Apart from the process of covering baser metals with silver by fusion and preparing sheets of copper superimposed with silver by rolling, there was the earlier process always designated as French plating. As we have shown, the plating of baser metals was nothing new, but the Sheffield process was a new invention which had far-reaching results. About the year 1800 a great many small articles in common use were manufactured by a method known as close plating. Knives, snuffers, skewers, buckles, spurs and harness were subjected to this means of silver plating. A great many of these articles have the name of the maker stamped upon them. Fruit knives, table spoons and forks, fish knives, sugar tongs, and in fact all small articles which it was easier to make in this manner than manipulate from the silver plated sheet. Iron skewers were so plated with silver and It is to be observed, however, that the permanency of close plated articles cannot be compared with those produced under the rolling process. Whatever may be the reason there seems to be a weakness in the technique, for it is found that they are strongly affected by exposure to damp or extreme heat. The Buckle Makers.—It has been asserted that Boulsover made buckles; this is unlikely. The trade had mainly settled in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and there was an extensive trade carried on in London. The fashion of the A careless shoe string, in whose tie Silk laces with silver fringes and tags were in fashion on the eve of the Restoration, although the common folk confined themselves to leather laces. All through the eighteenth century the buckle was worn. Sometimes, happily for the buckle makers, the fashions grew so extravagant that the ladies wore such large square buckles either of silver or silver plated as almost to conceal their feet. Towards the end of the century fashion deserted the buckle makers and they were in a parlous state. It was natural that they termed the displacement "the most ridiculous of all ridiculous fashions the effeminate shoe string." Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton employed no less than twenty thousand workers in the buckle industry, and they could ill afford to be flouted by the fickle jade Fashion. In 1792 the buckle makers of the provinces determined to enlist the sympathies of the First Gentleman in Europe on their behalf. They were introduced to the Prince of Wales by Sheridan. They represented that although the interest of the button manufacture had enlisted parliamentary assistance they had no redress against the shoe The buckle makers' petition runs as follows: "We beg leave to observe, that when Fashion, instead of foreign or unprofitable ornaments, wears and consumes the manufactures of this country, she puts on a more engaging form, and becomes Patriotism. When Taste, at the same time and by the same means that she decorates the persons of the rich, clothes and fills the naked and hungry poor, she deserves a worthier appellation, and may be styled Humanity. We make no doubt but your Royal Highness will prefer the blessings of the starving manufacturer to the encomiums of the drawing-room. We know it is to no purpose to address Fashion herself; she is void of feeling, and deaf to argument; but, fortunately, she is subject to your control. She has been accustomed to listen to your voice, and obey your commands." The Prince of Wales, followed by the Duke of York, ordered the discontinuance of the use of shoe-strings by members of his household. The buckle makers of London and Westminster followed in the wake of their provincial brethren, by publishing an appeal to the public, complaining that, however mischievous the whim, however effeminate the appearance of shoe-strings, the After informing him that "honour, dignity, and birth are like the landscape when the luminary is behind a cloud, without the rays of beneficence tinging each distinction with its inherent brightness," they remind him that ribbon, leather, and whipcord threaten to ruin a staple manufacture doing an incredible trade abroad, and humbly pray his Royal Highness to discourage shoe German Silver and White Metals.