Very early caddy spoon?

[Granmaa]

Here is a shell bowl caddy spoon with a feathered handle. I know very little about caddy spoons: their collectibility prevents any cheap aquisition. From the little I've read though, it seems that caddy spoons first appeared (marked) in the 1770's. This is one of the earliest designs and feathered edges were popular c.1775. The bottom marking also suggests an early date.

However, there is only one mark: what could be JH. It fits with the mark of Jason Holt who was an Exeter silversmith. Too early I think for Joseph Hicks who had a similar mark.
Could someone with a greater knowledge confirm this and perhaps tell me if such single marking was common on Exeter caddy spoons?

Miles


.

[dognose]

Hi Miles,
The anomalies of single makers marks are often a matter of conjecture, your spoon appears to be of high quality and the closest mark that I could find was that of Thomas Heming (Grimwade 2797) the mark he lists was not taken from the register but from a dish, so one must allow for some distortion. He is listed as a Largeworker (indeed a royal goldsmith) but I have seen spoons by him.
Other possibilities could be Fuller White (Grimwade 733), Thomas Mason(Grimwade 2846) and Thomas Nash (Grimwade 2860) or of course your thoughts that it may be a provincial maker.

regards Trev.
.

[nigel le sueur]

Miles

That is a copy of Jason Holt

Nigel
.

[georgiansilver]

Hi Miles.
Got to agree with Dognose on that one...high quality spoon...Royal Silver/Goldsmith Thomas Heming. From memory, Thomas had seven men working for him on all manner of quality items but Thomas inspected all and his name was represented on all silver items made at his premises which was somewhere in central London...I think!
.

[Granmaa]

I'm begining to wonder if there's something wrong with my copy of Grimwade's: the marks are very different!
Also, the quality isn't that good: the smith forgot one of the shell flutes on the right hand side. Heming made objects of almost overpowering elegance and beauty, he had to in order to remain Royal silversmith for 48 years. Plus he wasn't recorded as a spoonmaker and I've never seen a spoon attributed to him.
Plus I would expect to see a lion passant on such a renowned maker's work.

I'd dearly love to own a piece made by a Royal silversmith, but I just can't believe this is one.

Miles
.

[georgiansilver]

I personally believe that similarities in marks have caused many things made by him...in spite of their quality...to be attributed to others with similar marks.....does that make some sense to you Miles?
Best wishes, Mike.
.

[nigel le sueur]

Miles

Here is the second mark by Heming c1770



Nigel
.

[Granmaa]

Hi Nigel,

Do you have a picture of the piece from which you got that mark?
Also, what do you think?

Miles
.

[georgiansilver]

What do you think Miles...evidence pretty strong eh? Thanks for the mark Nigel. Best wishes, Mike.
.

[Granmaa]

I have already said what I think, but I shall summarise.

1. Average quality caddy spoon unlikely to be made by Royal Goldsmith.
2. Absence of lion passant points to provincial maker.
3. Heming not recorded as a spoonmaker, and I haven't seen a spoon attributed to him.
4. I'm not fully convinced of the similarity between my mark and the ones in Grimwade's (or Nigel's).

I'd say the evidence is pretty weak.

Miles
.

[Granmaa]

Trev, you said that you'd seen some spoons by Heming: do you have any pictures to help us out with?

Miles
.

[Granmaa]

Yesterday I asked [url]silverspoons.com[/url] if they could help us: here is their kind response.

It is an interesting caddy spoon and as you suggest
is an early example - circa 1775-80. It is neither Heming nor Holt. Heming
is not known to make caddy spoons and I doubt he would deign to make such a piece. The spoon is too early to be provincial in origin.

Try Thomas Wallis II

However, unless it is a bad impression, the second letter seems to lack the central peak of the W for Thomas Wallis.

Miles
.

[Granmaa]

After dmay directed me to another silver forum, I discovered a piece with a similar mark which seems to have them stumped as well.

Miles

http://www.smpub.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000072.html
.

[Granmaa]

I have come across an identical piece on eBay, and the seller has kindly given me permission to use her photos.
The maker's mark on hers is much clearer than on mine.

Here is what she said:

I have looked at the thread and would disagree with all the makers mentioned, the shape of the box is not the same as any of the makers suggested, nor are the shape of the initials close enough to any of them, the same goes for Jason Holt, the box shape, first initial and the top left hand stroke of the H aren't the same as in the pic, I have looked myself but have been unable to come up with a close enough match so for now it is a mystery.

I'd hate for this mystery to go unsolved.

Miles


.

[2209patrick]

Here's a remote possibility, he might be too early for caddy spoons.
John Holland, London, entered a mark in 1739 that looks a lot like yours Miles.
Don't know if he made spoons.



Pat.
.

[Granmaa]

There are too many differences, and he's too early I think Pat.
I'm still more inclined to go with a provincial maker.

Miles
.

[Granmaa]

I've come across yet another of these caddy spoons in the postal auction of The Finial (Volume 16/01 lot 138). It is there attributed to Thomas Hatton of London (entered 1762) and dated c.1770.

Miles
.

[kerangoumar]

I'm coming out of left field on this one.

We always assume that every smith always followed all the rules. Thus we think that because one mark or another is absent the smith must have been from place B rather than A (London, the centre of all things hallmarked). Perhaps the smith had a bad day. He did forget one of the flutes. As to age, perhaps this spoon is not from the 18th C - perhaps it was meant to replace one that had been.

If we expand the possibilities for a moment we find that there is a mark that matches it, by one Jonathan Hayne, who registered a larger number of marks than probably 75% of the smiths. He was active from just after the turn of the century.

. . . ok, play devil's advocate, someone.
.