Hi,
An article on Sir Edward Thomason, a Birmingham silversmith and inventor, has been contributed by forum co-admin Trevor Downes (dognose).
The article can be found onsite at ->
http://www.925-1000.com/a_Thomason.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Questions or comments are welcomed.
Regards, Tom
.
Sir Edward Thomason - Silversmith and Inventor
-
dragonflywink
- co-admin
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Birmingham Assay Office website identifies 3 maker's stamps registered by Edward Thomason:
1815 -a corner cut rectangle without a pellet.
1820 & 1821 -an oval with a central pellet.
Figure 9 of Trev's excellent article identifies Thomason in 1820-1 using a mark of a corner cut rectangle with a central pellet. It might of course be that the website transcription of the registered 1820 & 1821 marks has mistakenly identified an oval shape for a corner cut rectangle but I can't help wondering if Thomason, as well as apparently not registering a mark for wares assayed prior to 1815, changed the mark used in 1820-1 without registering that either!
Or perhaps another example of the prime records not confirming the events?
.
1815 -a corner cut rectangle without a pellet.
1820 & 1821 -an oval with a central pellet.
Figure 9 of Trev's excellent article identifies Thomason in 1820-1 using a mark of a corner cut rectangle with a central pellet. It might of course be that the website transcription of the registered 1820 & 1821 marks has mistakenly identified an oval shape for a corner cut rectangle but I can't help wondering if Thomason, as well as apparently not registering a mark for wares assayed prior to 1815, changed the mark used in 1820-1 without registering that either!
Or perhaps another example of the prime records not confirming the events?
.
Hi Mike,
The entering of the oval maker's marks in 1820 and 1821 does not necessarily mean that the original maker's mark was retired, it was perhaps only used, for say, flatware. The new oval marks could have been used on larger pieces, where larger marks may have been more suitable.
As to whether he was assaying silver prior to 1815, there are several possibilities, It could be that the person running his silversmithing department had entered a mark, or that he was using the services of 'Little Masters' who again could be using their own mark. Or of course it may just be that his information has been lost over the period of time.
Regards Trev.
.
The entering of the oval maker's marks in 1820 and 1821 does not necessarily mean that the original maker's mark was retired, it was perhaps only used, for say, flatware. The new oval marks could have been used on larger pieces, where larger marks may have been more suitable.
As to whether he was assaying silver prior to 1815, there are several possibilities, It could be that the person running his silversmithing department had entered a mark, or that he was using the services of 'Little Masters' who again could be using their own mark. Or of course it may just be that his information has been lost over the period of time.
Regards Trev.
.
Hi Mike,
On re-reading your post, I realise I missed your point regarding the pellet appearing on the 1820 maker's mark. The punches used for striking the maker's mark only had a limited life before the impression becomes soft and therefore they were replaced often. Unless they were exactly the same they should of course be reregistered, but in reality this often did not happen.
Regards Trev.
.
On re-reading your post, I realise I missed your point regarding the pellet appearing on the 1820 maker's mark. The punches used for striking the maker's mark only had a limited life before the impression becomes soft and therefore they were replaced often. Unless they were exactly the same they should of course be reregistered, but in reality this often did not happen.
Regards Trev.
.
Hello again Trev,
The possibility of Thomason's records being lost would be singularly unfortunate because Birmingham's website contains substantial detail of marks in a register for all of his main contempories from Willmore 1805 to Tongue 1846.
As you say Thomason should have registered the rectangle with a pellet. It isn't without significance he didn't because there were makers with the initials ET in the register either side of his dates, both chosing a rectangle with pellet.
Thomason's oval mark hasn't come my way. I wonder if any forum members have an example to show what he used it on?
Regards,
Mike
.
The possibility of Thomason's records being lost would be singularly unfortunate because Birmingham's website contains substantial detail of marks in a register for all of his main contempories from Willmore 1805 to Tongue 1846.
As you say Thomason should have registered the rectangle with a pellet. It isn't without significance he didn't because there were makers with the initials ET in the register either side of his dates, both chosing a rectangle with pellet.
