Linda
.
Who is the maker of this helmet creamer?
Who is the maker of this helmet creamer?
I believe this was the first item of silver we ever bought, in 1979. We didn't know a thing then about sterling silver. We were told the name of a maker but the longer we own it and the more I learn the less certain I am of the maker. I invite you to express an opinion.
Linda
.
Linda
.
The base of the creamer is 46mm wide and the width of the mark is 4mm, you may prefer to measure this off the photo now that you have the width.
I don't as yet have a copy of Arthur Grimwade's book. It has been suggested that this could be by Ann Bateman alone. The size of the stamp would fit that of the of the Peter and Ann Bateman mark of 1791, the year before this was made. Has anyone heard of this before? The creamer is certainly in the Bateman style.
.
I don't as yet have a copy of Arthur Grimwade's book. It has been suggested that this could be by Ann Bateman alone. The size of the stamp would fit that of the of the Peter and Ann Bateman mark of 1791, the year before this was made. Has anyone heard of this before? The creamer is certainly in the Bateman style.
.
Here are photos of the other creamer attributed to Abraham Barrier.
The marks are so similar it would have to be by the same person. Apart from the fact that the mark isn't quite right for Abraham Barrier, in both cases the AB seems to have been stamped over other initials. This is shown more clearly in this photo. It looks like a C or G and G.
Linda
.
The marks are so similar it would have to be by the same person. Apart from the fact that the mark isn't quite right for Abraham Barrier, in both cases the AB seems to have been stamped over other initials. This is shown more clearly in this photo. It looks like a C or G and G.
Linda
.
That is interesting. The mark looks like GG for Geroge Gray; he himself often overstamped the work of Hester Bateman and Peter and Anne Bateman. If you look above the date letter it seems there are traces of yet another maker's mark. 1792 is too late for Hester Bateman, so it could very well be Pater and Anne.
Miles
.
Miles
.
I saw mention of this practice on a silver tongs web site. I am not sure what this all means ultimately. If George Gray did the overstamping then it wasn't very effective. Also the whole Peter and Ann Bateman stamp wouldn't have fitted. It appears to me that the GG was stamped even before the London mark. Any ideas?
Linda
.
Linda
.
I also noted that the original maker's mark is overstamped by the London city mark and I have never seen that before. Has anyone else? It also strikes me that the CC or GG maker's mark is quite large for an English maker's mark. I'm wondering about the possibility of it being an American piece, brought back to London and having been hallmarked upon entering into the second hand market?
Regards, Tom
.
Regards, Tom
.
At the risk of confusing the issue,here is a possiblity, at the date of the hallmark Abraham Barrier was working in Soho, also working in Soho at the same time was a chaser Charles Cathery (Grimwades 288), could it be possible that Barrier made the creamers sent them over to Cathery for chasing, after which he marked them (he had every reason to be proud of his work) and returned them to Barrier, or perhaps Cathery made the creamers in the first place and sold them on to Barrier.
Only guesswork but what do you think Miles.
Trev.
.
Only guesswork but what do you think Miles.
Trev.
.
As far as I know, by law it is the person or company selling the item to the public which marks the piece. I'm sure Barrier would be annoyed to say the least if someone put their mark on his work. Your second theory sounds more likely, but I've never seen a piece of Cathery's so I can't recognize his work. Grimwade says he's a small worker and I think cream jugs are classed as platework.
My (unprovable but disprovable) hypothesis is that it was made by Peter and Anne Bateman, bought from them by George Gray and overstamped accounting for the GG over the date letter, then bought by AB and overstamped again.
Problems with this theory are: Why did George Gray not simply sell this himself?
Why doesn't the GG seem to go over the London mark?
Hmmm.
Miles
.
My (unprovable but disprovable) hypothesis is that it was made by Peter and Anne Bateman, bought from them by George Gray and overstamped accounting for the GG over the date letter, then bought by AB and overstamped again.
Problems with this theory are: Why did George Gray not simply sell this himself?
Why doesn't the GG seem to go over the London mark?
Hmmm.
Miles
.
Don't let us forget that the AB is not quite right for Abraham Barrier. It is not right for Peter and Ann Bateman either because there is no PB present. Isn't the CG or GG under the date letter and London mark? Although both my creamer and the one I found on the internet are probably marked in the same order they are slightly different each providing clues. This is intriguing isn't it?
Linda
.
Linda
.
Yes, I'm not confusing AB (whoever that may be) with Peter and Anne, I just surmised that they were the original makers.
To me it looks like the GG goes over the date letter r and under the city mark!
I believe the maker puts his mark on a piece first and then sends it off to be assayed for the other marks, so it is possible that they could stamp over it.
This has given me a headache!
Linda, could you give us a big close up of your mark?
