WINTLE, George (Grimwade p.297)
Moderators: MCB, buckler, silverly
WINTLE, George (Grimwade p.297)
1790 April-November George son of James Wintle vintner admitted into the freedom of the City of London by patrimony.
Re: WINTLE, George (Grimwade p.297)
George Wintle was accused in 1812 of faking marks - the chronology of which is set out below
14 October 1812 - Entered at Goldsmiths Hall a change of address to 3, Bell Savage Yard
16 October 1812 - Officers from Goldsmiths Hall raid the Premises
19 October 1812 - James Wintle his son enters his first mark - as a spoonmaker at 3, Borough Fields, (this may be Southwark)
6 November 1812 - James Wintle records a move to 3, Bell Savage Yard
17 February 1813 - The trial - Not Guilty -see below
15 May 1813 George Wintle enters another mark at 3, Bell Savage Yard
5 June 1813 James Wintle records a move back to 3, Borough Fields,
8 August 1814 George Wintle moves to 3, Union Street, St Georges Field
1814 - 1823 -Further marks and moves of George Wintle are recorded in Grimwade
For a man who was supposed in semi - retirement in 1813 he was surprisingly active - unless the son was actually in charge
22 October 1812
Goldsmiths' Company records report
"The Prime Warden informed the committee that short time back a silver teaspoon, appearing to have been hallmarked was brought to the Hall to be examined on suspicion of the marks having been forged. That the Warden had taken pains to enquire into the circumstances and had had the spoons assayed in the meantime, which were reported standard. And that they had met with a Young Man who had formerly worked with Wintle from whom they had received some useful information. And then having been decidedly of the opinion the marks had been forged. They had desired the Solicitor of Stamps to attend them, which he had done and they then had put the matter into his hands, as the offence involved a Forgery of the Duty marks. That it appeared on talking to the Solicitor to the Stamps that they were at that very moment investigating the conduct of Wintle, but had not obtained any article with the forged stamps on it, and were therefore glad to receive the spoon in question from the Warden - That the Solicitor to the Stamps had since obtained a Warrant against Wintle and that he had been apprehended, and a great number of spoons and forks with forged marks had been found in his possession, and that he had been committed for trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions".
17 February 1813
The trial is quite extraordinary and there is considerable detail on http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.j ... #highlight.
The raid was obviously well planned and was on a very large scale.
The scale of the crime was vast and the verdict of Not Guilty very surprising. Georges defence was that for over three years he was mostly away from the premises in the country and relied on his son and servants to run the business. There seems to have been a cover up and a deal as his son ended up as Inspector for the Commissioner of Stamps.
As a buckle collector I encounter a large number of George Wintle's buckle. Many are often ascribed to Wirgman, but as the GW mark is seen on buckles with recognisable characteristics in decoration which continue after Wirgman's death, I am in no doubt as to the maker being Wintle . This is re-enforced by the position of the assay etc marks. Prior to the introduction of duty in late 1784 , shoe buckles were invariably marked with a Lion Passant Guardant and sponsors mark only, on the back of the buckle , almost always on the two shorter sides. After Dec 1784 they were marked by the Assay Office, and the sponsor on the bridge (the side cheeks through which the saddlepin runs) . Mr Wintle's buckles continued to be marked ( including the Duty mark ) in the old place on the back , probably indicating his ignorance of the changes !