Thomason's oval mark hasn't come my way. I wonder if any forum members have an example to show what he used it on?
Regards,
Mike
.
Hi Mike,
I just noted these marks which have attributed to 'E Thomason & Dowler' and used on Sheffield Plate and Close Plated wares.
Dowler, I know was a manufacturer of corkscrews and I thought he made them under licence from Thomason, but perhaps the output of this company stretched to other products.
Perhaps this partnership might hold the secret of the assay office registration.
Regards Trev.
.
I just noted these marks which have attributed to 'E Thomason & Dowler' and used on Sheffield Plate and Close Plated wares.
Dowler, I know was a manufacturer of corkscrews and I thought he made them under licence from Thomason, but perhaps the output of this company stretched to other products.
Perhaps this partnership might hold the secret of the assay office registration.
Regards Trev.
.
Hello again Trev,
For the record there's nothing on the Birmingham silver mark website for a maker's registration under Thomason (name in full), ET&D, T&D or even CP.
Having previously asked forum members if they have any evidence of the 1820 oval I wonder if they would also have a look for an example of an attribution of the rectangle to Thomason prior to 1815 so that we might yet get to the bottom of this?
Regards,
Mike
.
For the record there's nothing on the Birmingham silver mark website for a maker's registration under Thomason (name in full), ET&D, T&D or even CP.
Having previously asked forum members if they have any evidence of the 1820 oval I wonder if they would also have a look for an example of an attribution of the rectangle to Thomason prior to 1815 so that we might yet get to the bottom of this?
Regards,
Mike
.
The Thomason Medallic Bible
hi :-)
I am curator and i have a collection of The Thomason Medallic Bible but i dont know about "D" in back of the medals after the name of THOMASON thanks for ur replay and answer.
.
I am curator and i have a collection of The Thomason Medallic Bible but i dont know about "D" in back of the medals after the name of THOMASON thanks for ur replay and answer.
.
Hi,
Welcome to the Forum.
Thomasons' Medallic Bible was first issued in 1830. It had taken four artists three years to engrave the dies for this set of sixty medals. The picture that you have posted is of the first medal and is copied from the painting by Paul Veronese of Verona. This was followed by others copied from artists such as Rembrandt, Rubins, DaVinci, VanDyck, Michael Angelo, Raphael and others.
The medals, three inches in diameter, were entered for protection at Stationers' Hall on 29th July 1830 and the first set, in silver, was presented to King William IV.
I am not sure of the meaning of the 'D' after the name of Thomason, but suspect it may represent the name of the artist that engraved the die.
Do you have the full set? If so, do the others have the same letter, or does it differ? If there are four different letters, this could possibly confirm that.
Also how are they presented, is it in book form?
Regards Trev.
.
Welcome to the Forum.
Thomasons' Medallic Bible was first issued in 1830. It had taken four artists three years to engrave the dies for this set of sixty medals. The picture that you have posted is of the first medal and is copied from the painting by Paul Veronese of Verona. This was followed by others copied from artists such as Rembrandt, Rubins, DaVinci, VanDyck, Michael Angelo, Raphael and others.
The medals, three inches in diameter, were entered for protection at Stationers' Hall on 29th July 1830 and the first set, in silver, was presented to King William IV.
I am not sure of the meaning of the 'D' after the name of Thomason, but suspect it may represent the name of the artist that engraved the die.
Do you have the full set? If so, do the others have the same letter, or does it differ? If there are four different letters, this could possibly confirm that.
Also how are they presented, is it in book form?
Regards Trev.
.
hi :-)
thanks for ur comment.
we have 48 medals from 60 (with silver material) that probably gift from European leaders to Qajar kings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or bought, but in each of them i see "D" after the name THOMASON.
i work in golestan palace
http://www.golestanpalace.ir" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and these medals presented in Makhsos Museum (Part of Golestan Palace) but in this time Makhsos museum is closed :-(
regards
.
thanks for ur comment.
we have 48 medals from 60 (with silver material) that probably gift from European leaders to Qajar kings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or bought, but in each of them i see "D" after the name THOMASON.
i work in golestan palace
http://www.golestanpalace.ir" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and these medals presented in Makhsos Museum (Part of Golestan Palace) but in this time Makhsos museum is closed :-(
regards
.