—The early silver plating was on soft copper, but towards the end of the plating period, an alloy was made with brass in order to give the base a greater strength and possibly for reasons of economy. Later German silver was introduced as a base. It was hard. It was not altogether a success, possibly by reason of its greater cost. But it had the quality of forming a hard solid basis beneath the silver plate, and when the latter showed signs of wear the German silver, being of a light colour, did not come into undue prominence in betraying the wear and tear. There is also tutenag, an obscure metal, an alloy of antimony and zinc which was known to the Chinese, though not much has been written concerning this alloy and its employment in this country for articles of artistic excellence. But candlesticks and fenders have been made of pleasing appearance and having good wearing qualities. Then there is the Britannia metal The Factory System.—Looked at from all points of view the Sheffield plating industry betrayed the rise of the factory system, as did also the great Wedgwood and other Staffordshire firms. The factory system, by reason of its systemization, apportions set tasks to a chain of individuals, so that no one individual can be said to be an artist-craftsman in the same sense that he would have been in the old days. The old Italian masters compounded their own pigments and carved and gilded their own frames. Life was then more crystallized. The viciousness of the factory system was that it destroyed the personality of the craftsman. In latter days strong movements have been inaugurated to attempt to revive art industries where the artist craftsmen will not be obliterated under the name of a firm or a syndicate. The End of the Story.—It has been shown throughout this volume that old Sheffield plate by reason of its artistic excellence, should be treasured and loved. Its fashioning is most certainly a lost art. The old methods have disappeared for ever. It would be impossible to procure workmen nowadays with the fine instinct shown by those under the old rÉgime. APPENDIX I II I The following series of Hall Marks on Silver by the various Assay Offices are given as they fix the exact date when certain types of silver were made, and the maker's stamp with initials enables identification. It is only by comparison with original examples of dated silver that approximate dates can be ascertained of old Sheffield plate which set out to copy silver. Accordingly, the work of the following London makers should be studied with a view to establishing the original designers of many of the old Sheffield replicas. The following great masters came on the threshold of the Sheffield plate invention: Paul Crispin (1743); Paul Lamerie (1746); John Cafe (1749); Peter Taylor (Tea Caddies) (1747); Frederick Kandler (Inkstands) (1757); Thomas Whipham (1747); John Swift (Coffee Pots) (1749); Richard Rugg (1754); William Grundy (1757); Edward Wakelin (1753); Isaac Duke (Sauce Boats) (1743); Simon Jouet (1747); George Wickes (Candlesticks) (1750); Samuel Taylor (Caddies, Sugar Basins) (1756); Henry Herbert (1753). When the Sheffield industry was at its height the following London makers had established a reputation for various classes of designs which they had made their own. Sugar Basins (Fine pierced and festoon work): Benjamin Gignac (1761); J. Denizlow (1781); Henry Chawner (1792); L. Herne and F. Butty (1750); Daniel Smith and Robert Sharp (1769); S. Herbert & Co. (1767). Cream Jugs, Sauce Boats: Samuel Meriton (1761); Walter Brind (1763); Parker and Wakelin (1775); James Wilkes (1784); Peter and Anne Bateman (1791). Candelabra and Candlesticks: Robert Hennell (1777); Wakelyn and Taylor (1782); John Tayleur (1786); John Schofield (1786). Centrepieces: William Plummer (Adam Style, 1787). Tureens and Services: Dave Smith and Robert Sharp (1747); Thomas Heming (1772); William Pitts and Joseph Preedy (1793); Robert Sharp (Wine Coolers) (1803); Samuel Hennell (Wine Coolers) (1813); Paul Storr (1796-1820). Punch Ladles: Dorothy Mills (1771). Salt Cellars: Daniel Hennell (1758). Inkstands: Thomas Heming (1764). Toasted Cheese Dishes: Thomas Heming (1779). Tea Urns: Orlando Jackson (1771). Teapots and Coffee Pots: William Plummer (Teapots and Caddies) (1764); Frederick Knopfell (1765); Samuel Taylor (Caddies) (1770); W. Cripps (1762); Samuel Wood (1785); William Shaw (Caddies) (1788); Robert Garrard (1805); Philip Rundell (1819). LONDON 1779 1798 1826 EXETER 1748 The date letters of the various London alphabets are readily ascertainable. The differences in the shape of the shields are not great; the leopard lost his crown in 1821 and has been cat-like in appearance ever since. Exeter continued as an Assay Office till 1882, but York, which was not mentioned among the Assay Offices in 1773, recommenced about the beginning of the nineteenth century and continued till 1870. Its mark was a St. George's Cross and five diminutive Lions. Newcastle-upon-Tyne similarly discontinued assaying silver in 1884. Exeter.