Who knows which silversmith used this mark (‘H.a’ - not sure about the ‘a’ ?)? The rest I think is London 1789.
Thanks in advance.
Greetings, Philip.
Take a photo of the entire item, as the signatures are not enough to identify it.
1 Like
Looks like Philip Roker III. P-pellet-R, and despite the rubbing, there’s a suggestion that the outlines of the punch were scalloped once upon a time.
I have looked for a maker’s mark of Philip Roker III
and it could be the same as:
Now I look at it, it could also be P-pellet-R-pellet
The youngest piece marked by Philip Roker III seems to date from 1774. His maker’s mark on a piece from 1789 therefore seems out of the question. Does anyone have any further suggestions?
Not really. Remember, the lookup tables indicate only the “dates seen,” not the only conceivable dates. In other words, the person putting together the information hasn’t seen any pieces by this maker from a later date. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
It’s also possible that Roker’s widow, Elizabeth, who was also a silversmith, continued to use his mark.
Last but not least, there isn’t another “PR” maker referenced in the literature until 1818, which really would be out of the question for this piece.
ETA: I did find one confused auctioneer who was offering a piece with a PR maker’s mark that he identified as being Philip Roker III, with a date letter that was unmistakably for 1820. That, I would call “fanciful.” 
1 Like
Thanks for this information, perhaps an eyeopener. Is it known when Philip Roker III died?
I’ve been hunting, but I can’t find that date. Important, in this case!
Yes, his time of death is indeed quite important . . 
Always tricky to tell the difference between a 1789 and an 1809 London date mark as the capital “O” and the small “o” each use the same shape of punch and each consume the same percentage of the mark.
The maker’s mark looks like a double sponsor with the bottom part worn and then “flash blinded out”.
So if that is correct, then it’s would be a Bateman family mark which is certainly consistent with the rolled rather than hammered silver on display.
You may recall the widow of the buckle maker, Hester, stuck with a lot of kids and not having a clue how to make buckles gave a shout out to the Boulton and Watt’s Soho mill guys on Hockley Brook, Birmingham and said “Please, Sirs roll me some silver flats and we’ll figure out what to do with it when we get it in our 2,700 sq. foot Bunhill Rd. shop”.
Matthew Boulton, being of a benign disposition and seeing a business op’ cut a deal with the Widow Bateman and the rest is history – actually her story.
So it’s either Peter and Jonathan or Peter and Ann. Most likely the latter.
But its not easy to tell anything from the photo which I admit looks a lot like an R instead of a B and looks like it has a pointelle in the middle of the two semi-visible letters but actually isn’t.
Try staring at the sponsor mark for about 20 secs and think about all the nice things B’s can do for you. And it might all sort itself out. I got honey, a boy’s band leader, Sting I once flew down to Argentina to hear and my long deceased grandfather/bee keeper wearing a cassock and brandishing a smoker surrounded by very non C of E bees.
It also resolves in your favour the presumption it is the earlier date letter.
CRWW
1 Like
Just checking in from a pretty warm Zakynthos between sessions at the pool and the beach…
A Bateman mark seems the most likely. 1789 is too early for the first Bateman partnership, Peter and Jonathan, so it’s 1809. That makes it Peter & William, PB over WB. I was a little troubled by the apparent pellet or pointelle but if Guildhall thinks it isn’t there that’s fine by me!
Phil
3 Likes
Georgian Silver Chamberstick by the Bateman Family | waxantiques
Even the type of item matches.
And btw - Phil, have a great
I must honestly admit that I have no knowledge of silver whatsoever, but I am currently in search of a silver blaker (I’m not sure what the English term for that is). I have a choice between a blaker from 1851 by a well-known Amsterdam silversmith, and this English one. Much is known about the Dutch blaker, but I also find this English one quite beautiful. That’s why I’d like to learn more about it—though I realize that may be quite a challenge.
Looking at the date letter, it could indeed be 1789, but 1809 is also very plausible; 1829 seems to have a slightly different depiction of the monarch (if you see what I mean). I agree with you that it appears to be a ‘double sponsor’ mark, of which only the upper part is still visible—and even that is quite worn. The lower part has been completely rubbed away. While browsing https://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk, I couldn’t find a ‘P R’ listed under double sponsors. Could it perhaps be ‘P B’ as the upper part of a double sponsor’s mark, especially considering how few double sponsors there actually are?
It was also suggested that this might be ‘rolled silver’, which apparently points more toward 1809 than 1789.
So, is it correct to conclude—based on your insights—that it is likely not ‘P R’, but rather ‘P B’ as the upper part of a double sponsor’s mark, combined with the rolled silver technique, and thus a probable dating to 1809, pointing toward Peter & Ann Bateman?
It seems that a blaker is a Chamberstick 
1 Like
1 Like
Indeed, that’s what I meant with blaker. 
I agree with the dissent!. Too many Batemans. I had dinner with another, this time a West coast artist, Robert who is totally brilliant. He asked me why I had always bought from his then alive and well competitor Fenwick Lansdowne. I replied, perhaps a little blithely, because he charged more. I had just parted with $50k for “The Snow Goose” and was feeling light headed.
“Good, that resolves who buys dinner”, came the rather fast retort, to which was added, " I can fix your problem easily". He did.
Now, Hester and her boys (and girls). Somebody was doing some very clever, very innovative design. They were the M&S of late 18th/19th century silversmiths rolling where traditionalists hammered and possibly more than anybody else then or since making silver a middle rather than an upper class bling thing.
The least important thing about Hester was her being female although that accounts for a decent percentage of her popularity this side of the pond. She was an extremely canny biz lady. And ruthlessly marshalled her offspring into co-ordinating this into a family effort many today marvel at still.
CRWW
2 Likes
Flattered as I am you would seek my humble opinion I am the wrong person to ask.
When I was about eight a small package arrived at my English boarding school since closed down for buggery – too much or too little I am not clear but Johnson went there too so draw your own conclusions.
It was from my stepfather, a peppery army officer who had spent much of his early life with the Chindits slaughtering Burmese and Japanese with a laudatory lack of discrimination on behalf of the English army.
It was a small round silver box – probably 18th century Dutch and very pretty.
It was the note that came with it that caused the bias.
“Hello Christopher. Hope school goes well (it wasn’t) Your Mother and I got married in Scotland and here is a small momento to remember the day.”
My father, another army officer in the same war had managed to die of injuries sustained in the surgeons tent of the same war the previous year and it appeared to my eight-year-old mind I had traded in my mum for a small Dutch box.
So while I fully understand the notion of a Dutch treat or going dutch I know absolutely nothing about what is I am sure very fine silver and cannot, I regret, help you at all.
I did recently learn of Dutch Elm disease and the Economist introduced me to the eponymous fiscal 'plaint ; the Dutch disease – meaning currency inflated by excess reliance upon oil. (Oh, that Canada should have such a problem before we become the 51st State).
Good luck with your quest.
CRWW
2 Likes