A Curious Case of Overstriking

[dognose]

A regular set of six Old English pattern teaspoons, assayed at London in 1806, bearing the maker's marks of Samuel Goodbehere, Edward Wigan and James Bult, and also those of Peter & William Bateman.



Nothing unusual in the above so far, a set of spoons made by perhaps the most prolific spoonmakers in London and sold by one of the most prominent silver retailers of the period. It would be of no surprise to see the mark PB above WB overstruck with the mark of SG over EW over IB, for although the Goodbehere partnership did undoubtably have a manufacturing base, a majority of the silverwares that they retailed were brought in from other suppliers.



But a closer inspection of this set reveals something of a curiosity, for this set has the marks in reverse order than one would expect, they were sent to assay by the Goodbehere partnership and their mark was then overstruck by the Bateman workshops.



How is it that such a large producer of spoons would acquire this set from someone who was mostly concerned with the retail side of the trade? I doubt if the Batemans would have borrowed some stock of Goodbeheres to make up a rush order, for with their facilities they could have made this spoons within hours and had them assayed the same day. My only thoughts at the moment are that perhaps the Goodbehere partnership was in some sort of financial trouble at this time and these spoons were part of a seizure of stock on behalf of the Bateman workshops.

It would be great to hear the thoughts of other members as to why this curious overstrike may have occurred.

Trev.

[agphile]

If practice then was similar to today's, the maker could have held a punch with the retailer's (sponsor's) mark when there was sufficiently regular throughput of business to justify this. If an order was cancelled before delivery but after the items had been struck with the sponsor's mark, the pieces might be restruck with the actual maker's mark, whether before going off for assay or after assay for the sake of a sale elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure there will have been cases of orders being cancelled for whatever reason or of work starting on a provisional order that was never confirmed.

David

[dognose]

Hi David,

Thanks for replying. Your suggestion is exactly the same as one given to me whilst in conversation with Clive Taylor (buckler). I did wonder if the Bateman workshops would have used the services of outworkers as their own facilities were so extensive, but I guess that given the peaks and troughs in the trade that may well be the case.

As for SG-EW-IB, their mark is so often to be found overstriking that of others, that it would appear that their normal practise was to buy in wares from other silversmiths that had already been assayed. They did though, without doubt, make at least some of their own work, but I wonder if they would have used 'little masters' as their normal policy seemed to be that when buying from outside sources, that the items were pre-assayed, but perhaps they used a combination of all three methods of supply.

Regards Trev.

[MCB]

Hello Trev

Ann Bateman retired from the partnership in November 1805 judging by the date the remaining partners registered their mark and the date letter on the spoons came into use fairly soon afterwards on 29th May 1806. Perhaps Peter & William were caught short of ready money to pay a sum agreed with Ann for her share of the business, called in their debts and ultimately had to accept stock in lieu from Goodbehere, Wigan and Bult?

Regards
Mike

[dognose]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for replying. It's certainly a thought. The cause of Ann's retirement from the business was noted as her increasing ill health, so there may well have been a need for quick money, although she was to live for another seven or so years.

Regards Trev.

[MCB]

In the course of investigating a possible business reason for the strange circumstances behind the Batemans' overstamp the burial record for Ann Bateman was discovered. Recorded at St Luke's Church,Old Street, Islington on 22nd of October 1812 it shows she was 64 years of age at the date of death, had lived at Bunhill Row Vaults and had died of dropsy.
If she was suffering from dropsy in 1805 when she retired from the Bateman partnership the medical costs in the intervening years would probably have been significant.
The other interesting entry is the address as Bunhill Row Vaults. Bunhill Row was the place where the Batemans conducted their business.Vaults could be imagined to be where the silver bullion was kept rather than a place for a sick lady but perhaps the address also had private apartments.

Mike

[dognose]

Hi Mike,

Many thanks for posting this valuable information.

Regards Trev.