I am not shure about the maker.Could it be that it's from the London maker John Hawkins?
Thank you,
Alain
.
I H - Sugar tongs (photo removed)
I H - Sugar tongs (photo removed)
This is the latest pair of sugar tongs in my collection.
I am not shure about the maker.Could it be that it's from the London maker John Hawkins?
Thank you,
Alain
.
I am not shure about the maker.Could it be that it's from the London maker John Hawkins?
Thank you,
Alain
.
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
Alain
John Hawkins did not enter his mark until 1802, as there is no duty mark this would of been to late for these tongs, the punch looks like one of two makers, James Harmer or John Hardy, both had this shape punch, however looking at the marks made at Goldsmiths Hall, it does appear to be the former James Harmer, he had no record of apprenticeship or freedom and entered his mark as a smallworker 9th April 1761 is appears he was still working in 1773 possibly as a Bucklemaker, this would tie in nicely with the style and approx date of these tongs
Regards
Nigel
.
John Hawkins did not enter his mark until 1802, as there is no duty mark this would of been to late for these tongs, the punch looks like one of two makers, James Harmer or John Hardy, both had this shape punch, however looking at the marks made at Goldsmiths Hall, it does appear to be the former James Harmer, he had no record of apprenticeship or freedom and entered his mark as a smallworker 9th April 1761 is appears he was still working in 1773 possibly as a Bucklemaker, this would tie in nicely with the style and approx date of these tongs
Regards
Nigel
.
Hello Nigel,
Thank you for your expertise.Very much apriciated!
So these tongs were made between 1761 and 1773 ?
"Pour la petite histoire", there's a birdie on the bow of the tongs, and unfortunatly also a crack in the bow.
In your opinion, is it worth to let it repair by a silversmith?
Thanks again,
Alain
.
Thank you for your expertise.Very much apriciated!
So these tongs were made between 1761 and 1773 ?
"Pour la petite histoire", there's a birdie on the bow of the tongs, and unfortunatly also a crack in the bow.
In your opinion, is it worth to let it repair by a silversmith?
Thanks again,
Alain
.
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
Alain
The engraving on the Bow is an attractive engraving, could it possibly be a game bird ? (to donate the owners hobby?) there are so many different engravings on items l have some most peculiar ones on my site, (see links, castsugartongs)
As for repair, it depends 100% on the owner, if they are to be kept for show then l would not think the split would get any worse, but l am not an expert in that field it is just an personal opinion, also would soldering it damage the engraving on the back?
Yes l would be quite confident in putting that date to it, probaly the latter part of that period.
Regards
Nigel
.
The engraving on the Bow is an attractive engraving, could it possibly be a game bird ? (to donate the owners hobby?) there are so many different engravings on items l have some most peculiar ones on my site, (see links, castsugartongs)
As for repair, it depends 100% on the owner, if they are to be kept for show then l would not think the split would get any worse, but l am not an expert in that field it is just an personal opinion, also would soldering it damage the engraving on the back?
Yes l would be quite confident in putting that date to it, probaly the latter part of that period.
Regards
Nigel
.
-
Tongtwister
- contributor
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:29 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
Hi,
I've had a good look at these tongs & they are quite an unusual style. The join between the arms and the bowls is not something I've seen before. As far as date is concerned, I would certainly place them at around 1775 - 1780 - not too much earlier than that. 1773 is just possible, but pushing it a bit I think.
Grimwade records lots of "IH" maker's marks - I would go along with Nigel's "best guess", but you can't be certain, definitely not John Hawkins. Note that just becase a maker appears in the 1773 Parliamentary report of 1773 does not mean he stopped working then. John Hardy would not have been much older than 40 in 1773 - still plenty of life left in the old bones!! As for Harmar - who knows, he may even have been younger?
I would suggest - do not have it repaired - the repair would look a lot worse than a tiny split.
.
I've had a good look at these tongs & they are quite an unusual style. The join between the arms and the bowls is not something I've seen before. As far as date is concerned, I would certainly place them at around 1775 - 1780 - not too much earlier than that. 1773 is just possible, but pushing it a bit I think.
Grimwade records lots of "IH" maker's marks - I would go along with Nigel's "best guess", but you can't be certain, definitely not John Hawkins. Note that just becase a maker appears in the 1773 Parliamentary report of 1773 does not mean he stopped working then. John Hardy would not have been much older than 40 in 1773 - still plenty of life left in the old bones!! As for Harmar - who knows, he may even have been younger?
I would suggest - do not have it repaired - the repair would look a lot worse than a tiny split.
.
I agree with Nigel . This is almost certainly James Harmer, whose only recorded mark has the very distinctive top bulge. (Grimwade1374), that of April 1761 as smallworker at Wharton Court, Holborne Bars , where he is listed as a bucklemaker in PR 1773 .No record of apprenticeship or freedom but but Heale gives a silversmith of the same name in Ship Yard, Temple Bar in 1747. He may have entries in the lost register and have worked from c1745 - c1775 . A pair of nips has been seen with the same mark, and a stock buckle 0f 1740- 1756 seen with a slightly different mark has also been tentatively ascribed to him
.
.