Thanks in advance for help. Looks like a partially rubbed Gothic C for 1758. Sponsor mark looks like second letter is also C so possibly Ebenezer Coker? Tablespoon is 8 1/4 inches and 75 grams. Does this sound right? Thanks again
1 Like
I agree with 1758 but I don’t feel able to say one way or another whether the maker’s mark is that of Ebenezer Coker. Comparing the 2 marks shows a possible matching of one of the curves but it’s not enough for me to say with any certainty that they are the same.
3 Likes
Given there is not enough left of the mark to tell if it is Cathcart or Coker and given it is within the period of time both were active silversmiths one is left with the product itself to determine origin, rather than reliance upon the marks.
Here’s an opinion in another forum on the mark as it appeared on a mote spoon:
"There has often been debate regarding is it Coker, or is it Cathart when reviewing their marks, and whilst I’m hesitant to attempt to contradict agphile I feel that in this case the maker is Elias Cachart.
"Although both men registered lobed punches, only Cachart, as far as I’m aware, used pellets, as can be seen from the photo of the struck mark it has two pellets.
"Cachart was also an extremely prolific maker of flatware, whereas, Coker was more known for his salvers and candlesticks, but of course this does not dismiss the possibility that Coker ever made spoons, but only that he was a specialist in another field and less likely to be a spoon maker.
“Another point always to remember is the registers at London were complied using ink impressions taken from the presented punches, these often prove to be inaccurate in varying degrees of detail and reproductions of the marks as recorded by Arthur Grimwade and others must not be taken 100% accurate.”
https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27758
Now we, well I, in any event cannot tell if this mark is pointelled or not, so that part of the comment does not assist.
But the observation about spoon maker vs salver maker rings true based on collector experience.
So, absent marks, absent date ruling out one or the other maker, we are left with a simple probs and stats case which veers in favour of Cathcart.
Advancing a P&S argument without providing actual stats is always tricky. So I tried name searching for both makers in auction data bases. I wanted to see who made most of the spoons marked EC in script.
Now I don’t want to disparage auctioneers, but they have a terrible tendency to rely on assignor data rather than their own research and I found 14 spoons ascribed to Coker that might well have been Cachart.
So back to probability:
“Elias Cachart, a London Huguenot silversmith, registered his mark in 1742,
and was probably the largest maker of spoons and forks of the mid-18th century.”
CRWW
2 Likes
For those who, like myself, wanted todo a deeper dive into Cachart here’s what I gleaned in total:
He was a London-based silversmith active in the second quarter of the 18th century, with his prime working period identified between approximately 1739 and 1755. He is noted for producing high-quality silver items, including mote spoons and ladles, often featuring intricate designs such as pierced, scroll, or rat-tail patterns.
There is also a mention of a “Peter Elias Cachart” active in Guernsey and India (Pondicherry/Madras) during the mid-18th century, who might be related to or the same person as the London smith.
Search results also include a passing mention of an “Elias” from a family with several children (Oliver, Ira, Hannah) born between 1802-1812, and an “Elias Parkman” in a 17th-century context, but these do not appear to be the same individual as the 18th-century London silversmith.
Cachart was a prominent London-based silversmith of Huguenot descent, active during the mid-18th century (roughly 1742–1760). He was considered one of the largest and most prolific makers of silver spoons and forks of his time.
Key Facts & Biography
- Active Years: Registered his mark in 1742, with works spanning from at least 1739 to 1756, and possibly up to 1760.
- Location: London, England.
- Background: Identified as a London Huguenot silversmith.
- Specialties: Specialised in flatware, including Hanoverian pattern spoons, large soup ladles, basting spoons, mote spoons, and marrow scoops.
- Mark: His maker’s mark is typically “EC” in a shaped punch, documented in Grimwade’s London Goldsmiths 1697-1837 as mark 557.
- Style: His work often features Hanoverian patterns with double-drop heels, common in the mid-18th century, with some pieces exhibiting French-influenced engraving, such as coats of arms, Earl’s coronets, or crests (e.g., a moor’s head).
Notable Works & Legacy
- Museum Collections: Pieces by Elias Cachart are held in notable collections, including the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London, which houses a 1749-50 silver spoon by him, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met), which holds a mid-18th century strainer spoon.
- Significant Pieces: Examples of his work include a set of four 1755 basting spoons (sold at Christie’s), a 1754 ragout spoon (part of the Ickworth House National Trust collection), and George II silver-gilt teaspoons.
- Collaborations: In 1755, he is noted to have produced work in collaboration with other silversmiths through to 1760.
- Reputation: He was a highly productive maker of fine-quality Hanoverian pattern silver.
So this 1758 spoon is in the period (1755-'60) he was collaborating with other smiths rather than doing all the work alone. Given the likelihood that he would have been employing tallymen or journeymen smiths to produce as he aged, I didn’t see working outside his prime period sufficient reason to assign the credit for the spoon to Mr Coker.
