.Dessert spoon?
Dessert spoon?
Please identify this spoon. It seems to be 925, London, Robert Palmer 1759? What does the 'C' mean? And is that a king's head? It has a kind of dragon on the top. What would be the correct description of this spoon? .
.Re: Dessert spoon?
Hi,
Reading this page will be of help to you: http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The maker is Robert Peppin and the spoon was assayed at London in 1818. The pattern is 'Kings'.
Trev.
Reading this page will be of help to you: http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The maker is Robert Peppin and the spoon was assayed at London in 1818. The pattern is 'Kings'.
Trev.
Re: Dessert spoon?
Hi Trev,
An academic question, as I am a novice really, & acknowledge your previous posts & serious knowledge. How can you tell that it's specifically Robert Peppin, as opposed to say, Richard Pierce or even Robert Pringle (too early?).?
Eager to learn
Regards
John
An academic question, as I am a novice really, & acknowledge your previous posts & serious knowledge. How can you tell that it's specifically Robert Peppin, as opposed to say, Richard Pierce or even Robert Pringle (too early?).?
Eager to learn
Regards
John
Re: Dessert spoon?
Hi John,
Robert Peppin stands out for me as he was a known spoonmaker with presumably extensive workshops at 27, Grenville Street. I say presumably as these premises were taken over, c.1830, by the prolific flatware manufacturer, William Eaton, when he moved out of Lovell's Court and he would have required large workshops, such was his output.
The spoon is die-struck and such dies were expensive, it would have been an investment only likely to have been made by an outfit that was of some size and probably specializing in flatware. The spoon in question also has a journeyman's mark applied, another likey clue of a large concern.
I don't think you can ever be 100% when making such attributions when there are other candidates working with perhaps the same skills and at the same period, with very similar marks, but to me, on the balance of probabilites, Robert Peppin would definitely be my choice.
Regards Trev.
Robert Peppin stands out for me as he was a known spoonmaker with presumably extensive workshops at 27, Grenville Street. I say presumably as these premises were taken over, c.1830, by the prolific flatware manufacturer, William Eaton, when he moved out of Lovell's Court and he would have required large workshops, such was his output.
The spoon is die-struck and such dies were expensive, it would have been an investment only likely to have been made by an outfit that was of some size and probably specializing in flatware. The spoon in question also has a journeyman's mark applied, another likey clue of a large concern.
I don't think you can ever be 100% when making such attributions when there are other candidates working with perhaps the same skills and at the same period, with very similar marks, but to me, on the balance of probabilites, Robert Peppin would definitely be my choice.
Regards Trev.
Re: Dessert spoon?
I hope members may find some more information useful on the process of deciding which of several apparent candidates as sponsors for this piece of silverware is the most likely.
Robert Pearce has rightly been mentioned. Outwardly his working life would cover the assay year 1818-9. His registered mark for that year didn’t however have the pellet (dot) between the initials which can be seen on the spoon. Coincidentally he did register such a mark but not until 1851.
Robert Pringle has also been mentioned and recognised that his working life started after the spoon was assayed. His first mark of 1862 again had no pellet between the initials. A pellet was introduced in 1871.
Robert Palmer was mentioned but is not a candidate because the spoon was assayed long after his working life ended.Indeed the style of the spoon was not in existence during his time.
A G Grimwade’s book on London marks, the “bible” on the subject, and the Forum’s London section of British makers’ marks identifies Richard Poulden having registered a rectangular shaped punch containing RP with a pellet between the initials in 1818. Although approval of two outwardly indistinguishable marks shouldn’t have happened Grimwade’s book also refers to the same format of mark being registered in 1818 by Robert Peppin but unfortunately the book doesn’t show a replica of the mark to compare it with the one on the spoon and so we are left with the suspicion that the two marks were sufficiently different for the Assay Office to distinguish between them but without evidence of these differences.
On the face of it there would be justification for saying that the mark shown in the Forum’s list is sufficient a match to the one on the spoon to attribute it to Richard Poulden. There are three problems with that. The first is that the spacing between the initials of the mark shown as Poulden’s in Grimwade’s book is somewhat different to the one in the Forum’s list; the second that there seems no evidence of what sort of work Poulden did to say with any certainty that he was a spoon maker; the third that we don’t actually know what Peppin’s 1818 mark looked like.
Trev has identified that the set up costs for producing this pattern of spoon would be high and probably outside the means of someone like Poulden who told Goldsmiths Hall that he was a smallworker with its connotations of scale of work. Peppin on the other hand informed them he was a spoon maker right from the start in 1817. Trev also refers to the journeyman’s tally mark being indicative of larger scale production and adds that Peppin’s premises also suggest a substantial business. All of these inferences rightly weigh in the balance when considering attribution.
For what it’s worth my suspicion is that the Forum’s Poulden mark may in fact be Peppin’s but as you can see there is rather a lot to ponder in making an attribution as to the spoon maker.
Mike
Robert Pearce has rightly been mentioned. Outwardly his working life would cover the assay year 1818-9. His registered mark for that year didn’t however have the pellet (dot) between the initials which can be seen on the spoon. Coincidentally he did register such a mark but not until 1851.
Robert Pringle has also been mentioned and recognised that his working life started after the spoon was assayed. His first mark of 1862 again had no pellet between the initials. A pellet was introduced in 1871.
Robert Palmer was mentioned but is not a candidate because the spoon was assayed long after his working life ended.Indeed the style of the spoon was not in existence during his time.
A G Grimwade’s book on London marks, the “bible” on the subject, and the Forum’s London section of British makers’ marks identifies Richard Poulden having registered a rectangular shaped punch containing RP with a pellet between the initials in 1818. Although approval of two outwardly indistinguishable marks shouldn’t have happened Grimwade’s book also refers to the same format of mark being registered in 1818 by Robert Peppin but unfortunately the book doesn’t show a replica of the mark to compare it with the one on the spoon and so we are left with the suspicion that the two marks were sufficiently different for the Assay Office to distinguish between them but without evidence of these differences.
On the face of it there would be justification for saying that the mark shown in the Forum’s list is sufficient a match to the one on the spoon to attribute it to Richard Poulden. There are three problems with that. The first is that the spacing between the initials of the mark shown as Poulden’s in Grimwade’s book is somewhat different to the one in the Forum’s list; the second that there seems no evidence of what sort of work Poulden did to say with any certainty that he was a spoon maker; the third that we don’t actually know what Peppin’s 1818 mark looked like.
Trev has identified that the set up costs for producing this pattern of spoon would be high and probably outside the means of someone like Poulden who told Goldsmiths Hall that he was a smallworker with its connotations of scale of work. Peppin on the other hand informed them he was a spoon maker right from the start in 1817. Trev also refers to the journeyman’s tally mark being indicative of larger scale production and adds that Peppin’s premises also suggest a substantial business. All of these inferences rightly weigh in the balance when considering attribution.
For what it’s worth my suspicion is that the Forum’s Poulden mark may in fact be Peppin’s but as you can see there is rather a lot to ponder in making an attribution as to the spoon maker.
Mike
Re: Dessert spoon?
Wow, such a great deal to take in.
Wonderful 'courtroom' defence evidence from both Trev & Mike. Thank you both for making this site a wonderful read.
Best regards
John
Wonderful 'courtroom' defence evidence from both Trev & Mike. Thank you both for making this site a wonderful read.
Best regards
John