Granmaa
Georgian Serving Spoon Dodgy hallmarks?
Georgian Serving Spoon Dodgy hallmarks?
Here is an serving spoon assayed in London in 1804. First of all, I don't know the maker (TO), and it also looks slightly suspect to me; you can clearly see it has been put over the top of another hallmark, which, judging by the top of it, doesn't seem to be TO. Can someone clear this up for me?
Granmaa
Granmaa
-
georgiansilver
- contributor
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:50 am
- Location: Gainsborough, Lincs
While I was looking for Thomas Wallis marks on the internet, guess what I found!
Hallmarked for London, 1792, this is the dealer's description: "Pair of Plain Old English sauce ladles - mark of Peter & Ann Bateman overstruck by Thomas Olliphant (take a look at the close-up picture and you can see AB under the TO ! Part of the PB is above)."
It would perhaps seem that Olliphant was more of a provincial retailer, buying in from London. Although I do wonder if this type of overstamping was common or even legal! Technically maker's marks are really responsibility marks - the guy that takes responsibility should the item not be sterling quality silver. So was responsibility transferable? For new silver, was the seller automatically the responsible party, requiring the over-stamp?
I should be very interested if anyone could clarify this procedure!
Hallmarked for London, 1792, this is the dealer's description: "Pair of Plain Old English sauce ladles - mark of Peter & Ann Bateman overstruck by Thomas Olliphant (take a look at the close-up picture and you can see AB under the TO ! Part of the PB is above)."
It would perhaps seem that Olliphant was more of a provincial retailer, buying in from London. Although I do wonder if this type of overstamping was common or even legal! Technically maker's marks are really responsibility marks - the guy that takes responsibility should the item not be sterling quality silver. So was responsibility transferable? For new silver, was the seller automatically the responsible party, requiring the over-stamp?
I should be very interested if anyone could clarify this procedure!
Neruda,
Thankyou so much for this information; I had a look at my spoon with the name Bateman in mind, and just peeking round the side of the TO mark I can see the beginning of a P, an A and a W running longitudinally with the spoon, rather like in the mark
PB
AB
WB
Peter, Ann and William Bateman!
The mystery of this spoon has been put to rest.
Yours very gratefully,
Miles
Thankyou so much for this information; I had a look at my spoon with the name Bateman in mind, and just peeking round the side of the TO mark I can see the beginning of a P, an A and a W running longitudinally with the spoon, rather like in the mark
PB
AB
WB
Peter, Ann and William Bateman!
The mystery of this spoon has been put to rest.
Yours very gratefully,
Miles
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
Thomas Ollivant
Although the mystery has been solved, a bit more imformation on Mr Ollivant.
Thomas Ollivant was a Manchester maker,although his mark was registered in London,He was registered as a plateworker in London May 1789,it is believed he was more of a retailer than a plateworker,buying London stock for resale,probaly in Manchester. "Touching Gold and Silver" a catalogue of an exhibition at Goldsmiths hall in November 1978 discusses a cream jug with Thomas Ollivants marks overstriking Peter & Johnathon Batemans marks. lt is therefore assumed that Thomas Ollivant brought silver from the Batemans workshops and over struck his own mark before seeling the item.
Thomas Ollivant was a Manchester maker,although his mark was registered in London,He was registered as a plateworker in London May 1789,it is believed he was more of a retailer than a plateworker,buying London stock for resale,probaly in Manchester. "Touching Gold and Silver" a catalogue of an exhibition at Goldsmiths hall in November 1978 discusses a cream jug with Thomas Ollivants marks overstriking Peter & Johnathon Batemans marks. lt is therefore assumed that Thomas Ollivant brought silver from the Batemans workshops and over struck his own mark before seeling the item.
Thanks for that Nigel. Have you had a look at the post on overstriking: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3549
perhaps you know something on the subject.
Miles
perhaps you know something on the subject.
Miles
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
overstriking
Miles
Thanks for the link to the article, no l had not seen it,l must admit all l have is a small knowledge of the subject,l do know that Richard Evans of Shrewsbury did this as well, what l think is the biggest shame that the very rare mark of Peter & Jonathan Bateman was overstruck, as you no doubt know this was only used for 4 and a half months.
Regards
Nigel
Thanks for the link to the article, no l had not seen it,l must admit all l have is a small knowledge of the subject,l do know that Richard Evans of Shrewsbury did this as well, what l think is the biggest shame that the very rare mark of Peter & Jonathan Bateman was overstruck, as you no doubt know this was only used for 4 and a half months.