—The mark, as is shown, is a castle with three towers. The Date Letters were A-Y (1773-1796). The letter I was used for two years 1781 and 1782. A-U (1797-1816) in square shield and a-u (1817-1836) in square shield with four corners cut off. About 1775 the following silversmiths' marks are found on Exeter silver: Richard Jenkins, William Coffin, Richard Freeman, and Thomas Thorne (Plymouth), David Hawkins (Plymouth), William Harvey (Plymouth), Richard Bidlake (Plymouth). Chester.—The Town Mark formerly was three Demi-Lions with wheatsheaves on a shield. In 1775 it was changed to three Wheatsheaves with a dagger, which is still in use at the Chester Assay Office. In addition there is the Lion passant and the Leopard's head denoting sterling silver, as at London. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.—The complete Marks are the Lion passant, the Leopard's head, the Town or Hall mark of three Castles, the Date Letter, the Maker's Mark, and the Duty Mark of the sovereign's head used, as at all other offices, till 1890, when the duty on silver plate was abolished. Sheffield.—An Assay Office was established by Act of Parliament in 1773 (13 George III, Cap. 52), and Sheffield obtained the rights to hall mark silver. It is unfortunate that between 1773 and 1823 the date letters were taken at random. The difficulty of identifying silver plate between these two dates (an important period) is thereby increased by this irregular choice of the Guardians of the Wrought Silver Plate of Sheffield. It is as though they had designedly set conundrums for posterity which none of the other Assay Offices did with their regular series of date letters. But from 1824-1843 the alphabet denoting the date runs from a-z (the letters i, j, n, o, w and y being omitted), and from 1844-1867 the alphabet was A-Z (J and Q being omitted). The marks on the opposite page have been taken from specimens of silver plate hall-marked by the various provincial Assay Offices. The Chester silversmiths made a variety of excellent plate. There was Richard Richardson whose designs were in the Queen Anne style, and doubtless attracted the attention of Sheffield. In 1768 Bolton and Fothergill made a variety of articles, including some fine candlesticks, and other silversmiths about 1775 whose marks were stamped at Chester are: Geo. Walker, Jas. Dixon, Gimble and Vale (Birmingham), John Gimlet (Birmingham), Ralph Wakefield (Liverpool), Christian Thyme (Liverpool), and Ralph Fisher (Liverpool). The mark given of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Assay Office is from a Coffee Pot. Although of a slightly earlier period it exhibits the type of mark. Newcastle produced many tankards, teapots and coffee pots of plain character and simple form that Sheffield in the early days might have essayed to copy. The following names of the Newcastle makers may assist possessors of Sheffield plated ware to establish a parallel: Isaac Cookson (1752); Robert Makepeace (sauceboats) (1754); Langlands and Goodriche (1754); Langlands and Robertson (1794). At York in 1819 Robert Cottle and J. Barber were at work as silversmiths. A teapot of that date made by them exhibits fine design. Early after the passing of the Act in 1773 the Sheffield silversmiths distinguished themselves by producing fine candlesticks, and among the early makers' marks with the Sheffield hall mark of the Crown as the Town Mark of Sheffield, is that of Samuel Roberts & Co., and this is found together with the mark of the Lion passant and the Leopard's head. Another mark on candlesticks of silver (1791) is I. P. & Co. (J. Parsons & Co.). That Sheffield made silver plate before this is shown by the evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1773, alluded to on page 63. CHESTER 1775 Maker, Richard Richardson. 