Lewis&Smith/IWG

SilverSurfer · Post by **SilverSurfer** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:39 pm

I have a 9 1/2 inch long, 64 gram weight Old English Pattern serving spoon with two maker's marks, script "Lewis&Smith", typical raised letters on sunken field, and with form fitting border, and also print "IWD", atypically for the time sunken letters on a raised field, no border (photo below).

Ensko IV indicates Lewis and Smith as silversmiths in Philadelphia, 1805-1811. IWG is indicated as John Ward Gilman of Exeter, New Hampshire, starting in 1767. This web site indicates his working period as 1760-1792. The difference in the production periods and locations would imply the spoons were made by Gilman and later retailed by Lewis and Smith. Any affirmations for this, or denials with an alternate explanation? Thanks in advance for any info!

SS
.

Post by **admin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:52 pm

Hi SS,
The mark illustrated on the site came from an old english pattern soup ladle found in a western Massachusetts estate sale, the locality of the find and the Ensko listing both point to Gilman. However, there is a John W. Gethen of Philadelphia who used a similar mark, I suspect he is either the maker or retailer of your piece, it makes far more sense.
If you have a larger image of the mark, I'd like to add it to the site.

Regards, Tom
.

wev · Post by **wev** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:24 pm

Ensko is incorrect; the incised IWG is John Ward Gilman; the incused (as shown above) is John W. Gethen, who was a known supplier of finished goods to Lewis & Smith, among others.
.

Post by **admin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:37 pm

Wev,
Glad this came up, can you tell us how the Ensko misattribution was discovered?

Tom
.

SilverSurfer · Post by **SilverSurfer** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:04 pm

Thanks, both, for your information. Here is a scan of the mark at 600 dpi (previous was 200 dpi). Unfortunately, I cannot take macro photos, only have use of a flatbed scanner, so focus, contrast and lighting angle are all pretty bad, but the best I can do for now.

Ensko shows Gethen as working 1811-1818, and Lewis&Smith 1805-1811. This would seem to limit this spoon's manufacture to 1811, but if Gethen was a "known supplier", I would suspect he did this for more than one year, so are these working periods suspect as well? TIA!

SS
.

wev · Post by **wev** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:45 pm

Gethen's mark is found tied to numerous pieces also marked by Philadelphia retailers; I've never seen a countermark that wasn't of that region. Work is also found bearing both his full incised mark and this incuse version; an example is shown in Belden. I even suspect, based on the close similarity of letter forms and spacing, that the same die sinker who made the punch for the Lewis & Smith mark, may have made Gethen's full mark. As for working dates, the 1811 start is based on his earliest known directory listing. Given that there are several large gaps in the city directories between 1790 and 1811, he could have been working there a number of years earlier. There is another interesting theory that I have heard: the IWG mark was used by Gethen as a journeyman while working in established shops, such as Lewis & Smith. When he did strike out on his own, he began using the full incised mark. I have not studied his work closely enough to have an opinion one way or the other, but it is not out of the realm.
.

Post by **2209patrick** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:05 pm

Here's a scan from my copy of Stephen Ensko's book.
The mark he attributes to John Ward Gilman has pellets between the letters.

Ensko shows a different type of mark for John W. Gethen.
However, two other books agree with Wev and attribute an IWG mark without pellets to John W. Gethen.

Pat.
.

wev · Post by **wev** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:12 pm

SilverSurfer · Post by **SilverSurfer** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:31 am

Thanks, all, for the correct info on Gethen versus Gilman, will put a yellow stickie in my Ensko with the info.

SS
.

Post by **admin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:50 pm

Hi,
As it stands, there is yet no indication that Ensko is completely off the mark. WEV has demonstrated conclusively that this IWG mark is Gethen's. However, the IWG mark illustrated by Ensko has pellets between the letters, whereas the Gethen mark does not. In all honesty, the only source proved wrong so far - is this website, but...mercifully, web resources have far more flexibility than printed ones... so that bit of misinformation will not survive past today.

I've just spoken with the Exeter NH Historical Society, and will be sending them images of the marks. They expressed an interest and may be able to find out if the pelleted IWG incuse was ever used by Gilman. Should they get back to me, I'll post the info here.

Regards, Tom
.

wev · Post by **wev** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:15 pm

Remember that Gilman did a equally strong business as an engraver and printer of sheet music and the like. The Ensko mark may be from an example of that, rather than his silver work.
.

SilverSurfer · Post by **SilverSurfer** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:15 pm

Tom, my yellow stickie is not for the pelleted IWG mark for Gilman being in error, but for the addition of the unpelleted mark to that of the script mark for Gethen. Sorry for not being clear. Would indeed be interested as to whether the pelleted mark is indeed for Gilman. Thanks.

SS
.