Hi,
In western art, especially in collaborative works, there is a longstanding tradition of signatures being followed by a one to four letter Latin abbreviation such as; fec., del., sculp., des..
These abbreviations indicate the role that the preceding name played in the creative process. Although I don't believe Thomason would have had much personal involvement in the creative part of the medal's production, I suspect the "D" is one of these Latin abbreviations, possibly for designavit or designer.
Regards, Tom
.
In western art, especially in collaborative works, there is a longstanding tradition of signatures being followed by a one to four letter Latin abbreviation such as; fec., del., sculp., des..
These abbreviations indicate the role that the preceding name played in the creative process. Although I don't believe Thomason would have had much personal involvement in the creative part of the medal's production, I suspect the "D" is one of these Latin abbreviations, possibly for designavit or designer.
Regards, Tom
.
Thanksadmin wrote:Hi,
In western art, especially in collaborative works, there is a longstanding tradition of signatures being followed by a one to four letter Latin abbreviation such as; fec., del., sculp., des..
These abbreviations indicate the role that the preceding name played in the creative process. Although I don't believe Thomason would have had much personal involvement in the creative part of the medal's production, I suspect the "D" is one of these Latin abbreviations, possibly for designavit or designer.
Regards, Tom
Regards, Homayoun
Golestan Palace Museum
.
Hi,
Regarding the issue of Edward Thomason’s lack of registration at the Birmingham Assay Office prior to 1815.
The Act of 1773 that effectively started the role of an assay office in Birmingham was repealed in 1824 and a new Act passed. The new Act granted the Guardians further powers such as an extension to the previous twenty mile limit to thirty miles and the right to assay gold. The Act, very helpfully, lists the then current thirty six Guardians and reinforces the ruling of the 1773 Act, that ‘Provided always, that the number of Guardians is complete, there shall not at any time be more than nine nor less than six persons exercising the trades of goldsmith and silversmith, of either of those trades, members of the said company of Guardians’.
This list of the Guardians in 1824 is as follows:
The Earl of Warwick
James Alston*
William Charles Alston
Anderson Ashmore
William Anderton
Matthew Robinson Boulton*
Thomas Beilby*
William Blakeway
Dugdale Stafford Dugdale
Samuel Galton
Samuel Tertius Galton
William Hamper
Hyla Holden
Francis Hawley
Heneage Legge
Matthew Linwood*
John Lawrence
Robert Mitchell
Theodore Price
Thomas Pemberton*
William Phipson
James Pearson
Samuel Ryland
Westley Richards
John Rotton
George Simcox
Timothy Smith
Richard Spooner
Francis Sheppard
Joseph Taylor*
Edward Thomason*
William Villers
John Vale
William Wheelwright
Joseph Willmore*
James Woolley*
Those marked with an * were silversmiths who had entered their marks at the Birmingham Assay Office, and they represent the maximum allowance of nine silversmiths who could sit on the board of Guardians. It will be noted that many of the other surnames listed are the same as other families involved in the early silver industry in Birmingham, eg. Ryland, Phipson, Richards, Mitchell, Vale, Lawrence and Spooner, at least some of these Guardians must surely be representing family interests, but because of the ruling of the maximum of nine silversmiths allowed to sit on the board, the silversmiths in question were not allowed to. It would appear that competition to be a Guardian was very hot.
Could this be the reason that Edward Thomason did not enter his mark until 1815? Jackson has first mention of Thomason in connection with the assay office in the 1803- 1807 period, a date he possibly was appointed to the board of Guardians? If so, and if in the period 1807-1815 the nine places were already filled, then he could not enter his mark at the assay office until the ninth position became vacant, without losing his status as a Guardian, a position that would have been very important to him and his business.