Regards
Nigel
This is perhaps the best place for a few snippets I have found about Thomas Ollivant in various newspapers. I think more evidence is needed to connect the Thomas Ollivant, silversmith, with both the death reported below and the John Ollivant silversmith. It's all too uncertain for my liking.
Miles
London Gazette 20th August 1808: Bankrupts Declared...Thomas Ollivant, of Manchester, silversmith, Sep 8, 9 and 27th, at the Bridgewater Arms, Manchester.
The Hull Packet and Original Weekly Commercial, Literary and General Advertiser 23rd August 1814: Most singular and serious Roberry! On Sunday se'night, Mr. Moreton, assistant to Mr. Ollivant, silversmith, &c. in Exchange street, in Manchester, wound up a number of gold and silver watches, half a dozen of which he left in a box on the counter...
The Manchester Times 5th December 1828: We, the undersigned, request you will call a public meeting, to consider of the expediency of taking some measures to prevent the possible introduction of a Local Note Circulation, in this Town and Neigbourhood...Thomas and John Ollivant...
Jackson's Oxford Journal 11th September 1830: Thomas Ollivant, Esq, of Manchester, to Margery, daughter of the late Walter Minor, Esq.
The Manchester Times and Gazette 25th June 1831: Deaths...On the 11th instant, Margery, wife of Mr Thomas Ollivant, of the Polygon.
The Manchester Times and Gazette 28th August 1847: Borough Sessions...The following gentlemen composed the grand jury:-...John Ollivant, silversmith, Exchange St.
Miles
London Gazette 20th August 1808: Bankrupts Declared...Thomas Ollivant, of Manchester, silversmith, Sep 8, 9 and 27th, at the Bridgewater Arms, Manchester.
The Hull Packet and Original Weekly Commercial, Literary and General Advertiser 23rd August 1814: Most singular and serious Roberry! On Sunday se'night, Mr. Moreton, assistant to Mr. Ollivant, silversmith, &c. in Exchange street, in Manchester, wound up a number of gold and silver watches, half a dozen of which he left in a box on the counter...
The Manchester Times 5th December 1828: We, the undersigned, request you will call a public meeting, to consider of the expediency of taking some measures to prevent the possible introduction of a Local Note Circulation, in this Town and Neigbourhood...Thomas and John Ollivant...
Jackson's Oxford Journal 11th September 1830: Thomas Ollivant, Esq, of Manchester, to Margery, daughter of the late Walter Minor, Esq.
The Manchester Times and Gazette 25th June 1831: Deaths...On the 11th instant, Margery, wife of Mr Thomas Ollivant, of the Polygon.
The Manchester Times and Gazette 28th August 1847: Borough Sessions...The following gentlemen composed the grand jury:-...John Ollivant, silversmith, Exchange St.
Just a follow up. Thomas Olivant was a Manchester retailer. The business eventually became Olivant & Botsford with premises on St. Annes St. The business was swallowed up by Mappin & Webb in the 1970's and the O & B name was eventually dropped as Mappin & Webb changed all their provincial shops to the M & W brand.
Hello Miles,
Researching genealogy to try and unravel the conundrums various websites produced the following:
Thomas Ollivant christened in Manchester 1758; father John.
Thomas Ollivant born 1801 shown on the Manchester section of the 1841 Census as a silversmith,
John Ollivant born 1806 likewise and also described as a silversmith.
The 1758 Thomas is likely to have been the one who registered the London mark in 1789.
Grimwade on page 721 records a number of entries in the directories around the 1790’s of a business called Ollivant Sons & Nephew and it rather looks as though the mark registered by Thomas in 1789 was for the family firm rather than for himself personally.
There was earlier reference in the correspondence to the absence of a more local mark at Sheffield or Birmingham. Chester is also local to Manchester and there was an Ollivant mark registered there from 1746 in the name of John Ollivant of Manchester (father of Thomas born around 1758 perhaps?). Ridgway & Priestley’s Chester book shows John died in 1795. Again this mark could have been used by the family firm.
You may agree it makes no sense for the Ollivant family to have sent their own production of silver all the way to London and back for assay. After all we are in the era before railways and in the time of bad roads or canals or even long way round transport by ship to Liverpool! It seems more likely the London 1789 registered mark was always used for overstriking wares the family had ordered from London smiths, their own work, if any, going to Chester showing the “IO” stamp registered by John; this regardless of the fact that he had died in 1795 because it was seen as a family mark.
