Hi!
I would be intrested to know would you dedicate this mark to Richard Bayley or to Richard Beale or to whom. Thanks in advance.
x
Regards,
Juke
London mark, 18th century
Re: London mark, 18th century
Looks like Richard Gosling (mark entered 1749). In 1742 he was convicted for counterfeiting marks but appears to have remained in business despite this. I was wondering whether these hallmarks are quite "right" and would be interested to the item that carries them.
Re: London mark, 18th century
I agree with agphile, Richard Gosling, and indeed the marks do appear to be counterfeit.
Court of Assistants - 5th August 1742
This Company being informed by the Clerk that, pursuant to the directions of the Standing Committee, he had prosecuted, tryed, and convicted Richard Gosling and Lewis Larothe for counterfeiting the marks of the Company used in the Assay Office.........
And the Clerk likewise informed this Court that £100 penalty having been recovered against Mr Gosling, and costs being taxed thereon at £23, he had received of Gosling £50 for the prosecutor's moiety of the penalty, with the £23 costs; and thereupon it was proposed that the £50 received should be given to the witnesses, but the proposal being opposed, it was ordered that the £50 received be placed to the account of the Assay Office.
After which appeared the said Richard Gosling, complaining that the Clerk had been very importunate with him for the remaining £50 fine, and desired six weeks time for payment; but the Court told him it was the publick's money, with which they had nothing to do, nor could they intermeddle therein, so that unless he should pay the money immediately he might blame himself for any bad consequences attending his default.
Trev.
Court of Assistants - 5th August 1742
This Company being informed by the Clerk that, pursuant to the directions of the Standing Committee, he had prosecuted, tryed, and convicted Richard Gosling and Lewis Larothe for counterfeiting the marks of the Company used in the Assay Office.........
And the Clerk likewise informed this Court that £100 penalty having been recovered against Mr Gosling, and costs being taxed thereon at £23, he had received of Gosling £50 for the prosecutor's moiety of the penalty, with the £23 costs; and thereupon it was proposed that the £50 received should be given to the witnesses, but the proposal being opposed, it was ordered that the £50 received be placed to the account of the Assay Office.
After which appeared the said Richard Gosling, complaining that the Clerk had been very importunate with him for the remaining £50 fine, and desired six weeks time for payment; but the Court told him it was the publick's money, with which they had nothing to do, nor could they intermeddle therein, so that unless he should pay the money immediately he might blame himself for any bad consequences attending his default.
Trev.
Re: London mark, 18th century
Hi!
I was wondering also myself do the marks look right. Do you mean with counterfeiting that Richard Gosling did the marks by himself and if so was the reason that he wanted to avoid the taxes or that he was not a member of the guild. Do I also understand that the item itself is actually from the time and not later made i.e. in the 19th century. How can one tell that, is the logic behind it that as Richard Gosling had earlier also counterfeited that this would be a later counterfeiting by him. It would be interested to know what happend to him, at least he seem to have continued the counterfeiting, maybe rest of his life. I might have many questions but I find this very interesting.
The marks are on a tankard and I have to mention that the tankard is not in my posession.
Regards,
Juke
I was wondering also myself do the marks look right. Do you mean with counterfeiting that Richard Gosling did the marks by himself and if so was the reason that he wanted to avoid the taxes or that he was not a member of the guild. Do I also understand that the item itself is actually from the time and not later made i.e. in the 19th century. How can one tell that, is the logic behind it that as Richard Gosling had earlier also counterfeited that this would be a later counterfeiting by him. It would be interested to know what happend to him, at least he seem to have continued the counterfeiting, maybe rest of his life. I might have many questions but I find this very interesting.
The marks are on a tankard and I have to mention that the tankard is not in my posession.
Regards,
Juke
Re: London mark, 18th century
18th century tankards did not have this sort of decoration. In Victorian times plain tankards were sometimes converted into jugs and subjected to the addition of very heavy decoration. I am not sure whether this is what has happened here or whether the item was made new in that sort of style. If it is a late Victorian piece, I would wonder "Hanau or Holland?"
Given that the item was either made or heavily re-worked in the 19th century I would think it likely that the dubious marks were added then. It would be more interesting if they were original Gosling fakes, of course!
In Gosling's day the main reason for faking marks would have been to avoid paying duty but it might also have been done when it was known the silver was below sterling and would fail the assay. Gosling was made free of the Goldsmiths in 1719 on completing his apprenticeship, and is recorded as being in business until at least 1754. He appears to have been succeeded by another Richard and Joseph (his sons?) who are recorded as spoonmakers in 1773.
Given that the item was either made or heavily re-worked in the 19th century I would think it likely that the dubious marks were added then. It would be more interesting if they were original Gosling fakes, of course!
In Gosling's day the main reason for faking marks would have been to avoid paying duty but it might also have been done when it was known the silver was below sterling and would fail the assay. Gosling was made free of the Goldsmiths in 1719 on completing his apprenticeship, and is recorded as being in business until at least 1754. He appears to have been succeeded by another Richard and Joseph (his sons?) who are recorded as spoonmakers in 1773.