Newcastle 1797, Mark of Sarah Crawford, widow of James. Appears to be over stamped and underneath is a mark with a T which (with the help of Phil’s site) I’m guessing is probably Thomas Watson of The Side in Newcastle. Assume he was helping out a widow as I guess she didn’t actually make anything as her mark only lasted until 1799. Does my guess seem right?
Also why did the Newcastle assay office for most of their existence also use a London mark? Spoon is 9 5 inches and 55 grams. Many thanks
If you can see a T (I can’t see it in your picture) then Thomas Watson seems a very good candidate. However I don’t think there is any element of “helping out”; although widows who took over their husbands’ businesses probably didn’t make anything themselves their workmen would have continued the manufacturing process.
The crowned leopard’s head, although used by London, was not mandated for London’s exclusive use; Chester and Exeter also used a crowned leopard’s head.
Ah ok, thank you Phil. So it seems the crowned leopard isn’t a London mark but a fineness mark and London doesn’t have a mark, but because there is no other mark for London it becomes by default the London mark. So I suppose after the lion passant became the sterling standard mark, some assay offices stuck with the crowned leopard out of tradition?
Yes. You will note that the use of the crowned leopard together with the three castles symbols were used together by the Newcastle assay office from 1721 onwards.
1721 marking the end of the Britannia standard requirement. showing compliance with both the local and national standard for .925 silver.
I have seen 1797-8 Newcastle silver with six assay marks when double duty, or one shilling per troy oz was briefly imposed and the king’s head was stamped twice.
So two town or assay marks, two kings head or duty marks, a date letter and a sterling silver indicating lion passant and then the maker’s or sponsor’s mark, seven marks altogether.
Presuming you are correct and there is an over stamped T W at least in this case we’re not asked to decide if it is Watson or Wheatley as Wheatley is clearly too late for the over stamp.
The usual explanation for the double duty, indeed the duty period on sterling silver for domestic use is the Napoleonic wars including the extension of those wars into North America where Britain lost the 13 colonies to the American revolutionary forces ironically over the uneven imposition of Stamp Duty.
CRWW
I just had a random thought; If your double sponsor-stamped item had also had two duty marks together with the four other marks it would have totalled eight marks on one item --possibly a record yet to be set for bureaucratic duplication.
Thank you for your as always interesting thoughts, though as a fellow Canadian, I’m surprised that you would think eight tines bureaucratic duplication would be any kind of a record.
Oui, eh bien, au Canada, cela aurait été 16 points pour tenir compte de nos amis du Bas-Canada
CRWW
I agree with Phil, the Watson over-stamp indicates something far from an act of charity in fact evidences a very pragmatic business decision purely commercial in nature.
I depart from him on the idea that silversmith widows carried on the business for the sake of the tallymen now in their employ, although that may have been part of the initial decision-making process.
Before the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s put men in factories and made them primary wage earner of the family, women had more latitude in their mode of earning a living — and gaining fame.
But even then, the most successful women were often widows who carried on the family business rather than women who began a thriving business for themselves. However, regardless of the name on the door, during the 18th century most small businesses were actually “mom and pop” ventures, so when a woman was widowed, she was highly trained and was, in many cases, the brains or the talent of the enterprise.
"The same was true for female silversmiths. Notable and talented women such as Hester Bateman, Rebecca Eames, Louisa Courtauld and Jane Williams continued the businesses their husbands began, in many cases far exceeding their partner’s fame and success. Unfortunately, even today, the accomplishments of these extraordinary women have taken a back seat to those of the men in their lives.
"Hester Bateman was a model product of these times. The combination of her dominant personality and talent for business as well as a gift for emphasizing the simplistic, elegant forms of her craft, made her one of the most famed of the Georgian silversmiths.
"It is believed that it was her older brother John who introduced her to her husband John Bateman (1704-1760). Despite poor finances, he and Hester married at The Fleet, where many legal yet hasty marriages were contrived for the price of a dram (1/16 of an ounce) of gin or a roll of tobacco by priests imprisoned for debt. They were later married in a church ceremony at the Church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate in 1732.
"As her skill as a silversmith and designer emerged, and grew, so did her family. John and Hester moved their growing family to 107 Bunhill Row in the county of Middlesex where they devoted an entire work area to the family business. After enjoying much prosperity, John died of tuberculosis in 1760. In his will, he bequeathed to Hester the tools of his trade and the entire business- opening the doors for a new era for the House of Bateman.
"Hester registered her first of nine punch-marks with the Goldsmith’s Hall in 1761. From 1761 to 1774, there exist few examples of Bateman silver because almost all of the output of the Bateman workshop was commissioned by other silversmiths who recognized her talent and skill, which in many cases equaled and often surpassed their own. She often placed her punch maker’s mark on many of these pieces. Concerned for their own reputations, other smiths would over-stamp her punch maker’s mark with their own— a practice that continued even after Hester had established herself as a master smith.
“The Bateman legacy still lives on in the collections of antique collectors, enthusiasts and museums that display her remarkable work. Hester’s exquisite pieces continue to awe even the most avid collector. Her attention to detail, simplicity of form, and timeless taste make Hester Bateman truly the Queen of the Georgian Silversmiths.”(1)
C’est vraie, malheureusement
So Sarah Crawford would have done the reverse of this; over stamping the work she had commissioned from Thomas Watson. He seems to have been one of the main producers in Newcastle.
