Miles
.
I M - on salt of 1762
I M - on salt of 1762
Here is a Georgian salt made in 1762. I've been having a hard time working out who the maker is; it looks like either I.M or L.M
Miles
.
Miles
.
Hi Miles, John Muns would be agood fit (Grimwades 1518) although there is a slight difference to the M he did enter a larger mark in 1757 (not shown), another possibity would be the unregistered mark of Jacob Marsh or John Moore (Grimwades 3658) as these impressions are not to clear in this section of Grimwades but the dates would fit, hope this helps, regards Trev.
.
.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
I looked around for a John Muns mark, and found one (pictured) attributed to him on a tankard on the website of a member of the London Silver Vaults, it was made a year after my salt in 1763; there are some significant differences. Also, neither of his marks seems to have the unusual rippling which can be seen on my salt.
I don't have my Jackson's with me; please could you see if this rippling is present on the Jacob Marsh mark identified by Kit?
Miles
.
I don't have my Jackson's with me; please could you see if this rippling is present on the Jacob Marsh mark identified by Kit?
Miles
.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
-
CarolinaCollectors
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Carolinas, USA
Georgian salt maker
Miles,
I'm concerned that all the marks discussed show M's with vertical strokes and a point that ends above the bottom of the letter. Your mark shows definitely sloped sides on the M and a point that ends at the bottom. This causes me to think that we may be looking at your mark upside down. What if the mark is actually W-pellet-I. I looked at my own Jackson's, but I confess that I'm not sufficiently adept at its use yet to feel that I did a very thorough job of it.
Does anyone have a viable candidate for this mark if it is W-pellet_I ??
Jim
.
I'm concerned that all the marks discussed show M's with vertical strokes and a point that ends above the bottom of the letter. Your mark shows definitely sloped sides on the M and a point that ends at the bottom. This causes me to think that we may be looking at your mark upside down. What if the mark is actually W-pellet-I. I looked at my own Jackson's, but I confess that I'm not sufficiently adept at its use yet to feel that I did a very thorough job of it.
Does anyone have a viable candidate for this mark if it is W-pellet_I ??
Jim
.
Hi Jim,
It is unusual for the side lines of Ms to be sloped, but it's not unheard of. When I look at my salt it doesn't seem so slopey as it does in the picture; perhaps it is emphasised by the askew picture. Also no W has extensions on the bottom two points like in the picture, whereas virtually all Ms have them on their top two points.
I did check in Grimwade's, but I couldn't find a good WI match.
It is annoying that middle point of my M is seemingly too long, but perhaps the mark could have been imperfectly struck.
Miles
.
It is unusual for the side lines of Ms to be sloped, but it's not unheard of. When I look at my salt it doesn't seem so slopey as it does in the picture; perhaps it is emphasised by the askew picture. Also no W has extensions on the bottom two points like in the picture, whereas virtually all Ms have them on their top two points.
I did check in Grimwade's, but I couldn't find a good WI match.
It is annoying that middle point of my M is seemingly too long, but perhaps the mark could have been imperfectly struck.
Miles
.
Hi Miles,
Have to agree with dognose that the irregular top edge is the result of damage or crude removal of something above. Just had a look in Grimwades and there is a fair match in #1539 - John Mcferlan smallworker 1762. For some reason, this mark is not grouped on the same page with the rest of the block letter & pellet IM marks.
Strictly speaking, John Muns 1753 mark #1518 seems (aside from irregular top), to be the best match.
Muns is listed as a largeworker, Mcferlan as a smallworker. Is there a clear definition of the two terms? Would a largeworker turn his hand to something as small as a salt?
Regards, Tom
.
Have to agree with dognose that the irregular top edge is the result of damage or crude removal of something above. Just had a look in Grimwades and there is a fair match in #1539 - John Mcferlan smallworker 1762. For some reason, this mark is not grouped on the same page with the rest of the block letter & pellet IM marks.
Strictly speaking, John Muns 1753 mark #1518 seems (aside from irregular top), to be the best match.
Muns is listed as a largeworker, Mcferlan as a smallworker. Is there a clear definition of the two terms? Would a largeworker turn his hand to something as small as a salt?
Regards, Tom
.
Hi , The Mcferlan mark is I feel too small, he did enter a larger mark as a plateworker but this was not until 1786.
Originally the registers at Goldshiths Hall only seperated large and smallworkers, after 1773 this distinction was ended and new categories i.e. plateworkers, smallworkers, spoonmakers, goldworkers, watchcasemakers, bucklemakers and spectaclemakers were formed, for what reason I have no idea, but it may have been simply to make it easier to look up someone's mark. We know that workshops like Paul Storr's for example, made everything from centrepieces to spoons, so I think it is safe to assume that someone like John Muns would have made anything that his skills permitted.
Trev.
.
Originally the registers at Goldshiths Hall only seperated large and smallworkers, after 1773 this distinction was ended and new categories i.e. plateworkers, smallworkers, spoonmakers, goldworkers, watchcasemakers, bucklemakers and spectaclemakers were formed, for what reason I have no idea, but it may have been simply to make it easier to look up someone's mark. We know that workshops like Paul Storr's for example, made everything from centrepieces to spoons, so I think it is safe to assume that someone like John Muns would have made anything that his skills permitted.
Trev.
.