When one considers what the good people of Manchester wanted from the hallmarks the main one would undoubtedly have been the mark which showed them where to take back unsatisfactory goods. That would be the Ollivant family’s marks. As the 1789 mark was properly registered in London it would possibly also have satisfied Goldsmiths Hall. The Chester mark of 1746 can be viewed similarly.
To complete the picture before the Ollivant & Botsford partnership of 1855 it should be mentioned two other marks were registered in 1830 in the name of Ollivant, both by Thomas (presumably the one born in 1801), one at Chester and another at London; perhaps simply bringing up to date the family’s old Chester mark of 1746 and the London mark of 1789.
As to the references you make on the newspaper etc articles the time line seems to fit there being two men named Thomas born 1758 and 1801 respectively and a John born 1806. There could, of course, have been others in the family with the same christian names which haven't been found; families are like that!
Regards
Mike
Researching genealogy to try and unravel the conundrums various websites produced the following:
Thomas Ollivant christened in Manchester 1758; father John.
Thomas Ollivant born 1801 shown on the Manchester section of the 1841 Census as a silversmith,
John Ollivant born 1806 likewise and also described as a silversmith.
The 1758 Thomas is likely to have been the one who registered the London mark in 1789.
Grimwade on page 721 records a number of entries in the directories around the 1790’s of a business called Ollivant Sons & Nephew and it rather looks as though the mark registered by Thomas in 1789 was for the family firm rather than for himself personally.
There was earlier reference in the correspondence to the absence of a more local mark at Sheffield or Birmingham. Chester is also local to Manchester and there was an Ollivant mark registered there from 1746 in the name of John Ollivant of Manchester (father of Thomas born around 1758 perhaps?). Ridgway & Priestley’s Chester book shows John died in 1795. Again this mark could have been used by the family firm.
You may agree it makes no sense for the Ollivant family to have sent their own production of silver all the way to London and back for assay. After all we are in the era before railways and in the time of bad roads or canals or even long way round transport by ship to Liverpool! It seems more likely the London 1789 registered mark was always used for overstriking wares the family had ordered from London smiths, their own work, if any, going to Chester showing the “IO” stamp registered by John; this regardless of the fact that he had died in 1795 because it was seen as a family mark.
When one considers what the good people of Manchester wanted from the hallmarks the main one would undoubtedly have been the mark which showed them where to take back unsatisfactory goods. That would be the Ollivant family’s marks. As the 1789 mark was properly registered in London it would possibly also have satisfied Goldsmiths Hall. The Chester mark of 1746 can be viewed similarly.
To complete the picture before the Ollivant & Botsford partnership of 1855 it should be mentioned two other marks were registered in 1830 in the name of Ollivant, both by Thomas (presumably the one born in 1801), one at Chester and another at London; perhaps simply bringing up to date the family’s old Chester mark of 1746 and the London mark of 1789.
As to the references you make on the newspaper etc articles the time line seems to fit there being two men named Thomas born 1758 and 1801 respectively and a John born 1806. There could, of course, have been others in the family with the same christian names which haven't been found; families are like that!
Regards
Mike
The christening detail came from http://www.familysearch.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Detail from the UK Census of 1841 was available on http://ancestry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Happy New Year.
Mike
Detail from the UK Census of 1841 was available on http://ancestry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Happy New Year.
Mike
Snippet of Ollivant detail, taken from 'Reminiscences of Manchester. And some of its Local Surroundings from the Year 1840.' by Louis M. Hayes. Published in 1906.
Almost opposite to where Newall's Buildings stood, at the corner of Cross Street and Market Street, was the shop of Howard, perhaps one of the tiniest-looking jeweller's establishments to be found, considering the excellent quality of the gems which he sold. Here two noted robberies took place, one of them in 1853 at midday, when his eldest daughter was suddenly attacked and overpowered and the place plundered. It created a great sensation at the time, the burglary having been successfully accomplished in the very heart of the City, and at the busiest time of the day. Although small, the shop was always made very attractive with mirrors and crystal jewel cases, and, being well stocked with valuables, the thieves got away with an excellent haul.
Ollivant's shop, which stood at the corner of Exchange Street, where Manfield's shop now is, was also entered and robbed two days after Howard's, and in 1865 Howard's place was again broken into and plundered. In the same year, too, William McFerran's shop was entered, the burglars getting away, it is said, with about £13,000 worth of property. His establishment was in Victoria Street (where W. and F. Terry now are), and to him this loss was a serious blow. Howard's loss was not so heavy, being stated to be about £3,000, but it was bad enough, and these Manchester jewellers could well have spared these unpleasant visitations. These repeated robberies brought about improvements in the locking up of such establishments, holes being bored in the shutters, and lights left burning so that policemen when going their rounds could inspect the shops from the outside to see that all was right. All these jewellers that I have named were representative men of their class, but I mention these especially on account of the burglaries connected with them. Mr. Howard was in appearance a short, thick-set, determined looking man, one who could, I fancy, have given a very good account of himself in any physical encounter, and had the thieves attacked him instead of his daughter, the result might have been very different. But no doubt the whole affair was cleverly planned; they waited until Mr. Howard had gone to his dinner, and then came their opportunity. The attack had a serious effect upon the nervous system of Miss Howard, from which she was some time in recovering. Mr. Ollivant was a very different type of man to Mr. Howard, being tall, thin, sallow and fragile-looking, with a quiet, unpretentious manner, but at the same time he was a remarkably keen-witted, clever man of business, and a very excellent judge of a good bargain. He did a large trade as a silversmith, in buying, selling and exchanging, but even when I first knew him he was a comparatively old man, his health had begun to fail, and he had to take things quietly. On this account he took into partnership another jeweller named Botsford, who as a young man had established a good connection in a shop in the Square, the firm then becoming Ollivant and Botsford, which it still continues to be.
And from 'New Church Worthies' by Rev. Dr. Johnathan Bayley. Published in 1884.
Then there was Mr. Ollivant, the founder of the large silversmith business at the corner of St. Mary's Gate, leading into St. Ann's Square. He was a model of the good old English gentleman, upright, pious, exact in all his duties, true and charitable, with whom you would never think of associating anything not genuine or honourable.
Trev.
Almost opposite to where Newall's Buildings stood, at the corner of Cross Street and Market Street, was the shop of Howard, perhaps one of the tiniest-looking jeweller's establishments to be found, considering the excellent quality of the gems which he sold. Here two noted robberies took place, one of them in 1853 at midday, when his eldest daughter was suddenly attacked and overpowered and the place plundered. It created a great sensation at the time, the burglary having been successfully accomplished in the very heart of the City, and at the busiest time of the day. Although small, the shop was always made very attractive with mirrors and crystal jewel cases, and, being well stocked with valuables, the thieves got away with an excellent haul.
Ollivant's shop, which stood at the corner of Exchange Street, where Manfield's shop now is, was also entered and robbed two days after Howard's, and in 1865 Howard's place was again broken into and plundered. In the same year, too, William McFerran's shop was entered, the burglars getting away, it is said, with about £13,000 worth of property. His establishment was in Victoria Street (where W. and F. Terry now are), and to him this loss was a serious blow. Howard's loss was not so heavy, being stated to be about £3,000, but it was bad enough, and these Manchester jewellers could well have spared these unpleasant visitations. These repeated robberies brought about improvements in the locking up of such establishments, holes being bored in the shutters, and lights left burning so that policemen when going their rounds could inspect the shops from the outside to see that all was right. All these jewellers that I have named were representative men of their class, but I mention these especially on account of the burglaries connected with them. Mr. Howard was in appearance a short, thick-set, determined looking man, one who could, I fancy, have given a very good account of himself in any physical encounter, and had the thieves attacked him instead of his daughter, the result might have been very different. But no doubt the whole affair was cleverly planned; they waited until Mr. Howard had gone to his dinner, and then came their opportunity. The attack had a serious effect upon the nervous system of Miss Howard, from which she was some time in recovering. Mr. Ollivant was a very different type of man to Mr. Howard, being tall, thin, sallow and fragile-looking, with a quiet, unpretentious manner, but at the same time he was a remarkably keen-witted, clever man of business, and a very excellent judge of a good bargain. He did a large trade as a silversmith, in buying, selling and exchanging, but even when I first knew him he was a comparatively old man, his health had begun to fail, and he had to take things quietly. On this account he took into partnership another jeweller named Botsford, who as a young man had established a good connection in a shop in the Square, the firm then becoming Ollivant and Botsford, which it still continues to be.
And from 'New Church Worthies' by Rev. Dr. Johnathan Bayley. Published in 1884.
