On a Hanoverian teaspoon with a "basket of flowers" fancy-back.
Miles
.
Can't quite make this maker out
Can't quite make this maker out
Does anyone have sharp enough eyes to be able to make out this maker?
On a Hanoverian teaspoon with a "basket of flowers" fancy-back.
Miles
.
On a Hanoverian teaspoon with a "basket of flowers" fancy-back.
Miles
.
Hello Miles,
A possibility could be the mark "Jackson's" (2002 Edition at page 206) ascribes potentially to Thomas Gilpin who was entered on London's books around 1739. That mark had a two handle cup on top of a rectangle
The mark on your spoon seems to start with a script capital "T"; then there is a downward mark which could be the remains of the candlestick type device which separates the two initials in the mark which Jackson saw on an epergne of 1756.
It follows that there should be some remains of a script capital "G" to the right; is the curve in the mark on your spoon just my wishful thinking?
We probably lost the cup on shrinkage (or goal difference!).
Regards, Mike
.
A possibility could be the mark "Jackson's" (2002 Edition at page 206) ascribes potentially to Thomas Gilpin who was entered on London's books around 1739. That mark had a two handle cup on top of a rectangle
The mark on your spoon seems to start with a script capital "T"; then there is a downward mark which could be the remains of the candlestick type device which separates the two initials in the mark which Jackson saw on an epergne of 1756.
It follows that there should be some remains of a script capital "G" to the right; is the curve in the mark on your spoon just my wishful thinking?
We probably lost the cup on shrinkage (or goal difference!).
Regards, Mike
.
Hi Mike,
I looked at the mark and the remaining bits of the letters fit pretty well, but there is no candlestick shape on my spoon.
However, when looking for the mark in Grimwade's I saw on the same page an unregistered mark (3819) which fits perfectly. Alas, the notation beside it says (not traced). I hate it when that happens!
Miles
.
I looked at the mark and the remaining bits of the letters fit pretty well, but there is no candlestick shape on my spoon.
However, when looking for the mark in Grimwade's I saw on the same page an unregistered mark (3819) which fits perfectly. Alas, the notation beside it says (not traced). I hate it when that happens!
Miles
.
Hi Miles and Mike,
Miles, if presuming that the mark is the same as Grimwade’s unidentified 3819 then a possibility may be Thomas Evans. There now follows a long drawn out reason why I consider this could be the maker of your spoon.
If you look at the next mark in Grimwade’s unidentified section, 3820, TE over GS, this mark I have sometimes seen attributed to as possibly Thomas Evans and George Smith. I have noted this mark a couple of times, most recently on a spoon hallmarked in 1769. This date would appear to eliminate George Smith, if presuming we are talking about George Smith III the noted spoonmaker, as if Grimwade is correct then GSIII would not have completed his apprenticeship with Thomas Chawner or Pierce Tempest by the time this spoon was hallmarked in 1769.
Thomas Evans (the elder) however would be an ideal fit, a known spoonmaker, Grimwade has it that his first mark was entered in 1774 but also mentions him as appearing in the Parliamentary Report 1773 and Heal recording him in 1766.
Grimwade records these marks as unregistered but this is probably a total misnomer as they would very likely be found in the missing registers of Goldsmiths Hall. It is the Largeworkers book that is missing for the period we are interested in here, but when they entered their marks they probably were not expecting to make spoons for the rest of their lives.
It is also possible that when GSIII was bound to Thomas Chawner, that he had completed part of his apprenticeship with another master beforehand, a fairly common occurrence in those days.
In summary 3819 could be the mark of Thomas Evans entered approx. 1758 in the Smallworkers Register, and 3820 the mark of the partnership of Thomas Evans and George Smith III entered approx. 1769 in the Largeworkers Register.
Possible, probable or pure speculation, it would be good to have the thoughts of you both.
Regards Trev.
.
Miles, if presuming that the mark is the same as Grimwade’s unidentified 3819 then a possibility may be Thomas Evans. There now follows a long drawn out reason why I consider this could be the maker of your spoon.
If you look at the next mark in Grimwade’s unidentified section, 3820, TE over GS, this mark I have sometimes seen attributed to as possibly Thomas Evans and George Smith. I have noted this mark a couple of times, most recently on a spoon hallmarked in 1769. This date would appear to eliminate George Smith, if presuming we are talking about George Smith III the noted spoonmaker, as if Grimwade is correct then GSIII would not have completed his apprenticeship with Thomas Chawner or Pierce Tempest by the time this spoon was hallmarked in 1769.
Thomas Evans (the elder) however would be an ideal fit, a known spoonmaker, Grimwade has it that his first mark was entered in 1774 but also mentions him as appearing in the Parliamentary Report 1773 and Heal recording him in 1766.
Grimwade records these marks as unregistered but this is probably a total misnomer as they would very likely be found in the missing registers of Goldsmiths Hall. It is the Largeworkers book that is missing for the period we are interested in here, but when they entered their marks they probably were not expecting to make spoons for the rest of their lives.
