posted 09-01-2008 12:32 PM            

Anyone researching, dealing in, or collecting English Silver of the Georgian period needs this book - which was out of print until recently.

posted 12-12-2008 05:58 AM            

The current edition is the third, revised in 1990 .It seems unlikely to be further revised as Arthur Grimwade is dead – this book is his lasting monument. It is the best by far on London makers.

It is very important to read and understand the Introduction, especially the sections “The Registers” and “The Lives” to discover the natural limits of the information provided.

Virtually all the data on the lesser silversmiths (which includes bucklemakers) comes from the Registers of Goldsmiths Hall. Two of these registers are missing, the small workers marks of the 1739 to 1758 period, and the largeworkers of the 1758 to 1773 period. Although Grimwade was able to provide much information on the missing marks of the largeworkers, he was not able to do a great deal for the records of the smallworkers. Thus very little exists on smallworker marks registered in 1739 – 1758. It must also be remembered that a man whose mark was entered in say 1754 may never have entered any later marks, although he could still be working well into the 1760’s or early 1770’s. Another complication is that often silversmiths registered marks in both the smallworkers and the largeworkers books – often seemingly at random ! So we could have marks missing of silversmiths from 1739 –1773 in some cases.

So the missing data may well span many decades .

What is absolutely vital to remember is that when Grimwade says of a silversmith “First mark entered 1763 “ what he really means is “First mark in the surviving registers 1763” If the apprenticeship details are given , you can often make a judgement on the probable date of birth and hence working life, but often they are not available.

Many smallworkers almost certainly had their first marks in the lost 1739 –1758 register. So the smith above as “first mark entered 1763” may have had several previous marks in the lost 1739- 1756 register and be quite an old man in 1763.

Often the minor smiths only registered one punch, which either never wore out, or they never felt the need to register any new ones. Usually we often find a new punch being registered on change of address – but it may have been in use, unregistered, for some time before the move. The early smallworkers, especially bucklemakers, were very much the lower end of the silver world and I suspect were not keen on bureaucracy. I believe and have evidence that many marks were never submitted to Goldsmiths Hall. If a man's workmen were known to the Assay Office from regular visits, the staff would be very unlikely to check the mark on the items they brought for assay - despite Goldsmiths Hall claims to the contrary. Human nature does mot change.

Grimwade separates the marks registered by smiths as “bucklemaker” and some other minor categories in between 1773 and 1820 into separate sections, without illustration but gives no details in the main body of the biographies if they had only entered marks in the main categories. However the same smith may have other marks in earlier or later periods which are covered in the main body of the book., He may also have other marks entered as largeworker, smallworker, spoonmaker etc. It must be also remembered that Grimwade was perhaps not overcareful with the minor categories, especially the bucklemaker section as he did not consider it of great interest at the time. There is also the story of his cat.

He also had no easy access to probate details of silversmiths which provide some additional names and more details dates of deaths and relationships. Currently these are available on line at the PRO or as a WORD document register available free from myself (all faults included). For example an examination of the will of Samuel Cooke, silversmith, whose will, proved 1st February 1764, indicates the probable maker of SC marked buckles in the 1750 – 1764 period for whom Grimwade has no record. It also shows Elizabeth Cooke (Grimwade 552 & 3538) to be his widow. Grimade’s perfectly reasonable statement that Elizabeth Cooke “MAY have been the widow of Thomas Cooke II” has been used by at least one author to give her as the definite widow of Thomas – whose will, proven 16th December 1761, reveals totally different relationships. One being a very close friendship with his housekeeper.

These notes are not intended as a criticism of what is a truly great book.

It has very few errors, and few omissions.

But it’s limitations should be kept always in mind.

posted 12-12-2008 02:50 PM            

The English Georgian silver dealers and collectors come, in my experience, in two grades, those that identify silver from Jackson's only and those that use Grimwade.

Those that use Jackson have a nice easy time - very seldom difficult to find a mark that roughly matches, but they are thus often very wrong!

posted 12-13-2008 02:11 PM            

Although often very obscure, most can be traced with either the A-Z of Regency London (not recommended as you need a magnifying glass and three aspirins) or the MOTCO CD.

For example, John Turner gave his address as

"near the Nags Head, Hackney Road".

posted 12-16-2008 11:35 AM            

Quite typical. There is an interesting Old Bailey case in May 1799.(t17990508- 49)

LAVE COLEY - I am a silversmith;
Q. Where do you live? -
A. No. 3, Northampton-row
Q. Are you in business for yourself? -
A. Yes; I work for shops.
Q. What shop? -
A. Any shop that will buy my work.
I sold some articles to my cousin, Mr. Coley, a silversmith, in Fetter-lane, about a fortnight ago.
Q. What particular articles do you work? -
A. In the small knee-buckle line; I have sold him dozens upon dozens.
Q. And he is the only person that you can recollect? -
A. I sell him a great many.
Q. Any body else? -
A. I sell to pawnbrokers and silversmiths shops promiscuously.