THE TICKTUM COLLECTION

For us this has always been a major area of the collection, partly of course because of his connection with Norfolk but also because his was an astonishing story of success. The obvious question is why didn’t he go to Norwich to train, and here his livery maybe a clue “Broderer’s Company”. He and his apprentices appear to be the only Goldsmiths with that livery, which is a very odd one indeed.

Today with our penchant for travel to anywhere in the world almost at the drop of a hat we have little conception of the world of William Scarlett, when 20 miles was a long journey. Born in the wilds of Norfolk in a small market town East Dereham sometime after the restoration, unfortunately the records appear to be lost, around 1670-1675. His father a minor craftsman, a cooper, and nothing would suggest he had the wherewithal to be a Goldsmith.

Clearly some family or business connection with someone locally must have existed to sponsor him. I believe it was a local worthy almost certainly liveried to the Broderers, that got him his chance and why it was London not Norwich. Sometimes we should stop and consider what it must have been like, a boy of about twelve, packed off from a place like East Dereham over 100 miles away to a city like London. Possibly even never to see his family again, or to return home.

He would have arrived in London in the early 1680s, we are not sure who his master was, possibly Dorothy Grant or Simon Scott, the latter suggested by Grimwade, pages 652/3. The date of 27th April 1687 as his apprenticeship date is more likely to be a possible freedom date, given that spoons dated to the late 1680’s could exist, our earliest being a definite 1690.

It would appear that he married twice, but the first is so far unrecorded but given his son Richard was apprenticed to him 12.12.1710, he must have been born of the first marriage around 1697-98. The second was to a Mary Flaskett a widow at St Mary Woolnoth 29.5.1701, when he was living at St Leonard, Foster Lane.

Foster Lane was the centre for Goldsmiths particularly spoon makers as can be seen from their addresses when they registered. William Scarlett’s first official mark was in 1697 when the new register was opened for the Britannia period. A second Sterling mark was registered on 29.6.1720.

He probably died in 1728 or early 1729 as he was definitely dead by 7.5.1729 when his apprentice John Harwood became free of his son, Richard Scarlett, and reference is made to his widow, who clearly was still alive and one assumes was Mary Flaskett. Whether there were any other children is not known. He had risen greatly in the world by the time of his death for in 1726 he became Master of the Broderers Company and was probably still so when he died.

From the evidence of the spoons still available he was the major manufacturer of the very late 17th century into the 18th century. There appear to be more Scarlett Trefids, Wavy Ends and Early Hanoverians in existence particularly when you include his son and his apprentices than any other maker. It would seem unlikely that this doesn’t reflect the production at the time, and that more of his have survived than those of his contemporaries.

The surviving numbers are supplemented by the types and styles. Differentiation of use was a very new feature in late 17th century flatware, and teaspoons, dessert and basters are rare as Trefids, but Scarlett did make them before 1700 as he did later on when they had become much more common. As the Collection shows there were also Basters, Marrow Scoops, Condiment Spoons, but I have yet to see a sucket or a fork.

Regarding styles as one would expect all the types seem to have been made i.e. Trefids with single rattail, single ribs and double rib both with and without beading, Lace Backs, Flame Backs, standard Wavy Ends and Hanoverians plus the rather strange pair with the rattail stem.

I have deliberately left the issue of the pre 1697 mark until last, given the recent research and pronouncements. I am not sure what prompted other collectors to investigate this question but I have felt myself for sometime that all was not well with the ascription of the two marks both to William Scarlett, and that there must have been two different makers.

The fact that Scarlett reintroduced a new sterling mark of W over S was always conclusive proof to me that the earlier one of the same design must be his. Clearly the Collection doesn’t provide conclusive proof in a practical way to back the research that has been done. But it does seem more than a little coincidental that our three S over W examples are all plain Trefids all the same style with the latest at 1691, whilst our first Scarlett is 1690 which would tie in with the possible apprenticeship period. Add to that, when one can compare a significant number of spoons with the different marks as we can there are different style points between them as well.

In the details of the individual examples I have made a comment about the quality of Scarlett’s work around the turn of the century. Whether it’s just the examples I have seen or we have kept isn’t clear but there definitely seems to be a question mark. I suspect this might have been that as the business expanded rapidly with work being produced by journeymen and apprentices there was a marked lack of quality control. This lead to poor thin items being produced with a tendency to crack in the bottom of the bowl near the stem on both late Trefids and Wavy Ends, it does not appear on early Trefids or Hanoverians.

Finally back to the success side of the story a boy of twelve from a relatively poor background from an obscure small market town. He rises to run the largest spoon manufactory of the day and ultimately to be master of his Livery Company. He would appear to be comparable to any of today’s entrepreneurs currently so much in vogue.