Late appearance of Bateman family hallmark

Good day friends. I have acquired a second Bateman family silver spoon for my collection. In the first picture you will see the older Peter & Ann Bateman spoon on the left, 1795, engraved H on finial. The spoon on the right is the new problematic one, 1818, with a maker’s mark very much indistinct, but in overall shape very similar to the one on the older spoon.

In the second picture you might agree that the bright cut engraving on the new spoon (left, with strange engraving MthOZ on the finial) is perhaps not so well executed. The little oval under the M seems not well centred. Now in the third picture you will note that on both spoons the leopard’s head mark is missing. It’s common knowledge that between 1790 and 1820, especially on small items, the mark was omitted.
Now the problem I see with the later spoon (assuming I have interpreted the C correctly as 1818) is that Ann entered a hallmark with her brother in law Peter (PB over AB) and worked until 1805. Peter retired in 1815. So the newer spoon’s maker’s mark cannot be PB over AB. Because in 1805, after the retirement of Ann, the new mark was registered as PB over WB. My question is whether I have enough justification to assume that the very indistinct marker’s mark in the second spoon is PB over WB? If it is justifiable, then how could it be that this spoon was made in 1818, if from 1815 to 1840 William Bateman registered his mark alone? There’s a strong possibility that I might be missing something here. I don’t have all that much experience. Any help, friends?
Regards, Jan

The confusion here is down to misreading one of the dates. 1795 is correct but the other date is C for 1798, not c for 1818. So there is no problem attributing both spoons to Peter & Ann Bateman.

Screenshot 2024-01-07 212526


Thank you very much for kindly setting me straight. I feel a bit embarrassed as I should have been more discerning when interpreting the year letter. Goes to show - that the learning process never ends. However, if the makers mark had not been so very nearly obliterated, the confusion might never have occurred. Which brings me to ask your kind opinion surrounding the reason why some of the PB over AB marks are so damaged. I have seen some others on the internet showing nearly as much damage. Do you attribute the condition of my spoon’s mark to over-zealous cleaning, or possibly to damaged, overused punches?

I have noticed that Bateman marks in particular often seem to have been lightly punched in the first place, certainly being less obvious than the accompanying hallmarks. 200 years of wear contributes to their marks being not as clear as we would necessarily like.


Thank you Phil. I am truly grateful for your very helpful advice!
Regards, Jan