Many of us, definitely myself included, have been curios about the "H" in the pennant that is attributed to Watson. To take my own curiosity about this subject a step further, does anyone have any reference to the Mechanics Sterling Co other than those that ultimately go back to late nineteenth Jeweler's Circular articles.
.
Mechanics Sterling Co
Hi,
I'm sure it is an "H", the following quote is from the "Jewelers' Circular", Volume 34, 1892
I'm sure it is an "H", the following quote is from the "Jewelers' Circular", Volume 34, 1892
.Hayden W. Wheeler & Co., New York, sent in to The Circular office a silver spoon stamped witli a trade-mark, of which the following is a drawing:
(image of H in Pennant trademark)
This trade-mark is Unit of the Mechanics' Sterling Co., the flatware branch of Watson, Newell Co., North Attleboro, Mass. It can be seen on page 50 of "Trade-Marks of the Jewelry and Kindred Trades." The stamp in the silver spoon was imperfect if not a modification of the mark in the book. The H appears as a raised square, while the pennant is elongated.
Correction - although Google books had this edition of the Jeweler's Circular catalogued as dating to 1892, it is actually an 1897 publication.
Silverly,
On further investigation, I've reconsidered and suspect that you are correct in the possibility of the mark being a poorly rendered "M" rather than an "H". Rainwater's line drawing of the mark is clearly an "H", the "Jeweler's Circular" names it an "H", but upon examining the marks on a couple of spoons I have on hand, it can honestly say the mark can be interpreted as either an M or an H.
There seems no reasonable explanation for it being an "H", no company officers names begin with it and the mark had no prior use by any preexisting company that Watson, Newell may have taken over.
Rainwater states that the "Mechanics Sterling Co." was the flatware division of Watson, Newell & Co., the name came from WN expanding and moving their manufacturing plant to the "old Mechanics Mill property" in Attleboro in 1894. Research shows that the Mechanics Mill had previously been a textile factory of 170 looms owned by Foster & Nightingale, not a silver plant and certainly no link there to a letter H.
I now think it is probable that the letter was initially misinterpreted by someone at the "Jeweler's Circular" and the error has propagated for the last 112 years.
Regards, Tom
.
Silverly,
On further investigation, I've reconsidered and suspect that you are correct in the possibility of the mark being a poorly rendered "M" rather than an "H". Rainwater's line drawing of the mark is clearly an "H", the "Jeweler's Circular" names it an "H", but upon examining the marks on a couple of spoons I have on hand, it can honestly say the mark can be interpreted as either an M or an H.
There seems no reasonable explanation for it being an "H", no company officers names begin with it and the mark had no prior use by any preexisting company that Watson, Newell may have taken over.
Rainwater states that the "Mechanics Sterling Co." was the flatware division of Watson, Newell & Co., the name came from WN expanding and moving their manufacturing plant to the "old Mechanics Mill property" in Attleboro in 1894. Research shows that the Mechanics Mill had previously been a textile factory of 170 looms owned by Foster & Nightingale, not a silver plant and certainly no link there to a letter H.
I now think it is probable that the letter was initially misinterpreted by someone at the "Jeweler's Circular" and the error has propagated for the last 112 years.
Regards, Tom
.
-
dragonflywink
- co-admin
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Okay, I am bleary-eyed now, but that mark seems to clearly be an "H". Just went through much of my flatware and souvenir spoon collection, found 21 pieces of Watson with the flag/pennant mark (sure there's even more), every one of them had a clear "H", with at least four mark variations. In fact, I found none with a "W" and had to check under Watson on here to assure myself that I hadn't just hallucinated the several W-pennant marks that I have run across on real pieces, as opposed to in reference sources (glad the mind isn't totally gone!). I've also pondered on why the trademark included an "H" and never found anything, but have no question that it is indeed an "H".
The Jewelers' Circular Trade-Mark Directory was provided with their marks by the manufacturers, either print-ready, or rough drawings or stamped impressions which were then cleaned up by JC draftsmen. This 1899 clipping shows the mark as drawn, suspect that someone would have caught an error like that over the many years of different editions, but suppose it's possible.....
So I had to dig further and finally found the mark on a 1903 Watson catalog, and again, at least to my eye, it clearly appears to be an "H".....
My own personal theory, perhaps triggered by many men in my life plastering their school and team logos all over everything they own, is that someone high up was a Harvard alum. So here is a 1905 Harvard postcard:
And now I'm going to go put a cold compress on my eyes because they hurt and I'm seeing "H"s everywhere!
~Cheryl
.
The Jewelers' Circular Trade-Mark Directory was provided with their marks by the manufacturers, either print-ready, or rough drawings or stamped impressions which were then cleaned up by JC draftsmen. This 1899 clipping shows the mark as drawn, suspect that someone would have caught an error like that over the many years of different editions, but suppose it's possible.....
So I had to dig further and finally found the mark on a 1903 Watson catalog, and again, at least to my eye, it clearly appears to be an "H".....
My own personal theory, perhaps triggered by many men in my life plastering their school and team logos all over everything they own, is that someone high up was a Harvard alum. So here is a 1905 Harvard postcard:
And now I'm going to go put a cold compress on my eyes because they hurt and I'm seeing "H"s everywhere!
~Cheryl
.
Dragonflywink, thank you for your input. All I can ever recall seeing in person myself is the H on the pennant.
Another weak possibility for H is the Hayward's Building in Attleboro which Watson & Newell jewelry manufacturers occupied from at least the late 1880's. They were in that building in 1892 when so far as I know the pennant question first comes up in the Jeweler's Circular.
.
Another weak possibility for H is the Hayward's Building in Attleboro which Watson & Newell jewelry manufacturers occupied from at least the late 1880's. They were in that building in 1892 when so far as I know the pennant question first comes up in the Jeweler's Circular.
.
Hi Cheryl,I'm seeing "H"s everywhere!
I hear ya, was having the same problem, but with MMMM's. Your evidence has, of course, blown that theory out of the water. Not so much the "Jeweler's Circular" material, but the Watson catalog illustration certainly nails it down, leaving no doubt that it is in fact an "H".
The Harvard conjecture was brilliant. Had to follow it up and went through the alumni rolls from 1854 to 1886.
http://surnamesite.com/harvard/harvard1854.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page links to successive years)
Disappointingly, none of our boys; Clarence L. Watson, Fred Newell, Joseph Ripley or Edward Gowen, appeared.
Silverly,
According to the Bristol County directory of 1888, WN&C seems to be the only business located in "Hayward's Building". It does seem a weak link, but with their choice of "Mechanics", the company has demonstrated a tendency to link building names with their business. Weak or not, it is currently the only identifiable link to an "H".
Looks like we may have to wait for the time machine to unravel this one.
Regards, Tom
.
-
WarrenKundis
- contributor
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:20 pm
Re: Mechanics Sterling Co
Thank you for posting this discussion, was just looking at a hallmark today with this H pennant on it.
Regards
Warren
Regards
Warren
Re: Mechanics Sterling Co
The Watson & Newell Co. - Attleboro - 1906
Trev.
Re: Mechanics Sterling Co
This excerpt from the Jewelers' Circular March 24, 1897 page 17 does nothing to clear up the issue at hand and may even do more to cloud it, but here goes:
