Brummagem Wash
Brummagem Wash
Does anyone know the origin of the phrase "Brummagem Wash," which was apparently used to pejoratively describe mercury gilding by gilt toy makers?
Re: Brummagem Wash
Hi Electro,
The only actual reference that I could find was from 1874:
The education of the public in art is a phrase which is just now in the mouth of a great many artists. The foremost of all considerations, say they, in respect of the advancement of the arts in this country, so much to be desired, must be the instruction of the public at large; as, for example, they may perhaps be said to be instructed in France, in those principles of amateur understanding, by whose operation alone that general appreciation of art-work can be effected, the absence of which amongst English people is so lamentably conspicuous. Now what does this argument, perfectly sound as it is, manifestly assume, but that the present condition of the public mind is not such as to admit of artistic questions being submitted to the public decision? And, if the public are thus incompetent to decide, why address letters to–of all people in the world–the Editor of the Times? Upon what ground can that autocrat of political articles and paragraphs, however expert in his vocation, discriminate between the pure silver of artistic criticism and the many kinds of Britannia metal, thin electro-plate, and utterly spurious lacquer and brummagem wash, which specious pretenders can contrive to make equally presentable to the uninformed eye? Nor is this all; for, suppose the artistic correspondence to be submitted to an artistic attache of the editorial department, and the question still remains of the incompetency of the public before whom the argumentation is ultimately to be presented for judgment, to deal many rational way with the arcana of art–a difficulty, of course, not happening to exist perhaps in the editorial mind, but all the more essential on that very account to be recognised by the "writing and fighting" artists, if they honestly hold to the doctrine that the public require to be educated in artistic feeling before they can form an adequate judgment of artistic endeavour.
Source: The Architect and Contract Reporter - 1874
There is no doubt that the term is a derisory one, the modern day equivalent being 'flashed', that is to say that the coating applied is of a minimum depth only, and one that would not last much further than the point of sale.
Trev.
The only actual reference that I could find was from 1874:
The education of the public in art is a phrase which is just now in the mouth of a great many artists. The foremost of all considerations, say they, in respect of the advancement of the arts in this country, so much to be desired, must be the instruction of the public at large; as, for example, they may perhaps be said to be instructed in France, in those principles of amateur understanding, by whose operation alone that general appreciation of art-work can be effected, the absence of which amongst English people is so lamentably conspicuous. Now what does this argument, perfectly sound as it is, manifestly assume, but that the present condition of the public mind is not such as to admit of artistic questions being submitted to the public decision? And, if the public are thus incompetent to decide, why address letters to–of all people in the world–the Editor of the Times? Upon what ground can that autocrat of political articles and paragraphs, however expert in his vocation, discriminate between the pure silver of artistic criticism and the many kinds of Britannia metal, thin electro-plate, and utterly spurious lacquer and brummagem wash, which specious pretenders can contrive to make equally presentable to the uninformed eye? Nor is this all; for, suppose the artistic correspondence to be submitted to an artistic attache of the editorial department, and the question still remains of the incompetency of the public before whom the argumentation is ultimately to be presented for judgment, to deal many rational way with the arcana of art–a difficulty, of course, not happening to exist perhaps in the editorial mind, but all the more essential on that very account to be recognised by the "writing and fighting" artists, if they honestly hold to the doctrine that the public require to be educated in artistic feeling before they can form an adequate judgment of artistic endeavour.
Source: The Architect and Contract Reporter - 1874
There is no doubt that the term is a derisory one, the modern day equivalent being 'flashed', that is to say that the coating applied is of a minimum depth only, and one that would not last much further than the point of sale.
Trev.
Re: Brummagem Wash
Thanks Trev, that is a great quote for several reasons, not least the endless 19th-century debate about the inferiority of English art education and appreciation compared to the French. It also confirms that the phrase 'brummagem wash' was still in use, because the author uses the phrase as if it were commonly understood. I'm sure I first came across it in an earlier source, regarding the town's button and toy makers circa 1820-30.
By the way, I did a bit more research on Charles Elkington and discovered that Henry Elkington actually had a twin brother called Charles who died in his first year. Henry was born on 26th September 1809, and not in 1810 as is often misquoted. The confusion arises, as is often the case, because Henry was christened sometime after he was born, perhaps because he too was not expected to survive. When his parents had another son on 26th January 1813, Henry's parents named him Charles [James Cheatley]. Similarly they appear to have had two sons named John and two named Joseph, but none of their deaths are recorded, so it is likely that the older John and Joseph had both died in infancy, and subsequent children were given the same names. In an age of high infant mortality (and they lived in rural Warwickshire) I think that was fairly common.
Henry Elkington’s father John Elkington (11th March 1772 — 1st June 1842) was born in Stretton-on-Dunsmore, Warwickshire and married Mary Russell (1775 — 26th September 1852) on 26th January 1795. John Elkington and Mary Russell had 12 children:
1. Mary Elkington (2nd January 1797 — Unknown).
2. John Elkington (30th July 1799 — Unknown).
3. Francis Russell Elkington (1st August 1800 - 16 May 1878).
4. John Elkington (11th May 1801 — Unknown).
5. Joseph Elkington (21st December 1802 — Unknown).
6. Joseph Elkington (8th February 1804 — Unknown).
7. Charlotte Elkington (2nd February 1805 — 19th August 1829.
8. Ester Eliza Elkington (1st October 1806 — 1st July 1809).
9. George Elkington (6th March 1808 — Unknown).
10. Charles Elkington (26th September 1809 — 24th January 1810).
11. Henry Elkington (26th September 1809 — 26th October 1852).
12. Charles James Checkley Elkington (26th January 1813 — Unknown — probably in Canada). His name later is consistently spelt ‘Cheatley,’ but he appears to have been christened ‘Checkley,’ perhaps in error.
Alistair
By the way, I did a bit more research on Charles Elkington and discovered that Henry Elkington actually had a twin brother called Charles who died in his first year. Henry was born on 26th September 1809, and not in 1810 as is often misquoted. The confusion arises, as is often the case, because Henry was christened sometime after he was born, perhaps because he too was not expected to survive. When his parents had another son on 26th January 1813, Henry's parents named him Charles [James Cheatley]. Similarly they appear to have had two sons named John and two named Joseph, but none of their deaths are recorded, so it is likely that the older John and Joseph had both died in infancy, and subsequent children were given the same names. In an age of high infant mortality (and they lived in rural Warwickshire) I think that was fairly common.
Henry Elkington’s father John Elkington (11th March 1772 — 1st June 1842) was born in Stretton-on-Dunsmore, Warwickshire and married Mary Russell (1775 — 26th September 1852) on 26th January 1795. John Elkington and Mary Russell had 12 children:
1. Mary Elkington (2nd January 1797 — Unknown).
2. John Elkington (30th July 1799 — Unknown).
3. Francis Russell Elkington (1st August 1800 - 16 May 1878).
4. John Elkington (11th May 1801 — Unknown).
5. Joseph Elkington (21st December 1802 — Unknown).
6. Joseph Elkington (8th February 1804 — Unknown).
7. Charlotte Elkington (2nd February 1805 — 19th August 1829.
8. Ester Eliza Elkington (1st October 1806 — 1st July 1809).
9. George Elkington (6th March 1808 — Unknown).
10. Charles Elkington (26th September 1809 — 24th January 1810).
11. Henry Elkington (26th September 1809 — 26th October 1852).
12. Charles James Checkley Elkington (26th January 1813 — Unknown — probably in Canada). His name later is consistently spelt ‘Cheatley,’ but he appears to have been christened ‘Checkley,’ perhaps in error.
Alistair
Re: Brummagem Wash
I meant to say that Henry was christened a relatively long time after he was born. Obviously everyone get christened after they are born!
Re: Brummagem Wash
Google search;
Origin of BRUMMAGEM; alteration of Birmingham, England, the source in the 17th century of counterfeit groats(coins)
First Known Use: 1637
Definition of BRUMMAGEM: spurious; also : cheaply showy : tawdry
Oel.
Origin of BRUMMAGEM; alteration of Birmingham, England, the source in the 17th century of counterfeit groats(coins)
First Known Use: 1637
Definition of BRUMMAGEM: spurious; also : cheaply showy : tawdry
Oel.