1800 NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE 1737 YORK 1800 SHEFFIELD 1778 The Birmingham Assay Office came into being in 1773 under the same Act as that governing Sheffield (13 George III, Cap. 52). The marks are an Anchor (the Town Mark), a Lion passant, Date Letter, Maker's initials, and the Duty Mark of the sovereign's head from 1776. Scottish marks come under another series of Acts and are a field to themselves. Besides Edinburgh and Glasgow marks the number of Scottish marks is legion (Sterling, Perth, Inverness, Dundee, Aberdeen, Banff, etc.). Edinburgh used the Standard mark of the Thistle after 1759 in place of the Lion passant found on English silver. The hall mark is a Castle with three towers. The alphabets of Date Letters A-Z and the Maker's initials have been regularly used since the fifteenth century. The Duty Mark of the sovereign's head was added in 1784. It was also formerly usual to add the Assay master's initials. Glasgow, in honour of her patron saint, St. Kentigern (known also as St. Mungo) has a hall mark of a Tree with a bird on uppermost branches, a Bell suspended and a Salmon transversely across the trunk. This fish has a ring in its mouth, the latter alluding to the miracle of the recovery of the last ring of Queen Caidyow. The Standard Mark is the Lion Rampant, used after 1819, and the Maker's Mark his initials. The Duty Mark of the sovereign's head was the same as at Edinburgh. Dublin marks have a figure of Hibernia, a Harp and Crown, together with Maker's Mark and the Date Letter. The Cork marks are varied. Sometimes there is a castle stamped twice and sometimes only the word STERLING and the Maker's initials or mark. Birmingham.—Among the makers of silver plate we find Matthew Boulton, who also made plated ware, with fine silver candlesticks with the hall mark and date letter for 1794. The date letters of the Birmingham alphabets run: A-Z Roman capitals (1773-1798); a-z small Roman (1798-1824); A=Z Old English capitals (1824-1849); etc. Edinburgh.—Among the well-known makers are Joseph Kerr (1790) and Patrick Robertson (1778). An example is given of the mark of the latter found on a Coffee Pot made in 1769. Dublin.—There are a number of makers with a reputation for fine designs. R. Calderwood (1760); George Beere (1760); J. Laughlin (1765); Stephen Walsh (1765); W. Townshend (1765); Will Hughes (1770); William Homer (1771); Darby Kehoe (1771); Capel Harrison (1771); Thomas Lilly (1772); Charles Townshend (1773); Thomas Jones (1775); Robert Williams (1776); John Nicklin (1780); Matthew Walsh (1780); William Law (1790); Matthew West (1791); Robert Breading (1802); and James le Bas (1819). The initials of these makers will be found on Irish silver of the period. Cork.—Here there were fine designs of an unusual character produced. Robert Goble, an early maker, had left a tradition. There was George Hodder (1745-1770) who made fine coffee pots and other articles. John Williams (1780) who produced sugar baskets finely pierced and chased in classic style, and there was Jonathan Buck, who was renowned for his magnificent repoussÉ and chased work in cream jugs and the like, who signed his pieces sometimes "J. Buck," in script, and sometimes stamped them with the mark of the buck. BIRMINGHAM 1804 EDINBURGH 1769 Maker, Patrick Robertson. GLASGOW 1824 DUBLIN c. 1770 Maker, Will Haynes. CORK c. 1764 Maker, Jonathan Buck. II The bell, the crossed arrows (three and four), the crossed keys, the pineapple, the orb, the hand, are all marks used by Sheffield makers. The following firms are well known:—Roberts, Cadman & Co., Goodman & Co., Parsons & Co., Wilkinson & Co., Williams & Co., Dixon and Sons, Holy & Co., Gainsford, Walker Knowles & Co., all of Sheffield. At Birmingham there was Matthew Boulton, and the Soho Co., Hardy and others. In London there were many firms settled in the Soho district. The cross keys, illustrated, is the mark of H. Wilkinson & Co. (formerly John Parsons & Co.), Sheffield, though during what period this was used is not determined. The Orb (that is, the ball and cross) was the trade mark of Walker Knowles & Co., Sheffield, but exactitude in regard to the period of its use is lacking. The open hand was the sign of Messrs. Watson, Sheffield, and the crossed arrows of Messrs. Fenton, Creswick & Co., Sheffield. The original firm Roberts, Cadman and Co., who commenced business in 1784, used the Bell as a mark. They also used, as is illustrated, R.C. & Co. and R.C. & Co. Patent. The latter mark is stamped on a candlestick made about 1797. In the same period Roberts, Cadman & Co. produced Coffee Pots with "Ivory Pine Knob" as advertised in their catalogues of that date. There were Tinder Boxes at 10s. 6d. each with extinguisher with chain and candlestick on top. The Tea Urns were priced at twelve guineas "circular or globular shaped." The Tea Caddies plated inside with silver edges were 45s. each, and some cups and cream ewers were "gilt inside." They made also at this date Lamp Holders to fit into candle sockets, and Taper Holders. The firm afterwards became