14 October 1812 - Entered at Goldsmiths Hall a change of address to 3, Bell Savage Yard
16 October 1812 - Officers from Goldsmiths Hall raid the Premises
19 October 1812 - James Wintle his son enters his first mark - as a spoonmaker at 3, Borough Fields, (this may be Southwark)
6 November 1812 - James Wintle records a move to 3, Bell Savage Yard
17 February 1813 - The trial - Not Guilty -see below
15 May 1813 George Wintle enters another mark at 3, Bell Savage Yard
5 June 1813 James Wintle records a move back to 3, Borough Fields,
8 August 1814 George Wintle moves to 3, Union Street, St Georges Field
1814 - 1823 -Further marks and moves of George Wintle are recorded in Grimwade
For a man who was supposed in semi - retirement in 1813 he was surprisingly active - unless the son was actually in charge
22 October 1812
Goldsmiths' Company records report
"The Prime Warden informed the committee that short time back a silver teaspoon, appearing to have been hallmarked was brought to the Hall to be examined on suspicion of the marks having been forged. That the Warden had taken pains to enquire into the circumstances and had had the spoons assayed in the meantime, which were reported standard. And that they had met with a Young Man who had formerly worked with Wintle from whom they had received some useful information. And then having been decidedly of the opinion the marks had been forged. They had desired the Solicitor of Stamps to attend them, which he had done and they then had put the matter into his hands, as the offence involved a Forgery of the Duty marks. That it appeared on talking to the Solicitor to the Stamps that they were at that very moment investigating the conduct of Wintle, but had not obtained any article with the forged stamps on it, and were therefore glad to receive the spoon in question from the Warden - That the Solicitor to the Stamps had since obtained a Warrant against Wintle and that he had been apprehended, and a great number of spoons and forks with forged marks had been found in his possession, and that he had been committed for trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions".
17 February 1813
The trial is quite extraordinary and there is considerable detail on http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.j ... #highlight.
The raid was obviously well planned and was on a very large scale.
The scale of the crime was vast and the verdict of Not Guilty very surprising. Georges defence was that for over three years he was mostly away from the premises in the country and relied on his son and servants to run the business. There seems to have been a cover up and a deal as his son ended up as Inspector for the Commissioner of Stamps.
As a buckle collector I encounter a large number of George Wintle's buckle. Many are often ascribed to Wirgman, but as the GW mark is seen on buckles with recognisable characteristics in decoration which continue after Wirgman's death, I am in no doubt as to the maker being Wintle . This is re-enforced by the position of the assay etc marks. Prior to the introduction of duty in late 1784 , shoe buckles were invariably marked with a Lion Passant Guardant and sponsors mark only, on the back of the buckle , almost always on the two shorter sides. After Dec 1784 they were marked by the Assay Office, and the sponsor on the bridge (the side cheeks through which the saddlepin runs) . Mr Wintle's buckles continued to be marked ( including the Duty mark ) in the old place on the back , probably indicating his ignorance of the changes !
Re: WINTLE, George (Grimwade p.297)
Graham Hodges has kindly pointed out to me that the pre 1800 GW rectangular punches which I have attributed so confidently to George Wintle may well may not be by him, as no such punches were registered by him at Goldsmith's Hall. So my beautiful theory that the use of the pre 1785 positioning of assay, duty and makers marks on buckles in the 1785 - 1797 period were caused by Wintle's dubious activities is probably incorrect. Wonderful theory inconveniently upset by facts !
Unless of course he deliberately had the punches made in a totally different style, and failed to register them , so as to avoid any blame for the fake assay and duty marks.
I am currently seeking a sponsor for these GW marks and will look closely at the Goldsmiths' Hall registers for Mr A.N.Other when I am next there.
Failing a positive ID at GH , we may have to revert to the deliberately unregistered GW marks theory, but frankly it seems a bit far-fetched, although tempting !
Please watch this space . But it may take time !
Unless of course he deliberately had the punches made in a totally different style, and failed to register them , so as to avoid any blame for the fake assay and duty marks.
I am currently seeking a sponsor for these GW marks and will look closely at the Goldsmiths' Hall registers for Mr A.N.Other when I am next there.
Failing a positive ID at GH , we may have to revert to the deliberately unregistered GW marks theory, but frankly it seems a bit far-fetched, although tempting !
Please watch this space . But it may take time !
Re: WINTLE, George (Grimwade p.297)
28 August 1785 George Wintle Batchelor of the Parish of Saint Mary Lambeth and Eden Stringer Spinster of the same Parish marriage solemnized at Saint Mary Lambeth.