posted 07-22-2006 09:59 PM            

This spoon carries in its bowl six generations of a family history, descending directly from the marriage of Sarah Hicks and Gideon Howland in 1753 to that of Gladys Almy Howland Pell and H. Pendleton Rogers in 1913.

The intermediate generations were John H. Howland and Sarah Rodman Hazzard m. 1803, Mary Rodman Howland and Morris S. Pell m. 1830, William Howland Pell and Adelaide Ferris in 1852, and Howland Pell and Almy Goelet Gallatin in 1887 (names to match initials provided by wev).

The engraving in the bowl, although in period script, appears to have been done after 1913, so it would appear that the attribution of the spoon's first ownership to Sarah Hicks would have been based on the initials S+H engraved on the back of the spoon.

However, the initials are in script, rather than in the block letters used the 1750's, so it is possible that the spoon actually was originally the property of Sarah Hazzard, who married into the family in 1803 at the age of 22. Being born in 1781, when a spoon of this style might still have been made, and when script initials had already been introduced, she might have been given the spoon as a birth gift.

Most early Hanoverian spoons have a full midrib, rather than the short midrib that is on the handle of this spoon; tapered bowls usually are later, too. That said, I have a spoon that similarly flies in the face of conventional wisdom with a short midrib and wider, but still tapering bowl, by Peter David, who died in 1755, but it at least has a block letter inscription . . .

The mark on the spoon would be either that of William Homes, Sr. (1716-1785), or that of William Homes, Jr. (1742-1825).

Kane attributes seven initial marks to Sr., and 12 to Jr., several of which may have been used by both. Had the spoon belonged to Sarah Hicks, it only could have been made by William, Sr., but if it belonged to Sarah Hazzard, it could have been made by either father or son, but most likely by the latter. The mark does not precisely match any of the photographs in Kane, but is almost certainly one of theirs (the family was resident in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, during this period, and the Homes worked in Boston).

So, while most of the evidence could be considered by some to be inconclusive, I would think the script initials would swing the attribution of ownership towards the second Sarah.

posted 07-23-2006 07:52 AM            

Of course I suppose it's also possible that a family member in the early 20th century bought an 18th-century spoon as an antique that happened to have an ancestor's initials, and added the sequence to bolster its pedigree. Such has been known to happen....

To my eye the mark could just possibly match Kane's mark J or L, which in turn (from the photographs) could possibly be the same punch in different states of wear--and those are both attributed by Kane to Homes the son. Certainly the similarities there are closer than to the first nine marks, which she lists for both father and son because they appear to have both used them.

(I find it interesting that there are six marks she can attribute specifically to the son, but none attributed solely to the father; I'd've expected there would be some found only on early pieces, but Kane is specific that they both seem to have used those first nine marks (although she does say that the son seems to have used marks B and I more than the father). Note that for some reason the number of marks illustrated in my copy of Kane (1998, Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers) are different from what you cite: 9 for the father (pp559-60), the same 9, then 6 additional, for the son (pp553-555), for 15 total.)

posted 07-23-2006 11:32 AM            

quote:

---

Note that for some reason the number of marks illustrated in my copy of Kane (1998, Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers) are different from what you cite: 9 for the father (pp559-60), the same 9, then 6 additional, for the son (pp553-555), for 15 total.)

---

Thanks for your comments, FWG, but note I specified only initial marks; if you subtract the full name marks, our totals would be the same.

The punch on this spoon has been somewhat "dogboned," to use Fredz's terminology, which makes it difficult to match using only photographs.

Your added scenario is certainly a possibility to be considered, but there is of course no way to know. I should add for completeness that there is no evidence on any prior removal of initials, although you did not intimate that, so these initials are undoubtedly original.

posted 07-23-2006 05:27 PM            

Anyway,aside from the family history, I'd go with Hookey as the likely maker.

posted 07-23-2006 07:38 PM            

In the 19th Century it was not unusual for the same device, such as this stylized fleur-de-lys, to appear as one maker's trademark on articles marked by more than one retailer, but it was less so in the 18th C. Perhaps wev can tell us if his extensive chart shows any connections between the Hamlin/Hookey/Homes families that might indicate a commonality in the use of that mark.

Pictures, please, Brent!

N.B. After checking on a map, I find that Dartmouth is much closer to Newport, RI, where Hookey worked, than Boston, where the Homes were, so while the Hazard connection may still be possible, it is not needed to explain the presence of a Hoookey spoon in Dartmouth.

posted 07-23-2006 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by argentum1:
I know punches wear out and new ones are made to replace the old one. How many strikes is a punch good for?

---

Good question. Some makers had only a few used over a long time, and others had many. Part of the answer may depend on the material out of which the punch was made, as well as how much use it was subject to. In the colonies the British embargoed many materials so as to keep control of the market. One of these was steel, so that many makers used softer iron, which wore out more quickly. Some die makers, however, were able to make punches out of steel reclaimed from sword blades, which were one of the few steel items allowed to be imported, so those makers fortunate to obtain steel punches would have had longer use of fewer punches.

posted 07-24-2006 01:14 PM            

Here are some pictures of my spoon. It is a tablespoon, 8 3/16" long, and appears to be very similar to yours in shape. The drop is long, with a strange v-shaped slash at the tip and tiny flares nearer the handle. It has what seems to be the same mark as yours, with the device repeated on the left, albeit only partially struck. The monogram is typical block initials with a rosette between.

How does this compare to Sarah's spoon?

Brent

posted 07-24-2006 06:10 PM            

The decoration is an uncommon imitation of the stepped drop with raised triangular tip that is usually found on Hanoverian spoons at an earlier date (the "double, molded" drop in Belden's illustrated glossary).

posted 07-24-2006 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

If there were a relationship between this Rhode Island Hazard family and Sarah Hazzard

---

posted 03-12-2007 08:12 PM            

There is an odd device below the initials on the handle - any ideas about what it represents?