CRWW
4 Likes
Okay, one more thing:
The expert on the other forum opined “…only Cachart used pellets…” Because I can not see see if this spoon has pellets or not I did not rely on that assertion to rules out Coker.
But now I am wondering if he is entirely correct.
Here’s a double-pelleted stuffing spoon attributed to Cachart
Here’s another where the pellet has become single or disappeared completely or was never there:
The latter mark is almost identical to the mark with a single pellet mark exhibited by Phil:
Those of us who like simple straight forward solutions would embrace with some fervour the notion that Cachart used pointelles or pellets and Coker didn’t but the Silver Makers Mark suggestion that the absence of a pellet was a feature of the earlier mark has attractiveness too.
The argument against it would have to be unless Coker was dogging Cachart ,or visa versa, they both wouldn’t have switched from an earlier identical mark to a later identical mark and if they did, surely the Guild would have called foul?
The much more likely explanation is because one was a stick and salver maker and the other a spoon maker the similarity of marks didn’t trouble them or anybody at the guild and it is perfectly possible that one of them, probably Cachart, switched to a pointelle mark and the other didn’t, so there might well have been a later differentiation.
Again a search through database auction material neither proves or disproves either theory conclusively
What is true is by 1758, indeed somewhat earlier Coker had switched to plain Roman for larger items:
CRWW
4 Likes
Brilliant! Many thanks for such sound and well reasoned research, Mr. Wilson. And also thank you Phil, Allan and Bart for your contributions. I think, given that I bought this spoon (and live) in one of His Majesty’s Dominions rather than the mother country, it seems likely that it is from a prolific spoon maker rather than an occasional one. I’m sure there’s a Razor for that. So thanks to all of you, I’m going to credit it in my notes to Elia Cachart on the grounds of probability, especially since the journeyman’s mark suggests, as Mr Wilson noted, that late period Cachart was probably done by a factotum. Anyway, I love this spoon and I’m glad it won’t be melted in my lifetime, whatever the price of silver. Thank you all again!
P
3 Likes
My research is built entirely on years of research by other people, so your kind remarks belong to all of them.
What we need is time machine. With 19th century material we can catch a break with packaging and invoices. But the 18th century leaves us dependent upon probate and household inventory for the most part or, as in the case of the Spencer’s purchase of Cachart silver --buying it so prolifically that items of the set are marked “kitchen” so as to never venture near the gullets of the upstairs lot.
As an aside, and since you mentioned the Sovereign State of Canada I do have a small collection of 19th century silver manufactured in Montreal, initialed for a Vancouver Island resident and with a stipulation on one set that it was “Chinaman” meaning for use of the Chinese servants.
At the time there was a head tax on Chinese who had been brought over to Canada en masse to build the trans Canada rail and were not allowed to bring their wives.
I wonder, as China comes nearer and nearer to regaining the global hegemony it enjoyed before the industrial revolution, if similar restrictions will get placed of those of us working in China?
CRWW
1 Like
Hi friends.
I feel a bit silly in bringing this up, and am in wonderment that nobody gave any attention to the single dot-impression on the spoon, made by a journeyman as I suppose.
So, if one of those sponsors in question was known to have had such a journeyman’s mark on some of his spoons, and the others never, it would help a lot in deciding which of the three was the maker.
So, if my observation is valid, the question would be how frequently that mark has cropped up on the spoons of those makers? If, for instance, only Cachart is known to have made a spoon with such a journeyman’s mark, it would be a good pointer to the maker of the spoon in question.
But then, this notion is coming from a very small-time collector with very limited experience.
Regards
Jan
2 Likes
Some times it is possible to identify sponsor marks from tally marks, but there is no tallyman registry.
Elsewhere on this forum I was able to identify an obliterated Elizabeth Eaton mark by the Z tally next to a Channel Island over stamp.
But in this case someone is going to need to go through all the EC marks and pullout all the various tally marks.
Having completed that work you are not necessarily going to arrive at anything more conclusive than what we already have as marks vary not only from journeyman to journeyman but also from production period to production period.
In the case of Cachart the general information about him is fairly sparse probably because he is overshadowed by Coker.
However, while the project is time consuming and not necessarily conclusive of anything, whoever undertook is would earn great respect and who knows.
I would start by getting a list of all the apprentices to both men. This data is available from the guild’s library if you are in London. I would then try and determine how many journeymen were employed in the time period and then look though as much produced silver as was available and showed discernible marks.
I would anticipate the time budget might be somewhere between 30 and 50 hours. Expenses would be limited to fees payable to the guild if any and travel plus the services of any experts I might employ and the cost of acquisition of any other data not in the public domain.
The trick I suppose is to find a client I could bill all this too.I do not think the creation of a registry itself would be profitable as only the trade wold use it and the trade is remarkably budget-minded.
CRWW
2 Likes