It is also possible that when GSIII was bound to Thomas Chawner, that he had completed part of his apprenticeship with another master beforehand, a fairly common occurrence in those days.
In summary 3819 could be the mark of Thomas Evans entered approx. 1758 in the Smallworkers Register, and 3820 the mark of the partnership of Thomas Evans and George Smith III entered approx. 1769 in the Largeworkers Register.
Possible, probable or pure speculation, it would be good to have the thoughts of you both.
Regards Trev.
.
Hello Miles and Trev,
You chaps have the advantage of possession of a Grimwade's so comment on marks 3819 and 3820 are outside my scope.
Miles, when referring to the so called candlestick it was to try and explain what I see as a straight and downward line after the script "T" and before the ghost of the other script initial on your teaspoon. That line is much thicker than the line used for the "T" and, in my view, too thick and straight to be the line used to start the next script initial hence the thought that it might be the worn remains of the candlestick thing Jackson saw.
Of course if the apparent downward line fits the Grimwade marks better then amen.
Regards,
Mike
.
You chaps have the advantage of possession of a Grimwade's so comment on marks 3819 and 3820 are outside my scope.
Miles, when referring to the so called candlestick it was to try and explain what I see as a straight and downward line after the script "T" and before the ghost of the other script initial on your teaspoon. That line is much thicker than the line used for the "T" and, in my view, too thick and straight to be the line used to start the next script initial hence the thought that it might be the worn remains of the candlestick thing Jackson saw.
Of course if the apparent downward line fits the Grimwade marks better then amen.
Regards,
Mike
.
For those without a Grimwade, here is mark 3819:
Hi Mike,
I understood that you were refering to the straight line in my mark when you spoke of the candlestick shape, but it looks to me that this line curves at the bottom and top and so joins on to the fainter lines to its right. I can't explain why it is so much thicker than the T.
However, now I look at the mark more carefully, it doesn't fit terribly well.
Hi Trev,
Your theory seems so possible; Thomas Evans Sr must have had at least one earlier mark than the ones recorded. However, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to prove it; unless the missing register turns up somewhere!
Miles
.
Hi Mike,
I understood that you were refering to the straight line in my mark when you spoke of the candlestick shape, but it looks to me that this line curves at the bottom and top and so joins on to the fainter lines to its right. I can't explain why it is so much thicker than the T.
However, now I look at the mark more carefully, it doesn't fit terribly well.
Hi Trev,
Your theory seems so possible; Thomas Evans Sr must have had at least one earlier mark than the ones recorded. However, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to prove it; unless the missing register turns up somewhere!
Miles
.
Not knowing anything about spoons I am probably introducing a red herrring, but has anybody considered Thomas Eustace of Exeter ? I believe he had, like several West Country, pieces assayed in London from time to time, and although his registered London mark (Grimwade 3442) is block capitals, he may have also used one of his Exeter punches instead. I have always considered Grimwade 3819 to be probably Thomas Eustace - based on buckle evidence .
Incidentally those who do not own Grimwade - it is now available on Amazon for £70 including postage .
.
Incidentally those who do not own Grimwade - it is now available on Amazon for £70 including postage .
.
Yes, it is a London lion. But Thomas Eustace registered one mark in London (Grimwade 3342) - which was block capitals, and Grimwade records another unknown for London (Grimwade 3819) which I think was that of Thomas Eustace.
I suspect he registered 3342, but sent a parcel or so to London with one of his Exeter registered marks. From the evidence available Goldsmiths Hall did not check all makers marks against the registers if they knew the makers - despite their claims to the contary .
I thik this may be an Exeter made, but London assayed piece by our Thomas .
.
I suspect he registered 3342, but sent a parcel or so to London with one of his Exeter registered marks. From the evidence available Goldsmiths Hall did not check all makers marks against the registers if they knew the makers - despite their claims to the contary .
I thik this may be an Exeter made, but London assayed piece by our Thomas .
.
Hi,
Whilst we are on the subject of Thomas Evans, I thought I would throw this one in. It is a spoon made by the short-lived parnership of Thomas Evans and Jacob Levi (Grimwade 2747).
They entered their mark on the 20th February 1784 and it was seemingly all over by the 11th September 1784 when Thomas Evans entered a mark on his own.
This spoon can thus be dated fairly precisely as assayed between 20th February 1784 and 29th May 1784
Trev.
Whilst we are on the subject of Thomas Evans, I thought I would throw this one in. It is a spoon made by the short-lived parnership of Thomas Evans and Jacob Levi (Grimwade 2747).
They entered their mark on the 20th February 1784 and it was seemingly all over by the 11th September 1784 when Thomas Evans entered a mark on his own.
This spoon can thus be dated fairly precisely as assayed between 20th February 1784 and 29th May 1784
Trev.
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
l have always contibuted these cast tongs to Thomas Eustace although this mark does not appear in "Grimwades" it does appear in "Jacksons" for him between 1775 - 1785.
However now l am so sure whilst reading through this thread, what does help me with the date is the Bethroal on the bow which reads 1779, although not a 100% guide it is unlikely that they were engraved after the marriage
Any ideas appreciated
Nigel
.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests