Miles
Early Birmingham Maker L&R
Early Birmingham Maker L&R
This is a typically poor quality Birmingham salt spoon from 1804 made by L&R. The closest possibility is a mention in Jackson's (p.366) of a Rudder, Ledsam & Vale in 1808. Could Rudder and Ledsam have taken on Vale into a partnership?
Miles
Miles
Hello Miles,
Earlier on page 366 Jackson's mentions Rudder Ledsam & Co registering at Birmingham. It looks possible that Vale didn't become a partner until 1808 when the new name was registered.
Birmingham Assay Office web site http://www.theassayoffice.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has no reference to the L&R mark nor the reverse R&L nor RL&Co.
Jackson's lists Ledsam & Vale having registered in 1818. Their mark, L&Co, is on BAO's web from 1813 presumably when Rudder left.
Perhaps a direct enquiry to BAO to confirm the L&R mark is for Rudder Ledsam & Co might bring more detail?
Regards,
Mike
Earlier on page 366 Jackson's mentions Rudder Ledsam & Co registering at Birmingham. It looks possible that Vale didn't become a partner until 1808 when the new name was registered.
Birmingham Assay Office web site http://www.theassayoffice.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has no reference to the L&R mark nor the reverse R&L nor RL&Co.
Jackson's lists Ledsam & Vale having registered in 1818. Their mark, L&Co, is on BAO's web from 1813 presumably when Rudder left.
Perhaps a direct enquiry to BAO to confirm the L&R mark is for Rudder Ledsam & Co might bring more detail?
Regards,
Mike
When I contacted The Birmingham Assay Office about this mark I was told that there was no L&R in their records for this date. They requested I send the spoon to them for closer examination. They then determined that the mark was a counterfeit and asked my permission to errase the marks.
I attach a photo of the errased marks, an accompanying letter and the relevant part of the Hallmarking Act 1973.
Miles
I attach a photo of the errased marks, an accompanying letter and the relevant part of the Hallmarking Act 1973.
Miles
It is the opinion of The Birmingham Assay Office that the original hallmark on the spoon has been overstamped with a maker's mark of "L&R" and a date letter. The original mark is extremely worn in comparison to this maker's mark and the date letter, and, further more, there is no maker's mark registered at The Birmingham Assay Office for the date of 1806. It is our judgement, therefore, that the mark is counterfeit.
We have delt with this in accordance with the law relating to hallmarking. Under Section 7 of the Hallmarking Act (1973), the Assay Offices of Great Britain are required to cancel counterfeit marks. We have now cancelled the marks on the spoon...
7 Treatment by assay offices of unauthorised marks
(1)Subject to subsection (2) of this section, an assay office may at their discretion cancel, or obliterate any mark of the character of a hallmark (whether appearing to be an approved hallmark or to be a mark which in the opinion of the assay office is likely to be confused with such a hallmark) which an article coming into their custody or possession bears and which the assay office are satisfied–
(a)has not been struck thereon by an assay office according to law; or
(b)is not a true description because the article appears to have been the subject of an improper alteration.
(2)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, an assay office shall not, otherwise than by leave of the owner or other person appearing to have the control of any article, obliterate any ancient mark but shall cancel the same in a manner authorised under subsection (3) of this section.
(3)The Council may issue directions to assay offices as to the manner in which an ancient mark may be cancelled under the last foregoing subsection.
(4)If it be proved that an assay office have–
(a)cancelled, or obliterated any mark (as described in subsection (1) of this section), which has been struck by an assay office according to law on an article which has not been the subject of an improper alteration; or
(b)obliterated any ancient mark upon an article,
the assay office (but not any other person) shall be liable in damages to any person interested in the article.
(5)In any action brought against an assay office in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section it shall be a defence for them to prove that they had reasonable cause to believe that the circumstances specified respectively in paragraphs (a) or (b) of that subsection did not exist.
(6)It shall be an offence for any person knowingly or any dealer to supply or offer to supply any article bearing any mark of the character of a hallmark and which under subsection (1) of this section may, if the article is in the possession of an assay office, be cancelled, obliterated or defaced, unless the article has been first submitted to an assay office to enable them at their discretion so to cancel, obliterate or deface that mark.
(7)In this section “ancient mark” means a mark of the character of a hallmark appearing to an assay office to have been struck or incorporated before 22nd December 1854 (whether or not by an assay office according to law at the time of its marking or incorporation) upon or into an article which has not since been the subject of any improper alteration.
Hi Miles,
I'm amazed at the crude defacement. Examples that I've seen from the London Assay Office have been done neatly with a very fine 'X' punch, with the original marks still visable, but clearly marked with the 'X' so that no one would be fooled.
I'm also confused as to why they defaced the maker's mark.
Trev.
I'm amazed at the crude defacement. Examples that I've seen from the London Assay Office have been done neatly with a very fine 'X' punch, with the original marks still visable, but clearly marked with the 'X' so that no one would be fooled.
I'm also confused as to why they defaced the maker's mark.
Trev.
Hi Trev,
I think they errased the maker's mark because they thought it had overstamped another. However, I can't see a clause explaining this in section 7, but some of the language is incomprehensible to me anyway.
This should be compared to another item on the forum with errased marks:
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8487" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Miles
I think they errased the maker's mark because they thought it had overstamped another. However, I can't see a clause explaining this in section 7, but some of the language is incomprehensible to me anyway.
This should be compared to another item on the forum with errased marks:
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8487" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Miles
I must say that I am appalled at the handling of this by the Birmingham Assay Office. Both the mark defacement and methodology used to arrive at the conclusion that it must be done were unnecessarily slipshod and crude.
If the law dictates that it is their right and responsibility to alter the marks on a forged piece, it must be first and foremost in their minds that they are dealing with the property of another. As that was the case, the BAO should have acted in a thoroughly responsible manner and only after diligent research and having reached a 'without doubt' conclusion should they have proceeded to an eradication of the marks.
However, it looks as though they simply took a glance at the old ledgers, did not find L&R and rather cavalierly decided it was a forgery. Their conclusion that the date letter was added later is highly questionable, a progression of mark wear is clearly seen from right to left and this progression of rubbing is consistent with wear to marks on the reverse of stemmed pieces.
L & R not in their database, what of it? Overstamping of makers' marks by known and yet untraced regional silversmiths and retailers is a longstanding British silver trade tradition and the practice is common knowledge to anyone in the field. This piece may well have been an example of this, making it a documentary example for future study of British silver trade relationships and practices. No longer, as the evidence has been destroyed. Let's not even go in the possibility that the work of an as yet undocumented, pseudomark using; Canadian, American, Anglo-Indian, Cape or Channel Islands silversmith has been most crudely defaced.
As to the defacement, crude is an understatement, to be blunt, it looks like the work of someone who forgot to take their meds that morning. In this day and age, with very finely lettered incuse stamps available to anyone in the business of marking, such as an assay office, it would be quite easy to have one rendered that says "False BAO" or "Undocumented BAO" or some such thing, it could overstamp or underscore the questionable marks without destroying documentary research evidence and clearly let a future buyer know the opinion of the governing body. I strongly urge the BAO and other British assay offices to consider this change.
Apologies if this seems a little strident, but no matter which way I look at this, it still strikes me as an irresponsible act of barbarism.
AinA
If the law dictates that it is their right and responsibility to alter the marks on a forged piece, it must be first and foremost in their minds that they are dealing with the property of another. As that was the case, the BAO should have acted in a thoroughly responsible manner and only after diligent research and having reached a 'without doubt' conclusion should they have proceeded to an eradication of the marks.
However, it looks as though they simply took a glance at the old ledgers, did not find L&R and rather cavalierly decided it was a forgery. Their conclusion that the date letter was added later is highly questionable, a progression of mark wear is clearly seen from right to left and this progression of rubbing is consistent with wear to marks on the reverse of stemmed pieces.
L & R not in their database, what of it? Overstamping of makers' marks by known and yet untraced regional silversmiths and retailers is a longstanding British silver trade tradition and the practice is common knowledge to anyone in the field. This piece may well have been an example of this, making it a documentary example for future study of British silver trade relationships and practices. No longer, as the evidence has been destroyed. Let's not even go in the possibility that the work of an as yet undocumented, pseudomark using; Canadian, American, Anglo-Indian, Cape or Channel Islands silversmith has been most crudely defaced.
As to the defacement, crude is an understatement, to be blunt, it looks like the work of someone who forgot to take their meds that morning. In this day and age, with very finely lettered incuse stamps available to anyone in the business of marking, such as an assay office, it would be quite easy to have one rendered that says "False BAO" or "Undocumented BAO" or some such thing, it could overstamp or underscore the questionable marks without destroying documentary research evidence and clearly let a future buyer know the opinion of the governing body. I strongly urge the BAO and other British assay offices to consider this change.
Apologies if this seems a little strident, but no matter which way I look at this, it still strikes me as an irresponsible act of barbarism.
AinA
I feel I must step in to defend The Birmingham Assay Office somewhat.
This was not a quick decision. If they had made their decision only based on the absence of the L&R mark in their records then they could have done so by looking at the photo I sent them.
It was a decision made by the curator and her colleagues after requesting the item for close inspection, and it was explained to me with great patience and courtesy.
Miles
This was not a quick decision. If they had made their decision only based on the absence of the L&R mark in their records then they could have done so by looking at the photo I sent them.
It was a decision made by the curator and her colleagues after requesting the item for close inspection, and it was explained to me with great patience and courtesy.
Miles
Miles,
From the email you have quoted it is obvious that, while they may have been patient and courteous, they most certainly did not practice due diligence before acting. I've now read the law a number of times and can see why; apparently there is no call to establish what a piece is before defacing it, only the need to establish what it is not or what it could ignorantly be perceived as.
To think that this practice will continue under the aegis of Parliamentary Law is more frightening still. The mindset behind it is plainly out of the dark ages, if it is not of our tribe, destroy. This way of thinking is outmoded and remarkably shortsighted. The Hallmarking Act of 1973 seriously needs amending to be brought up to speed with the 21st century.
AinA
From the email you have quoted it is obvious that, while they may have been patient and courteous, they most certainly did not practice due diligence before acting. I've now read the law a number of times and can see why; apparently there is no call to establish what a piece is before defacing it, only the need to establish what it is not or what it could ignorantly be perceived as.
How dangerous is that? Your piece was defaced only because of what it was not, no regard was given to what it could have been or what it could have taught us. As a group, these marks were unknown and uncatalogued, an anomaly far more interesting than the dime a dozen makers marks already identified. These marks comprised raw data, as such they would have had significant value to current and future silver scholars and researchers. To know they were destroyed for no better reason than 'they ain't Birmingham' is both saddening and frightening.(whether appearing to be an approved hallmark or to be a mark which in the opinion of the assay office is likely to be confused with such a hallmark)
To think that this practice will continue under the aegis of Parliamentary Law is more frightening still. The mindset behind it is plainly out of the dark ages, if it is not of our tribe, destroy. This way of thinking is outmoded and remarkably shortsighted. The Hallmarking Act of 1973 seriously needs amending to be brought up to speed with the 21st century.
AinA
AinA,
Section 7, it seems to me, is to protect the reputation of the Assay Offices without which hallmarks cease to fulfill their intended purpose: not to aid researchers or scholars, but as a guarantee of the quality of silver. As collectors of antique silver it is easy to think of hallmarks, which are of such benefit to us, as a generous gift from the past. However, there has never been, nor is there now, any consideration paid to us by the assay offices in the stamping of hallmarks.
It is a shame that the marks on this spoon were errased, but to criticise the assay offices for protecting their interests is surely unjust.
Your suggestion of amendments to the Hallmarking Act is intriguing, and I would like to hear what changes you think might benefit the collector without against the interests of the assay offices.
Miles
Section 7, it seems to me, is to protect the reputation of the Assay Offices without which hallmarks cease to fulfill their intended purpose: not to aid researchers or scholars, but as a guarantee of the quality of silver. As collectors of antique silver it is easy to think of hallmarks, which are of such benefit to us, as a generous gift from the past. However, there has never been, nor is there now, any consideration paid to us by the assay offices in the stamping of hallmarks.
It is a shame that the marks on this spoon were errased, but to criticise the assay offices for protecting their interests is surely unjust.
Your suggestion of amendments to the Hallmarking Act is intriguing, and I would like to hear what changes you think might benefit the collector without against the interests of the assay offices.
Miles
Dear Miles,
I count myself lucky to live in an age where there is a newfound respect for items of the past and a general desire to preserve them. In our time bulldozers stop work on the foundations for an office block to allow archeologists to come in with their toothbrushes, and even archeologists put down their tools to let an artifact lie in hope that some future technology will better preserve it. In this aspect our culture has evolved and changed its methods for the better. I see no reason why an assay office should not evolve with the rest of society.
This is wanton destruction.
This is what they can do, it protects their interests without destroying a historical record. It can be accomplished with either laser marking or microstamping and gets the message across clearly without desecration. Both techniques are already available at the BAO.
As to suggested amendments to section 7:
1. Mark erasure should be dropped in favor of laser marking of explanatory word or phrase and include responsibility mark of assay office.
2. The curator should be required to thoroughly research the suspect marks from sources other than their own office records in order to make absolutely sure they are not valid marks from another time and place. As the law now reads, work by scores of American, Canadian, Provincial and Colonial silversmiths can be legally desecrated. As I understand the term, a curator is a custodian of artifacts and information, anyone with that title should be thrilled to be required to do this.
Can you think of any valid reasons why this cannot or should not be done?
Stepping off my soapbox now and would like to hear other members thoughts.
AinA
I count myself lucky to live in an age where there is a newfound respect for items of the past and a general desire to preserve them. In our time bulldozers stop work on the foundations for an office block to allow archeologists to come in with their toothbrushes, and even archeologists put down their tools to let an artifact lie in hope that some future technology will better preserve it. In this aspect our culture has evolved and changed its methods for the better. I see no reason why an assay office should not evolve with the rest of society.
I do not criticize them for attempting to protect their own interests, I criticize them for the method in which they chose to do so, and that is most certainly just....but to criticise the assay offices for protecting their interests is surely unjust.
This is wanton destruction.
This is what they can do, it protects their interests without destroying a historical record. It can be accomplished with either laser marking or microstamping and gets the message across clearly without desecration. Both techniques are already available at the BAO.
As to suggested amendments to section 7:
1. Mark erasure should be dropped in favor of laser marking of explanatory word or phrase and include responsibility mark of assay office.
2. The curator should be required to thoroughly research the suspect marks from sources other than their own office records in order to make absolutely sure they are not valid marks from another time and place. As the law now reads, work by scores of American, Canadian, Provincial and Colonial silversmiths can be legally desecrated. As I understand the term, a curator is a custodian of artifacts and information, anyone with that title should be thrilled to be required to do this.
Can you think of any valid reasons why this cannot or should not be done?
Stepping off my soapbox now and would like to hear other members thoughts.
AinA
Hello Miles,
BAO, having given a negative response to being asked if they had a record of the L&R mark registered for use in 1806, then make a part case out of that to invoke Clause 7. If an unregistered makers mark is a part reason for erasure potentially there is a lot of scrap stuff out there.
It could be argued that the uneven wear on the marks was not caused for fraud but by:
a)the L&R mark originally being struck far deeper than the assay marks.
b)fingers gripping and therefore rubbing the handle at the most convenient point.
Interestingly BAO doesn't seem to have commented on whether they thought any of the other marks were genuinely made, particularly the largely still visible duty mark. Nor why, other than the uneven wear, the date mark isn't one of theirs. I wonder why.
Clause 7(3) provides that the Council may issue directions as to the manner an ancient mark may be cancelled. I wonder if the Council authorised the manner of erasure used here?
Maybe it will be a sad end to a little old salt spoon that no longer has the cachet of being silver but it's potential demise has highlighted some very disturbing matters for us all.
Regards,
Mike
BAO, having given a negative response to being asked if they had a record of the L&R mark registered for use in 1806, then make a part case out of that to invoke Clause 7. If an unregistered makers mark is a part reason for erasure potentially there is a lot of scrap stuff out there.
It could be argued that the uneven wear on the marks was not caused for fraud but by:
a)the L&R mark originally being struck far deeper than the assay marks.
b)fingers gripping and therefore rubbing the handle at the most convenient point.
Interestingly BAO doesn't seem to have commented on whether they thought any of the other marks were genuinely made, particularly the largely still visible duty mark. Nor why, other than the uneven wear, the date mark isn't one of theirs. I wonder why.
Clause 7(3) provides that the Council may issue directions as to the manner an ancient mark may be cancelled. I wonder if the Council authorised the manner of erasure used here?
Maybe it will be a sad end to a little old salt spoon that no longer has the cachet of being silver but it's potential demise has highlighted some very disturbing matters for us all.
Regards,
Mike
I am quite late to this thread, as British wares are generally outside my ken. I have a c 2001 entry in one of my old random information notebooks that may pertain and sadly so. It notes a pair of c 1820 shoulderless fiddleback tablespoons marked with L & R in a plain rectangular cartouche My rude sketch shows the same exaggerated L and small floating ampersand on your salt. Family provenance placed the spoons in the Frankfort/Louisville KY area. They were offered at our yearly silver show, but I was fair to middling poor at the time, so did a lot of this sort of recording and precious little buying. At any rate, later research indicates this may be Loomis (Waltham) & Ralph (Samuel), working after 1819 in Frankfort. There is no recorded mark for the partnership, but it is the only one that fits the initials and location. Little is known of Ralph, but Loomis had a long career in the city, beginning there in 1809. He was a well-respected watchmaker and silversmith and is known to have imported both English and French goods for re-sale. If the attribution is true (which I can not say with anything approaching authority) and your little spoon passed through their shop and somehow made its way home again, then the BAO has destroyed a rare and valuable piece of silver through some very narrow-minded logic.