Roberts, Smith & Co., then Smith, Sissons & Co., and were succeeded by W. & G. Sissons, who are still continuing the business and are silversmiths and electro-platers. The three crossed arrows mark is interesting. It is claimed to have been used by Messrs. Fenton, Creswick & Co., Sheffield. The mark illustrated with four crossed arrows is that of T. & J. Creswick (1811). With it is given another crossed arrow mark of two crossed arrows adopted by the Sheffield Assay Office to stamp on Foreign silver assayed at that office in 1904; before that only the letter F in an oval was used, but by 4 Edward VII, Cap. 6 all Assay Offices had to adopt a new style, and Sheffield selected the crossed arrows. In 1906 the mark was changed to the one illustrated, which is still used on foreign silver sent to Sheffield for assay and sale in this country. Mark of Roberts, Cadman & Co., Sheffield(1784). The firm became Roberts, Smith & Co., then Smith, Sissons & Co., and is now Messrs. W. & G. Sissons, who still use the mark. (See illustrations from R. C. & Co.'s Pattern Books, pp. 75, 183.) Marks of Roberts, Cadman & Co. Found on Candlesticks with silver edges. In 1824 Roberts of Sheffield took out a patent for a new method of applying silver edges to snuffer trays, cream jugs, sauce boats, &c. These are found stamped SILVER:EDGD. Mark of Thomas & James Creswick, Sheffield(1811). Marks on Foreign Silver Plate assayed at Sheffield. (1904.) (1906.) John Parsons & Co. used the Mark of the Crossed Keys from 1784. (See Illustrations from Pattern Books, pp. 141, 145, 151, 179, 191.) The Mark as above is that of H. Wilkinson & Co., their successors. Many fine examples of old Sheffield plate are unmarked. Where marks are found it is not always possible, except by inference, to determine at what particular date the makers stamped such marks, that is at what date the specimen was made. Obviously the style of decoration indicates approximately the period, as the Sheffield platers set out to offer ware as fashionable as silver. This is determinable by comparison with similar examples made by the silversmiths. But whereas silver plate was accurately dated when it bore the stamp of the annual date letter, wherever made, Sheffield plated ware cannot offer this exactitude. Marks when found are useful as indicating the initials of old firms who have manufactured plate from the earliest period and are still in business. But many of the marks were used over a long period and only by comparison with silver prototypes can dates be arrived at. It has been shown (p. 63) that in 1773 when Sheffield and Birmingham were made Assay towns that silver plate was being made there, contemporaneously with plated wares and presumably by the same firms. The evidence before the Parliamentary Committee in 1773 showed that Sheffield had her silver assayed in London, and that Birmingham had also some of her silver assayed in Chester. It therefore follows that many examples of silver plate bearing the London and Chester hall marks were made at Sheffield and at Birmingham—and in the period from the invention of plated ware at Sheffield by Boulsover till the year 1773. One of the weakest points in regard to marks on plated ware is undoubtedly the absence of real proof as to date. Similar marks are found covering a period too long for one maker's working lifetime. It follows that they represent firms; often accompanying these, though not always, are signs also found through a long period and on various classes of ware, which are stated to be workmen's marks. In old Worcester china signs not understood and standing apart from the factory mark of the crescent or the square Chinese mark are attributed to workmen. There identity ceases. It is the same, unfortunately, with old Sheffield plate. That the Sheffield platers did attempt to simulate the London marks on silver plate is only too true. In some examples with a row of marks, a very colourable imitation of the leopard's head is seen and the public might well be deceived. But after 1773 this practice became too dangerous. In fact the penalties were so severe that makers feared to mark plated goods until the 1784 Act laid down clearer rules. The mark consisting of four stamps about 1815 in date is interesting. The casque suggests a head, and the fleur-de-lys might, when worn, suggest the Sheffield crown on silver plate. The G has all the appearance of a date letter. Such marks have a somewhat sinister appearance, as they undoubtedly by their number and character were attempting to