I A on buckles c1750-60 perhaps John Andrews

[buckler]

The above are the marks on a stock buckle with London 1740 —1756 Lions Passant

The one below, showing it seems a very well worn version of the same punch, has the later 1756 onwards Lion .


Both sets are very closely resemble No 1109 in Grimwade which is not in the surviving registers but was taken from a taperstick of 1781. He originally attributed it to Jonathan Alleine, but then revised his opinion to John Arnold , a specialist candlestickmaker.

However with evidence of the mark ,or one like it being pre 1756 this precludes the ones in the photos above from being Arnold.’s as he was still an apprentice until 1759 !.

I believe there were two, very similar marks, one in the lost smallworkers register of Alleine or someone else , and the other in the later lost largeworkers register of Arnold

There is no actual evidence to link the earlier mark with Jonathon Alleine, who was free in 1749 and in the Parliamentary Report 1773 with no category and according to Grimwade may only have been a retailer .

I think the earlier mark more likely to be one of the following:-

John Allen (1) who registered a mark (Roman Capitals) as a smallworker in 1733 . Heal gives him as bankrupt in 1743 but I can find no reference in the London Gazette to this . Grimwade (page 734) considers him to be a bucklemaker and he may well have still been active in the late 1760’s
.
Or

James Allen. Registered a smallworkers mark in 1766 and appears as a bucklemaker in the PR1773 and may well have had entries in the lost register prior to that date .His 1766 mark (Grimwade 1108) is very similar to the above


Another I A ( or SA ? ) mark, found on a pair of shoe buckles with a London Lion Passant of 1740 —1756 may also relate to either of two above.
See below

.

[buckler]

Grimwade page 768 notes that Trevillion Taylor was apprenticed to a John Allen , silversmith in 1736 but was turned over to another goldsmith , John Wilbert in 1741 as Allen " hath left of the trade". This as Grimwade comments could well be John Allen I.

John Allen I thus seems an unlikely candidate for these marks.
This suspect has a good alibi.
.

[buckler]

I have added to the IA confusion .

References to John Arnold above refer to John Arnell. Mr Arnold is a myth created by my slightly dyslexic computer.

David Shlosberg attributes several 4 pairs of nips to Arnell, but although the mark shown on page 157 appears to be similar to Grimwade 1109, it seems to be without pellet.

I suspect that the nips attributed to John Arnell were probably made by the same man whose marks appear above. If that is the case, since one of those marks predates 1757, then Arnell, who seem to have been a specialist candle maker, is not guilty.

Which leaves us with either John Allen II or James Allen as the only suspects . Or Mr I Another.
.

[buckler]

.
A very good impression of the mark of the first set of IA script marks . We can now see it had two pellets.
.

.
Found on a stock buckle with the 1740 -1756 London Lion Passant . The buckle is very much in the Baroque style. Unfortunately the style was still in being used for for buckles well into the 1770's and occasionally later.

This mark seem to have been only on stock buckles.
.

[buckler]

We have another suspect for some or all of the IA marks .

Mr I Another could be John Andrews of Brick Lane .

Grimwade gives John as the son of George Andrews,Grazier, of Colesbatch, Leicestershire, apprenticed to (another ?) George Andrews in 1740 and free 1751 (?). This indicates possible entries in the lost small workers register, as John's first known mark was 9th August 1758 at Brick Lane.
An Ann Andrews appears to have taken over at Brick Lane in 1759, probably his widow, entering smallworkers marks in 1759, 1760 and 1761. I have a buckle with Ann Andrews' very distinctive mark, which is very much in the 1755 - 1760 style.
In 1763 John Andrews ex - apprentice Thomas Wilkinson (free 1762) entered a mark as smallworker at Brick Lane and was in the PR1773 as a bucklemaker at Pear Tree Street, near Old Street. Almost certainly the same premises (it's just off Brick Lane ). He probably married Ann, or took over the premise on her retirement or death.
No proof of the mark relating to John Andrews but the presumption that the two Andrews's and Wilkinson were all silver bucklemakers seems reasonable.
London Gazette of 28th April 1772 states that Thomas Wilkinson, goldsmith , later of Brick Lane in the Parish of St Luke Old Street was a prisoner for debt in the Ludgate Prison. Either the PR1773 entry was rather out of date (not unknown) , or he paid off his debts !

[buckler]

Investigation into the parish registers of St Luke Old Street reveal that a John Andrews was buried on 18 March 1759, which gels well with the 26th March registration date of Ann Andrews first mark.
There is no record of their marriage, which probably took place in the brides parish - but see below

The registers reveal that the Andrews had a dry sense of humour.
They show
7 April 1745 - the baptism of Ann King [Andrews] daughter of John Andrews and Ann
25 May 1746- the baptism of Mary Princess [Andrews] daughter of John Andrews and Ann

As it was common practise for the first, usually male , child to have as a second Christian name the name of his mothers family it is a good guess that Ann's maiden surname was King. Assumming we have the right John and Ann Andrews of course !

The only matching marriage I can find is that of an Ann King to a John Andrews at St Martin, Leicester on 11 January 1743.
This fits nicely with the above births and the fact that John is believed to be the son of George Andrews of Colesbatch in Leicester, grazier, deceased by 1740.

However this conflicts with the apprenticeship (1740) and freedom (1751) record given by Grimwade - which is itself rather odd .
Unless John was bound at a later age than was usual, a marriage in apprenticeship would have been virtually unthinkable. Perhaps it was a shotgun wedding! And why the long delay in obtaining freedom ?

Anyone any theories please

[dognose]

And why the long delay in obtaining freedom?

I suspect the answer may be poverty. If the marriage was a shotgun one, as seems likely, then bringing up a family on a next to nothing income would have crippled John Andrews. If after completing his apprenticeship, he was retained in the role of journeyman by his Master, then what was the hurry to apply to the Company for his Freedom? Freedom by servitude, I believe, still required a fee to the Goldsmiths Company and I suspect this payment may have been a long way down the list of Andrews's priorities.

Trev.

[buckler]

Many thanks for the input Trev.
It's certainly a plausible reason.
I think a look at the appropriate Apprentice Book at Goldsmiths Hall might give us more of a clue as it MAY tell us who George Andrews, his master was . Or the Court Books may give a clue if he was free by servitude ,redemption or charity - he may not have completed his apprenticeship due to the need to feed a family.
Such treasures there but time in London always limited.

But King and Princess as middle names are fun.

[buckler]

The fact that St Luke, Old Street parish is OUTSIDE the City of London made actual freedom unnecessary - he may have as Trev suggests, delayed it until finances permitted.

[buckler]

We commented that John Andrews got his freedom in September 1751, 11 years after his apprenticeship in 1740, and that his marrriage seemed early if we had the correct marraige was the one in Leicestershire in 1743 to Ann King .

Still cannot confirm if that marriage is the right one, but Goldsmiths' Company Court Record Book 15, page 342, 6 September 1751, records that John Andrews put one guinea into the Poor Widows Box in lieu of a fine for neglecting to take up his freedom in due time .