The hallmark HP is listed on this site under the London Makers' Marks Menu. The note next to it states that it is not the mark of Henry Plumpton. The note also refers to Grimwade's entry 3608 which is a very similar mark and listed as unidentified.
I would like to know the basis for saying that this is not the mark for Henry Plumpton. If it has not been identified then you cannot say that it is his mark, but you cannot say that it isn't, either.
As a matter of interest Dr David Shlosberg in his book 'Eighteenth Century Silver Tea Tongs' states that this mark is attributed to Henry Plumpton.
.
Query about the 'HP' London hallmark listed on this site
But I can, and I did...If it has not been identified then you cannot say that it is his mark, but you cannot say that it isn't, either.
however, you certainly make a valid point and I must admit that I should not have done so. If you've read only a few of my writings here, you'll have already noted my tendency to butcher the Queen's English, my own American Standard and, in this case, simple logic as well. That being the situation, glad to have you proofreading and happy to amend the notation.
http://www.925-1000.com/dlLondon5.html#M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Regards, Tom
.
Hello All,
It seems to me there isn't a contest here of Grimwade v Shlosberg. Respect is due to any published author who puts their name on the line in attribution of a maker's mark. Attribution isn't and can't be an exact science.
Grimwade, it seems, could find no compelling evidence to attribute his mark 3608. Shlosberg on the other hand has satisfied himself enough to put his name to it that the same mark is Henry Plumpton's. Neither is wrong because in absence of prime evidence many attributions are based on the balance of probability.
Of the registered makers I know there are only two candidates for Grimwade's mark 3608, Henry Plumpton from 1761 and Henry Pennyfeather from 1783 and this on the basis that Pennyfeather's authorised mark was distorted in use.
The date letter of a piece with Grimwade's 3608 mark is therefore important. After that decide for yourself whose mark it is.
There! As with the forum's London makers list, Grimwade and Shlosberg, I'm putting forward a view. But only suggesting attribution!
Mike
.
It seems to me there isn't a contest here of Grimwade v Shlosberg. Respect is due to any published author who puts their name on the line in attribution of a maker's mark. Attribution isn't and can't be an exact science.
Grimwade, it seems, could find no compelling evidence to attribute his mark 3608. Shlosberg on the other hand has satisfied himself enough to put his name to it that the same mark is Henry Plumpton's. Neither is wrong because in absence of prime evidence many attributions are based on the balance of probability.
Of the registered makers I know there are only two candidates for Grimwade's mark 3608, Henry Plumpton from 1761 and Henry Pennyfeather from 1783 and this on the basis that Pennyfeather's authorised mark was distorted in use.
The date letter of a piece with Grimwade's 3608 mark is therefore important. After that decide for yourself whose mark it is.
There! As with the forum's London makers list, Grimwade and Shlosberg, I'm putting forward a view. But only suggesting attribution!
Mike
.
I think David Shlosberg's attribution of the mark is probably correct.
David found many such marks on sugar nips, and on balance of probabilities decided it was almost certainly Plumpton. Certainly many nips had the 1761 Plumpton marks, so he was a maker of such things
Grimwade 3608 would have been noted by Arthur from a pair of sugar nips seen years before he wrote his masterwork. Quite possibly a distorted mark, and further distorted when copied into his notebook. It must be remembered that the notebook was compiled long before he accessed the registers . I suspect that this may be actually a variant of 1059. If it is a separate mark it could be a pre 1756 mark of Plumpton.
The original note on 925 listing as "not Plumpton " may be because some-one had observed it on a piece with a 1740 -1756 Lion and Grimwade gives his only mark as being 1761 - thus it could not be Plumpton
However in fact Plumpton was free in 1740 and so may well have had entries in the lost smallworkers book.
Grimwade's one failing was not to stress that when he states "first mark XXXX " or " only mark XXXX " he actually means first or only registered or research found mark.
Never assume because Grimwade says first mark, that there are not earlier ones. Either unregistered or in a lost register
Several of Grimwades unidentifieds have been solved . An example is his 3871 , which he states as unregistered and , correctly, assigns to William Eley. The mark is actually registered and is in fact recorded by him in the Bucklemakers as the serrated 12.3.1790 oval mark. Another, I cannot recall which, is an upsidedown drawing of a mark recorded elsewhere in the book.
.
David found many such marks on sugar nips, and on balance of probabilities decided it was almost certainly Plumpton. Certainly many nips had the 1761 Plumpton marks, so he was a maker of such things
Grimwade 3608 would have been noted by Arthur from a pair of sugar nips seen years before he wrote his masterwork. Quite possibly a distorted mark, and further distorted when copied into his notebook. It must be remembered that the notebook was compiled long before he accessed the registers . I suspect that this may be actually a variant of 1059. If it is a separate mark it could be a pre 1756 mark of Plumpton.