simulate the hall marks on silver plate. In regard to Foreign marks on silver plated ware that was produced in the method of old Sheffield, there are examples known to have been made in France and in Russia, and it is believed that they were also made in Holland and in Sweden. The promulgation of the old Pattern Books by Sheffield at the end of the eighteenth century doubtless had an influence on metal workers on the Continent, who were never slow in assimilating new processes, especially when they offered, as did Sheffield, a lessened cost of production and an appearance simulating something finer. The legal enactments relating to the marking of French plated ware are referred to on p. 209. The illustrations of marks found on French silver plated articles are interesting. The authorities were strict in regard to an exact definition in the mark to denote to the public the exact nature of the ware offered for sale. In contradistinction to the slovenliness of English marking this exhibits the logical and protective system devised under French laws. The articles had to be stamped DoublÉ (replica) or PlaquÉ (plated), and as is shown in the illustration in no illegible manner. There was no simulation of the French silver plate marks allowed, and the quantity of silver was duly stamped 10M or 20M, as the case might be. The maker, as will be seen, had his mark, but it took a subsidiary place. The public had to be protected first. In regard to Close Plating, which as a process came about the beginning of the nineteenth century, and was applied to smaller articles where the rolled sheets were not applicable, there are a number of marks found on forks and spoons, snuffers and skewers, on spurs and buckles, dessert knives and forks, and other articles of a like nature. Electro-plating was discovered about 1840, and a patent was taken out by George and Henry Elkington of Birmingham at that date. The electro-plated marks are imposing. In worn examples the row of five stamps is not decipherable. What they were originally it is not easy to say, but they have been designed to appear more important than they are. Mark of Matthew Boulton, Soho Plate Works, Birmingham. Sham Marks stamped on Sheffield Plated Ware to simulate the Hall Marks on Silver Plate. (Found on late Eighteenth-Century Hot Water Jug.) Imitation Marks stamped on Sheffield Plated Ware to simulate Hall Marks on Silver Plate. (Found on Salt Cellars in date about 1815.) Marks on French Silver Plated Ware, PlaquÉ or DoublÉ, clearly showing that it is Plated, and not Silver Plate. The upper mark (PlaquÉ) is on a Tureen about 1816. The lower mark (DoublÉ) is on the Coffee Pot illustrated (p. 211). A great number of marks appear on close plated articles. Horday & Co., S.G., E.S., S.J. and others. But their identity is not known. Nor is it very significant. An interesting mark, Sly. Dublin, is found on a skewer in the early period. Probably seventy-five per cent. of examples of old Sheffield plate are unmarked, though they exhibit fine craftsmanship which any maker might well have been proud to have stamped with his initials had the Act of 1773 been framed sufficiently clear to enable makers to venture stamping plated ware at all with safety. Anonymous, therefore, as most of the best Sheffield plate of the best period is, it bears on the face of it the hall mark of exquisite workmanship. Collectors of old Sheffield plate make a great mistake in constantly demanding that examples be marked. If this demand for marks on old Sheffield plate be insisted upon, the marks will accordingly be supplied. There is nothing to prevent stamps being made to represent some of the marks found on old Sheffield plate, and unmarked pieces will soon bear marks and straightway become more saleable. The public by incessant clamour drive those responsible for providing for its wants into devious paths. The dealer in old Sheffield plate has scores of fine unmarked examples and he is wishful to sell them as such. They are undoubtedly old and of fine quality. It should be the ideal of the collector to know the technique of his subject so well that the artistic beauty and the skilful craftsmanship of an example should make its appeal to his trained scrutiny irrespective as to whether there is any maker's mark on the piece or not. The seams on old pieces showing joins are a far better test of old workmanship as between old Sheffield plating and modern electro-plating. These seams are the hall marks of the makers a century and a century and a half ago. |