Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I have a set of six of these spoons that I believe are American. I have been unable to identify the maker from my reference books. Not in Marks of American Silversmiths by Green or in Rainwater or on this website. They measure 4 3/4" long. Monogrammed H above WH
Hi Bill,
They are English, about 1770, not sure of the maker yet, they would have been marriage spoons the H being the initial of the new Surname, the W the initial of the grooms Christian name the other H for the bride.
Do any of the spoons have a better image of what appears to be another mark in the middle,
Regards Trev.
.
Well, I had the dating right! I thought these were American because they lack a city mark and a date mark. The middle mark is not a separate mark but a partial strike/overstrike from the JS mark. Four of the remaining spoons have the same marks - Lion Passant and "JS", fifth spoon just has the initials "JS" with no lion passant. In looking through Wyler (page 164) there is a John Swift working in London c. 1772/73 with a similar mark of "JS", however the letters are formed slightly different and are separated by a dot rather than a five pointed star.
Hi Bill,
In that case the best match that I can find is John Scofield (Grimwade 3709), I hesitate though, he was one of England's finest silversmiths and would like to hear the views of others,
Regards Trev.
.
I'm still confused as to the lack of a city mark and date mark. Everything I have read indicates that those should be there in order for them to be English. Am I wrong about that?
John Scofield worked 1776-1790. His work is much more sophisticated than the spoons shown.
John Swift is shown in Jackson's book as well [dot not star] but identical letters and background stamp shape. A more likely candidate.
.
Hi,
Here is a photograph of what I believe to be a John Scofield spoon, it is very well made but what really makes it stand out is the sunburst, it is engraved and also in relief, a real quality addition.
Trev - I would be hesitant to attribute these marks to Scofield, based on three points (apart from your own hesitation):
Fallon gives three marks.
In 1776 Scofield strikes a joint mark with Robert Jones and for his first initial has a capital I - with serif.
January 1778, he is a plate worker at 29 Bell Yard, Temple Bar; his mark consists of capital I S, with serif, with a dot between the letters.
October 1787, at the same address, he strikes a smaller mark than January's, again with a capital I, with serif, and a dot.
Moreover, whereas his first mark is in an octagon, the two marks from Bell Yard are in conjoined circles.
Given these differences I would not attribute the mark in question to Scofield (aka Schofield), who was not apprenticed through, nor a Freeman of, the Goldsmiths' Company.
.
Hi Kerangoumar,
This is where it gets interesting. Why do we know so little about one of England's greatest silversmiths? The answer I think is easy, I believe the mark entered with Robert Jones was not Scofield's first mark. An earlier mark I believe would have been found in the Largeworker's Register (1758-1773) which has been missing since 1863.
Scofield was predominantly a large worker, but like Storr and other great smiths I'm sure he would have a full range of items to please his customers, so if there was an earlier mark this is the book that would have contained that information.
Arthur Grimwade came across a pair of matching waiters dating to 1775 (presumably with the date letter U, May 1775- May1776) one with the RI-IS mark the other with the JS mark (Grimwade 3709), this mark matches the mark on the photograph of the spoon that I posted. The partnership with Robert Jones was entered in February 1776.
Robert Jones entered his first known mark alone in 1774, I suspect Scofield entered his a year or two earlier.
Regards Trev.
.
Think that is probably a clerical error. Grimwade is, more than likely, the site's source and the mark attributed to Swift or Stamp has a pellet, not a star...BUT, it is illustrated directly next to the J*S, so it is easy enough to get them switched around.
Although a great resource, Grimwade is not the most user friendly reference book - find the mark, note its number, and then go and find the number on a corresponding list of names.
I'm still confused as to the lack of a city mark and date mark. Everything I have read indicates that those should be there in order for them to be English. Am I wrong about that?
To add a bit to an earlier reply, for a number of years it was permissible to omit the date and city marks (I think) on "small" items. Sorry, forgot the dates for this permission. As to what a "small" item was, I think even the smiths were confused, though teaspoons and sugar bows are typical items. Also, I've seen many "small" items with all types of mix and match incomplete mark sets, pick any one or two of the four (or five, including the duty stamp, though I again don't remember whether the mentioned permission lasted into the duty stamp era). Hope this has helped, but maybe instaed muddied the waters. Might someone with a better memory and/or texts explain this with the correct dates?