If, presuming the above is correct, although I have no knowledge of the date of his appointment, then his output of silver prior to 1815 would have presumably been submitted for assay under another silversmiths name, and he would appear to all concerned to be the retailer only.
Trev.
.
Regarding the issue of Edward Thomason’s lack of registration at the Birmingham Assay Office prior to 1815.
The Act of 1773 that effectively started the role of an assay office in Birmingham was repealed in 1824 and a new Act passed. The new Act granted the Guardians further powers such as an extension to the previous twenty mile limit to thirty miles and the right to assay gold. The Act, very helpfully, lists the then current thirty six Guardians and reinforces the ruling of the 1773 Act, that ‘Provided always, that the number of Guardians is complete, there shall not at any time be more than nine nor less than six persons exercising the trades of goldsmith and silversmith, of either of those trades, members of the said company of Guardians’.
This list of the Guardians in 1824 is as follows:
The Earl of Warwick
James Alston*
William Charles Alston
Anderson Ashmore
William Anderton
Matthew Robinson Boulton*
Thomas Beilby*
William Blakeway
Dugdale Stafford Dugdale
Samuel Galton
Samuel Tertius Galton
William Hamper
Hyla Holden
Francis Hawley
Heneage Legge
Matthew Linwood*
John Lawrence
Robert Mitchell
Theodore Price
Thomas Pemberton*
William Phipson
James Pearson
Samuel Ryland
Westley Richards
John Rotton
George Simcox
Timothy Smith
Richard Spooner
Francis Sheppard
Joseph Taylor*
Edward Thomason*
William Villers
John Vale
William Wheelwright
Joseph Willmore*
James Woolley*
Those marked with an * were silversmiths who had entered their marks at the Birmingham Assay Office, and they represent the maximum allowance of nine silversmiths who could sit on the board of Guardians. It will be noted that many of the other surnames listed are the same as other families involved in the early silver industry in Birmingham, eg. Ryland, Phipson, Richards, Mitchell, Vale, Lawrence and Spooner, at least some of these Guardians must surely be representing family interests, but because of the ruling of the maximum of nine silversmiths allowed to sit on the board, the silversmiths in question were not allowed to. It would appear that competition to be a Guardian was very hot.
Could this be the reason that Edward Thomason did not enter his mark until 1815? Jackson has first mention of Thomason in connection with the assay office in the 1803- 1807 period, a date he possibly was appointed to the board of Guardians? If so, and if in the period 1807-1815 the nine places were already filled, then he could not enter his mark at the assay office until the ninth position became vacant, without losing his status as a Guardian, a position that would have been very important to him and his business.
If, presuming the above is correct, although I have no knowledge of the date of his appointment, then his output of silver prior to 1815 would have presumably been submitted for assay under another silversmiths name, and he would appear to all concerned to be the retailer only.
Trev.
.
Hi,
I thought I was onto a winner with the above post, but alas, no.
I consulted Dr. Sally Baggott, the Curator, at the Birmingham Assay Office, who I've always found very helpful on such matters and a mine of information, she replied "Edward Thomason became a Guardian of the Standard of Wrought Plate in Birmingham in 1820. His Guardianship ceased when he became a non-resident of Birmingham in 1836"
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Trev.
.
I thought I was onto a winner with the above post, but alas, no.
I consulted Dr. Sally Baggott, the Curator, at the Birmingham Assay Office, who I've always found very helpful on such matters and a mine of information, she replied "Edward Thomason became a Guardian of the Standard of Wrought Plate in Birmingham in 1820. His Guardianship ceased when he became a non-resident of Birmingham in 1836"
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Trev.
.
Hi,
It turns out that Dowler was a she, not a he.
This is the entry from Wrightson's New Triennial Directory of Birmingham By Robert Wrightson, published in 1818.
