|
|
Bateman Bailey or Bayley ? l quite often see "Do not confuse this mark with Hester Bateman " or "Do not confuse this mark with Henry Bailey" Henry Baileys mark entered on the 14th June 1750 is very different from the mark of Hester Bateman  (fig1)
Henry Bailey is also entered in the trade directories of the time as "Henry Bailey, plateworker of Foster Lane London 1750-1760" Hester Bateman, entered her first mark 16th April 1761 (as a smallworker)  ( fig 2) and another slighty larger mark with closed loop to B 3rd December 1774
This mark entered 9th January 1771 (as a smallworker)  (fig 3) (note and another similar mark with closed loop to B 17th June 1774) This mark entered 5th June 1776 (as a smallworker)  (fig 4)
This mark entered 5th June 1776 (as a spoonmaker)  (fig5) note and others similar 25th November 1781 & 3rd August 1787 There was also a very small H B mark entered as a plateworker 28th June 1787 ( not script ) So how can anybody confuse a mark in script with another so different with a crown on top who was dead or not trading in 1761 ? lt has been suggested that in "Jacksons" book the item ascribed to Henry Bayley (note spelling) and dated 1759, that the date mark for 1759 has been often misread for the date mark of 1769 and maybe this has been the case here, and the mark shown may be an incorrect version of that of Hester Bateman. Also in "Jacksons" the mark for Henry Bailey (note spelling) is as (fig 1) for 1750 So below is the mark entered for Henry Bayley (note spelling) in "Jacksons" also this Mark is in "Grimwades" under "unregistered marks" and ascribed to Henry Bayley, both these books show this mark to be on " Candle Sticks" Here is that mark  (fig 6)
Another reason this mark could be Henry Bailey is because of the missing register of large workers marks 1758-1773, one thing l have noticed is that in the trade directory, he is a plateworker yet in the register of 1750 he is a largeworker, could he of entered this mark in 1759 ? the mark is so different then his first mark, the shape of the punch and the style of the letters, could this be a mark of a Silversmith who was indeed unregistered? Although "Grimwades" ascribe the mark to a Henry Bayley there is no biographical history of him. Also (unless you know different) there is a lack of Hester Bateman silver in the early years, it is thought that when she took over, she carried on as an outworker, to maintain her contacts in the trade and to provide an income as she had little capital and a large family. Her work which was of the finest quality and although it was stamped with her mark, more often then not it was overstamped as the smiths did not wish their clients to know they had passed the work out. This was carried out also on the Batemans silver in the later years as well. CONCLUSION l think that whoevers fig 6 mark is it has not been seen on a piece aftear 1759, therefore as Hester Batemans mark was not entered until 1761, and is not seen very much for that period, the two marks should not be easily confused especially if it is date marked. |
|