The original note on 925 listing as "not Plumpton " may be because some-one had observed it on a piece with a 1740 -1756 Lion and Grimwade gives his only mark as being 1761 - thus it could not be Plumpton
However in fact Plumpton was free in 1740 and so may well have had entries in the lost smallworkers book.
Grimwade's one failing was not to stress that when he states "first mark XXXX " or " only mark XXXX " he actually means first or only registered or research found mark.
Never assume because Grimwade says first mark, that there are not earlier ones. Either unregistered or in a lost register
Several of Grimwades unidentifieds have been solved . An example is his 3871 , which he states as unregistered and , correctly, assigns to William Eley. The mark is actually registered and is in fact recorded by him in the Bucklemakers as the serrated 12.3.1790 oval mark. Another, I cannot recall which, is an upsidedown drawing of a mark recorded elsewhere in the book.
.
Quote
Attribution isn't and can't be an exact science...because in absence of prime evidence many attributions are based on the balance of probability.
Quite!
In a Court of Law there are two standards of proof.
For a Civil case proof is on the balance of probabilities - because a decision must be made. Whichever side seems more reasonable wins.
For a Criminal case, where some-one really suffers if the case is wrongly decided the the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt .
On silver marks I have the following definitions
By XXXX I am 99% certain of the maker - usually because it's a partnership. The odd 1% is because it could be a forged mark, or an unrecorded partnership
Almost certainly by XXXX . I am 95% sure
Probably by XXXX I am 75% sure
Perhaps by XXXX There is a 25% - 50% chance of this man
Possibly by XXXX This is my guess but I'd hate to bet on it !
Perhaps some might like to properly codify these - and try to get acceptance for general use
.
Attribution isn't and can't be an exact science...because in absence of prime evidence many attributions are based on the balance of probability.
Quite!
In a Court of Law there are two standards of proof.
For a Civil case proof is on the balance of probabilities - because a decision must be made. Whichever side seems more reasonable wins.
For a Criminal case, where some-one really suffers if the case is wrongly decided the the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt .
On silver marks I have the following definitions
By XXXX I am 99% certain of the maker - usually because it's a partnership. The odd 1% is because it could be a forged mark, or an unrecorded partnership
Almost certainly by XXXX . I am 95% sure
Probably by XXXX I am 75% sure
Perhaps by XXXX There is a 25% - 50% chance of this man
Possibly by XXXX This is my guess but I'd hate to bet on it !
Perhaps some might like to properly codify these - and try to get acceptance for general use
.
Hello All,
It was with some trepidation I returned to the Forum screen. Being controversial isn't my favourite pastime folks so what a pleasant surprise to find such Forum stalwarts agreeing with the view I'd thought long and hard about before submitting.
My thoughts on the matter of the attribution of the HP mark were that it could only reasonably be Plumpton's. This takes nothing away from uncle Arthur Grimwade of course.
Tom could we have the Forum's London mark re-attributed more certainly to Plumpton now? And of course you can use the quote you asked for. Are there any Hollywood vacancies you know of for budding but grey haired old scriptwriters?
Regards,
Mike
.
It was with some trepidation I returned to the Forum screen. Being controversial isn't my favourite pastime folks so what a pleasant surprise to find such Forum stalwarts agreeing with the view I'd thought long and hard about before submitting.
My thoughts on the matter of the attribution of the HP mark were that it could only reasonably be Plumpton's. This takes nothing away from uncle Arthur Grimwade of course.
Tom could we have the Forum's London mark re-attributed more certainly to Plumpton now? And of course you can use the quote you asked for. Are there any Hollywood vacancies you know of for budding but grey haired old scriptwriters?
Regards,
Mike
.
-
kerangoumar
- contributor
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Canada
all of this parsing and hair splitting reminds me of a book i read years ago: the space child's possible-probable book. can't find it again, but it very neatly - and comically - defined the possible vs. the probable.
unless we are there when the makers' marks are recorded, or there is unimpeachable documentation as to the object's origin, unless we know with certainty that nobody anywhere slipped up due to inattention, a need for coffee etc. there will always be a small doubt or uncertainty to an attribution. in most instances that doubt will be quite small because other information supports the attribution.
but - as anyone who has watched the roadshow - for far too many people the identification has to be made, not because they want to know, but because they want to know its current value.
.
unless we are there when the makers' marks are recorded, or there is unimpeachable documentation as to the object's origin, unless we know with certainty that nobody anywhere slipped up due to inattention, a need for coffee etc. there will always be a small doubt or uncertainty to an attribution. in most instances that doubt will be quite small because other information supports the attribution.
but - as anyone who has watched the roadshow - for far too many people the identification has to be made, not because they want to know, but because they want to know its current value.
.