Then there was Mr. Ollivant, the founder of the large silversmith business at the corner of St. Mary's Gate, leading into St. Ann's Square. He was a model of the good old English gentleman, upright, pious, exact in all his duties, true and charitable, with whom you would never think of associating anything not genuine or honourable.
Trev.
Thanks for that Trev.
The incomplete nature of information on the website brought the previous references to Thomas born 1758 (now known to have been born 1762), Thomas born 1801 & John born 1806. Although the latter are shown as silversmiths in the UK census they do not seem to match up with the family tree you have found and are replaced there by Thomas Whittenbury born 1797 & John Josiah born 1798. As mentioned in my earlier post the same Christian names have, as usual, been used over and again in this family which helps to confuse any genealogy attempted in the present day.
I’ve now discovered the reference to 1745 in Ridgway & Priestley’s book is the opening year of the Chester Assay Office journal. 1760 is about the time John (1729) registered the mark and that makes more sense.
To add to my earlier post is John (yes another one!) born 1764 who was apparently involved in running the business with Thomas born 1762.
None of these revisions seem to affect the view that the Ollivants used the 1760 & 1830 Chester marks for any Manchester produced work keeping the London 1789 & 1830 punches to overstrike the items bought in from there.
Mike
The incomplete nature of information on the website brought the previous references to Thomas born 1758 (now known to have been born 1762), Thomas born 1801 & John born 1806. Although the latter are shown as silversmiths in the UK census they do not seem to match up with the family tree you have found and are replaced there by Thomas Whittenbury born 1797 & John Josiah born 1798. As mentioned in my earlier post the same Christian names have, as usual, been used over and again in this family which helps to confuse any genealogy attempted in the present day.
I’ve now discovered the reference to 1745 in Ridgway & Priestley’s book is the opening year of the Chester Assay Office journal. 1760 is about the time John (1729) registered the mark and that makes more sense.
To add to my earlier post is John (yes another one!) born 1764 who was apparently involved in running the business with Thomas born 1762.
None of these revisions seem to affect the view that the Ollivants used the 1760 & 1830 Chester marks for any Manchester produced work keeping the London 1789 & 1830 punches to overstrike the items bought in from there.
Mike
Re: Georgian Serving Spoon Dodgy hallmarks?
Dear Guys,
I have been researching the Ollivant/Whittenbury family as part of my research for a History of the Blind in Irish Society, and for their connection, through Thomas’s daughter, Sarah and her daughter Harriet, with the Armitage family, founders of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the UK and the National Council for the Blind of Ireland. I came across this notice and just cannot find the reference at present but here it is for what it is worth, it gives some chronology for the firm of TO.
Kind regards,
Frank.
1795
Notice is hereby given, that the partnership term heretofore existing between the undersigned, John Ollivant and Sarah Ollivant (Widow of the late Thomas Ollivant, deceased) expired on the 30th day of September last; and the partnership between them, as Silversmiths and jewellers, is dissolved by mutual consent. – The business will hereafter be carried on by the said John Ollivant and by Thomas Whittenbury Ollivant and John Josiah Ollivant (sons of the said Thomas Ollivant, deceased), at the Shop in Exchange-Street, in Manchester, where all debts due to or owing by the late firm will be received and paid. – Witness the hands of the parties this 1st day of October 1819. John Ollivant, Sarah Ollivant, Thomas Whittenbury Ollivant , John Josiah Ollivant.
I have been researching the Ollivant/Whittenbury family as part of my research for a History of the Blind in Irish Society, and for their connection, through Thomas’s daughter, Sarah and her daughter Harriet, with the Armitage family, founders of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the UK and the National Council for the Blind of Ireland. I came across this notice and just cannot find the reference at present but here it is for what it is worth, it gives some chronology for the firm of TO.
Kind regards,
Frank.
1795
Notice is hereby given, that the partnership term heretofore existing between the undersigned, John Ollivant and Sarah Ollivant (Widow of the late Thomas Ollivant, deceased) expired on the 30th day of September last; and the partnership between them, as Silversmiths and jewellers, is dissolved by mutual consent. – The business will hereafter be carried on by the said John Ollivant and by Thomas Whittenbury Ollivant and John Josiah Ollivant (sons of the said Thomas Ollivant, deceased), at the Shop in Exchange-Street, in Manchester, where all debts due to or owing by the late firm will be received and paid. – Witness the hands of the parties this 1st day of October 1819. John Ollivant, Sarah Ollivant, Thomas Whittenbury Ollivant , John Josiah Ollivant.