Miles
.
To me it looks like the GG goes over the date letter r and under the city mark!
I believe the maker puts his mark on a piece first and then sends it off to be assayed for the other marks, so it is possible that they could stamp over it.
This has given me a headache!
Linda, could you give us a big close up of your mark?
Miles
.
I found another jug with similar markings from 1794, though the seller claims it is made by Peter and Anne Bateman.
Miles
.
Miles
.
Last edited by Granmaa on Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dmay
Have to agree with dmay, and I think it is worth considering that the same may apply to the two other examples. If you've ever struck a mark on silver, you'll know that it is decidedly difficult to get an even, let alone a perfect, impression. There are so many variables involved and in the case of overstriking another mark, more variables added.
Just think of how many pieces you've seen with perfectly clear hallmarks and badly struck maker's marks, either chattered or too deep on one side and fading off into nothing on the other. The boys at the assay office were the consummate pros of stamping, they did nothing else day in and day out. Whereas a journeyman or master smith may have had to strike his mark only a few hundred times in his whole career.
Regards, Tom
.
Just think of how many pieces you've seen with perfectly clear hallmarks and badly struck maker's marks, either chattered or too deep on one side and fading off into nothing on the other. The boys at the assay office were the consummate pros of stamping, they did nothing else day in and day out. Whereas a journeyman or master smith may have had to strike his mark only a few hundred times in his whole career.
Regards, Tom
.
I see what you mean and I did notice the partial lettering above the AB; what I didn't make clear is that I think it is the top half of the GG mark as seen on the others. If you look to the right side of the cartouche, you'll see the line go up and then cut sharply to the left and then up again as with an overstamping.
But it wasn't only the mark that suggested to me that it was the same maker; it was also the style, particularly the dimpling on the top which features on all three of the jugs here. Is this a common feature? From the few jugs I've seen, I'd say no.
I liked your point about poorly struck hallmarks Tom and found a helmet cream jug by Peter and Anne Bateman from 1794 on Daniel Bexfield's excellent site. http://www.bexfield.co.uk/01/d257.htm
It perfectly demonstrates your second paragraph; perhaps not only were the assayers more experienced, but their dies were of better quality. Though, having said that, this year I visited an abandoned jewellery factory (now a museum) in Birmingham which used all of its dies for the 80 years it existed. Link at bottom of page.
With this Bateman jug you'll notice that the maker's mark is punched horizontally; it might turn out that all such examples of this pair's work was stamped thus and so rule them out as the original makers of the first jug in this thread.
You'll also notice the workmanship is far superior than the three we've seen so far: for example the double reeded lip instead of a cut off edge, and the reeded handle instead of plain.
It's hard to believe the maker of this jug could be the same as the other three.
Miles
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateCo ... NU_ID=1763
.
But it wasn't only the mark that suggested to me that it was the same maker; it was also the style, particularly the dimpling on the top which features on all three of the jugs here. Is this a common feature? From the few jugs I've seen, I'd say no.
I liked your point about poorly struck hallmarks Tom and found a helmet cream jug by Peter and Anne Bateman from 1794 on Daniel Bexfield's excellent site. http://www.bexfield.co.uk/01/d257.htm
It perfectly demonstrates your second paragraph; perhaps not only were the assayers more experienced, but their dies were of better quality. Though, having said that, this year I visited an abandoned jewellery factory (now a museum) in Birmingham which used all of its dies for the 80 years it existed. Link at bottom of page.
With this Bateman jug you'll notice that the maker's mark is punched horizontally; it might turn out that all such examples of this pair's work was stamped thus and so rule them out as the original makers of the first jug in this thread.
You'll also notice the workmanship is far superior than the three we've seen so far: for example the double reeded lip instead of a cut off edge, and the reeded handle instead of plain.
It's hard to believe the maker of this jug could be the same as the other three.
Miles
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateCo ... NU_ID=1763
.
In Jackson's the mark shown for George Gray is quite large compared with others and especially the AB on marks by the Batemans. The AB could easily be that of Ann Bateman as far as the look of it is concerned. My creamer doesn't show the crossed part of George Gray's second G but the other creamer example I found does. I believe there is one mark on top of another, one GG and one AB. There is no sign of any other letters above the AB apart from parts of the GG. I don't understand why parts of the GG have disappeared completely. How do we know which pair of initials was stamped first?
Although the creamer on the Bexfield site is obviously better finished around the top etc and probably of a better weight, it doesn't necessarily mean that the others weren't made by the Batemans. They could just have been a cheaper line.
Linda
.
Although the creamer on the Bexfield site is obviously better finished around the top etc and probably of a better weight, it doesn't necessarily mean that the others weren't made by the Batemans. They could just have been a cheaper line.
Linda
.