Mary Dowler and Son, manufacturers of plated knives, forks, spoons, nutcracks, skewers, &c. &c. on steel and iron, machine cork screws, brown plated, &c. on various principles, slide toasting forks, medals, &c. Great Charles-street.
Thomason held Patents on corkscrews and invented the sliding toast fork and appears to have made, at least most of the other items.
Trev.
.
It turns out that Dowler was a she, not a he.
This is the entry from Wrightson's New Triennial Directory of Birmingham By Robert Wrightson, published in 1818.
Mary Dowler and Son, manufacturers of plated knives, forks, spoons, nutcracks, skewers, &c. &c. on steel and iron, machine cork screws, brown plated, &c. on various principles, slide toasting forks, medals, &c. Great Charles-street.
Thomason held Patents on corkscrews and invented the sliding toast fork and appears to have made, at least most of the other items.
Trev.
.
Hi,
The Law Advertiser., Vol.2, No.11 of Thursday, 11th March, 1824 contains a section: Partnerships Dissolved. Under that heading is found:
THOMASON Edward, and Charles Jones, Birmingham, jewellers and silver workers..... 31 Dec. 1823.
Charles Jones had two marks entered at the Birmingham Assay Office, the first as:
Charles Jones. Silversmith of toy shop. Entered 6th October 1824.
Charles Jones. Silversmith & toy warehouse (Pantechnitheca). Entered 20th July 1828
As to what 'Pantechnitheca' is or was, I have no idea.
Trev.
.
The Law Advertiser., Vol.2, No.11 of Thursday, 11th March, 1824 contains a section: Partnerships Dissolved. Under that heading is found:
THOMASON Edward, and Charles Jones, Birmingham, jewellers and silver workers..... 31 Dec. 1823.
Charles Jones had two marks entered at the Birmingham Assay Office, the first as:
Charles Jones. Silversmith of toy shop. Entered 6th October 1824.
Charles Jones. Silversmith & toy warehouse (Pantechnitheca). Entered 20th July 1828
As to what 'Pantechnitheca' is or was, I have no idea.
Trev.
.
Hi Trev,
Pantechnitheca rang a bell as an old plater's address, try searching it with this spelling - "Pantechnetheca"
"Thomason's manufactory, in Church-street, has a splendid suite of show-rooms, containing fine specimens of gold, silver, and plated ware, medals, bronzes, &c. There are also show-rooms in Birmingham of improved japan and papier maché ware, a pin-manufactory, and a general repository, called Pantechnetheca, for the sale of articles from the various manufactories." - from The Saturday Magazine,Published by J. W. Parker, 1834
Sounds like an early department store or shopping mall.
Regards, Tom
.
Pantechnitheca rang a bell as an old plater's address, try searching it with this spelling - "Pantechnetheca"
"Thomason's manufactory, in Church-street, has a splendid suite of show-rooms, containing fine specimens of gold, silver, and plated ware, medals, bronzes, &c. There are also show-rooms in Birmingham of improved japan and papier maché ware, a pin-manufactory, and a general repository, called Pantechnetheca, for the sale of articles from the various manufactories." - from The Saturday Magazine,Published by J. W. Parker, 1834
Sounds like an early department store or shopping mall.
Regards, Tom
.
Hi Tom,
Many thanks for the information.
I found this reference in Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham.
Pantechnetheca:
A large place of general business, opened in 1824, at the New-street end of Union-passage. In 1817, there stood on this spot a publichouse, known as the "Old Crown," the entrance to which was in a large, open gateway at its side, through which a path led to the cherry orchard. The Pantechnetheca was one of "the sights" of the town, the exterior being ornamented with pillars and statues.
Regards Trev.
.
Many thanks for the information.
I found this reference in Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham.
Pantechnetheca:
A large place of general business, opened in 1824, at the New-street end of Union-passage. In 1817, there stood on this spot a publichouse, known as the "Old Crown," the entrance to which was in a large, open gateway at its side, through which a path led to the cherry orchard. The Pantechnetheca was one of "the sights" of the town, the exterior being ornamented with pillars and statues.
Regards Trev.
.