of a higher literacy level for those with something to leave.

Unless there is other evidence of lengthy governmental intention to encourage the population to learn to read and write the removal of the devices from silver marks after the 1738 Act now seems to me coincidental in view of the much later date of 1760 for the urban improvements which took away the street sign devices.

Regards,
Mike
.