posted 03-02-2007 11:33 AM            

Wilmot is a problem. If you check wev's website, he lists two Samuel Wilmots, father and son, breaking up what had previously been considered one person who worked first in Connecticut and then South Carolina and Georgia, so conceivably it could have been either. The father worked in New Haven, CT, c.1798-1810, and died there in 1846. Either he or the son, or both, were in Georgetown, SC in 1824. Samuel Wilmot was still in Georgetown in 1835, then in partnership with a T. T. Wilmot in Charleston 1837-41. Samuel next appears in Savannah, GA, in 1850, where he then partnered as Wilmot & Richmond probably c. 1853-4 until 1856. In 1868 Samuel Wilmot of Bridgeport, CT, gave a deed of land in Savannah to Joseph M. Cooper. It is possible that the Samuel in SC was the father and the one in GA the son, or the son could have been in both places. Very confusing!

According to the sources, there's a mistaken history for B&S as well. The firm was not in Louisville, KY, as reported in some places, but in Cincinnati 1848-61; the Louisville Beggs was a different person, according to Boultinghouse. Beckman's Cincinnati book shows an impressive 1850 presentation teaset with the B&S mark accompanied by pseudohallmarks attributed by Hollis French to Francis W. Cooper, NYC, so we know they were buying wholesale from others.

Note also that John H. Woodward of G&W later worked with Francis W. Cooper, who is presumed to have made that B&S teaset, so there's a connection within the connection....

Now, to bring it together:
B&S, Cincinnati 1848-61
Wilmot, SC 1824-41 or GA 1850-54/6
G&W, Boston 1840 or NYC 1853-62

The piece is of the quality associated with G&W's production (they made a good deal of silver for sale through Tiffany's), and there's every reason to presume that the others were primarily retailers, so let's stick with G&W as the manufacturer. It could have gone G&W to B&S to Wilmot or G&W to Wilmot to B&S; the GA period for Wilmot overlaps fully with the period for B&S (1850-54ish), and also with G&W's NYC period for 1853-54, or could be from their earlier Boston phase.

The marks look to me like the Wilmot mark is struck over the B&S, and the fact that it is struck twice also suggests a sort of emphasis. On the other hand, the dates are suggestive -- not insistent, but suggestive -- that it was first Wilmot, then B&S. If the Wilmot firm's stock was liquidated in 1856 (the firm was assigned to a W. B. Gaulden, not recorded as a silversmith), it could have either gone back to NY or to a travelling jobber, either of which could have gotten it to Cincinnati. I think that most likely, since if B&S had it first one would have to account for it going back to the east either directly to Georgia of back through G&W, and it seems to me that most trade was moving more east to west than the reverse.

So my scenario, in a nutshell: made by G&W, possibly in their first year in NYC, and wholesaled to Wilmot in Savannah; liquidated from their inventory there in 1856, and thence to B&S in Cincinnati.

And yes, I clearly have too much time on my hands today; I'm laid up home with the flu....