There was a period in Ms Bateman’s business development where she was commissioned to work for third parties. As her Bunhill shop gained recognition this ceased to be the case.
Ms Crawford continued her husband’s practice following his death. He had a brother David whose practice may following David’s death have been continued. The records we so far have access to are inconclusive on the matter.
What we do know from pieces on offer currently fashioned by both of the Crawford brothers are, according to sellers, of very high quality.
Watson was indeed a prolific producer although exactly how prolific is also difficult to tell because of the conflict in time working between him and Wheatley whose mark is virtually the same.
So far this is the only over stamp by Crawford on offer. Certainly there may be more, indeed it is unlikely there isn’t, but comment on that by you or me would be speculative at this point.
Even more difficult to speculate on is her financial position personally at the time of the death of her husband. Probate Court records might help and if this interests you you might want to commission a search for same.
None of this either adds or subtracts much from the central proposition that silversmith widows were often partner in the business prior to the demise of their spouse and continued the business post spousal mortem, in some cases, extremely profitably.
Philippa Glanville, a noted expert in silver history and a former curator of metalwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London co-authored the book “Women Silversmiths, 1685–1845: Works from the Collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts” with Jennifer Faulds Goldsborough dealing specifically with their success and importance.
CRWW
I will have to try to find that book, thank you. It’s very interesting the challenges facing a widow in the days before the full industrialization of silver making. Though I would guess, given an average life span of around 40 years in 1750 (which even taking out infant mortality would still make it less than 50), the idea of a succession plan must have always been on the mind.
It’s an interesting spoon; light gauge silver but longer that most of my tablespoons and with a very long and broad bowl, so maybe intended more as a serving spoon. And to be clear, my spoon isn’t on offer. I bought it recently and it’s mine and I have no desire to sell it. I also wouldn’t post pics of something I don’t own without declaring it. Also it has no monogram/family crest. The received wisdom on this is that it must have been removed at some point, but I would think there were some that weren’t monogrammed.
Thanks Bart, I did see that on my research and it has the double duty mark referenced by Guildhall so a great piece of information.
U welcome, Paul! 
James Crawford: “Seen with maker’s mark, lion passant and duty mark (or double duty mark for 1797) only. May be James Crawford, but none of his documented marks have a pellet between the initials and he died in 1795”
David Crawford : “Trading as a goldsmith, jeweller and watch-maker from 1768 until 1784”
David Crawford shown as a smelter in the1801 City Directory:
“It is believed that James & David Crawford were brothers. James Crawford registered his first mark on 5th August 1763 and was assaying work until 20th March 1795. He died in May 1795.”
CRWW
That Newcastle directory is fascinating. So David gave up making silver gear and switched to melting it? And not sure why I found it so amusing that there was only one smelter but two hair dressers!
Thank you for reading my comments. The Crawford family emerged from agricultural to urban and then urban capitalist in three generations. Sarah’s experience as the wife of the first generation was probably she was cushioned by family money and her fairly short-lived stint as head of a silver production effort may reflect that.
Your very interesting post caused me to return to notes I had started making five years ago about distaff silversmiths, their successes and failures and whether the laws of the United Kingdom assisted or hindered their efforts.
I wondered, prompted by my own family connections tracing back to David and Anne Tanqueray, if the experience of English Huguenoet smiths differed from those remaining in France and again those heading over to the Americas. What I found was fascinating. The level of female success in all three countries was little affected by the restrictions placed upon them – in Britain’s case the forceable removal of all property upon marriage to a man-- and determined instead by the drive and luck of the women themselves.
Along the way I found just as the great Bateman silver family had been founded by Hester, so in colonial America Paul Revere was not the first in his family to beat silver. His mum was a respected smith practicing in her own right.
Similarly in France, those who had managed to survive the purges of the Catholic king and who carried on their protestant faith quietly, saw success through matriachal governance.
This wasn’t just that women became controlling partners upon the death of their spouse, but they were always active partners in the business and when the husband died they didn’t step into management they continued it seamlessly.
Today with women heading up multi-national soda drinks companies and automakers we think female corporate leadership is an emerging norm and my generation has ceased to be surprised when our daughters out-earn our sons, but to find the roots of that in the metal trades of post-renaissance Europe was novel and I would suspect this is just the beginning.
Organizing business, whether its a local workshop. or a multi-national drinks company takes political skill and economic knowhow, frankly the sort of skills that are bred-in-the-bone for wives and mothers and that competitive males sometimes fail to ever acquire. In recognition of work I had done for indigenous Canadian families in the courts I am an honorary member of one tribe in BC. Years later one of my daughters was given a blanket by the same nation in recognition of work she had done to develop park land cooperatively.
Tribal blankets are recognition for effort and the elders were at pains to explain the nation was governed by and property ascended by the female line and my daughter now outranked me.
“So nothing’s changed”, I noted
CRWW
Thanks again, Mr Wilson, fascinating field of study for sure. And I would add, I don’t need a blanket to remind me of of my lowly ranking from the distaff members of my tribe!
Here is a better photo. It still looks like a T and the round cartouche underneath is visible and very much like Thomas Watson’s.
I’ll throw in my two cents on this fascinating male-female thread. My own experience allows me to venture the statement that men earn and care for money, while women enjoy counting it and spending it with wild relish. I should emphasize that I’m neither a misogynist nor an anti-feminist. However, equality (as idiotic as it gets) ends when you have to carry a wardrobe up the eighth floor…
