Examination of the Hunter Family Silver Beaker
Ca. 1798-99, Bourbon County, Kentucky
Woodford County, Kentucky
By Gary Dean Gardner, Independent Scholar
Generally speaking, the study and evaluation of Kentucky-made silver is ultimately more advantageous to the scholars of decorative arts than that of others areas of specialty due to the probable existence of silversmiths’ hallmarks. While not always present, most Southern smiths of the late Colonial to early Federal Period continued the British practice of utilizing identifying marks not only to exemplify pride in their work, but to better identify their wares and even warranty the quality of their cumulative output. This system, while moderated in America but for a few cities from a complex organizational structure of symbols encompassing maker, date, location and purity down to a minimal designation of the artisan alone, still sufficed in the early days of the United States to offer a fundamental mode of identification. This was especially true when it is understood that these marks worked in conjunction with the engraved initials of the patron to act as a duel method of documentation to thwart theft and offer a modicum of security in an era of history when the silversmith assumed the role of the modern banker, exchanging and transferring precious metals into various forms of tendered exchangeable wealth. Coinage of sundry origins, once melted and crafted into a utilitarian object, still represented the same intrinsic value of the bullion, and could upon demand be easily melted into ingot form and once again take on the role of currency.
Sometimes, however, silver marks can be dismaying to identify, even deceiving due to lack of data or unintentional misinformation perpetuated within the scholarly community. In such cases, the particular object of study requires a thorough determination of provenance to support new conclusions, or even to dispute earlier attributions made in error. In the realm of early American silver, a forensic approach may even be required to fully and adequately refute old attributions in light of new research. Such is the case with the Hunter family beaker, in which form alone fails to distinguish a variant makers’ mark from association with that of another craftsman.
A late 18th century coin silver beaker or julep cup originating in Paris, Kentucky.
Approx. 3 1/2” H x 3 1/8”; 110 gm.
The cup in question, likely better known in the time of its creation as a beaker rather than the term of “julep” we find more common today, surfaced in early 2015 as part of the vestigial remainder of a Florida estate having been greatly diminished from a much larger family accumulation of Kentucky origin. Of clearly very early form and construction, and in keeping with a supposed date of creation ca. 1798, it survived along with a scant few other examples of Kentucky coin silver dating to a later time period of several decades difference. The cup is enhanced with bright-cut decoration in the form of a shield, within which is found the initials WSH standing for its first, or at least an early, owner. Once again, the decoration and script are reflective of late 18th century style. Enough information was gathered from the estate liquidator to confirm original ownership by the very early and prominent Hunter family of the Bluegrass Region of central Kentucky.
Research supported this oral association, indicating early (likely original) ownership by one William Stewart Hunter, primarily of Woodford County, County. The subject was born June 11, 1780 to William and Mary Stewart Hunter of Versailles, they having arrived in Central Kentucky some years prior from Virginia. They built an early home approximately 1 mile from the Woodford County Court House. William Stewart Hunter made his home also about the same distance from Versailles, but on the McCracken’s Mill (aka Glenn’s Creek) Road near to the Frankfort Pike. His plantation was known as “Dupont.” On Nov. 13, 1816, he married Catherine Mary Canfield, d/o Abraham and Elizabeth Hunt Canfield. Hunter represented Woodford County in the Kentucky State Legislature from 1812-15, then again in 1817-1818, and finally 1820, serving at one time alongside noted Lexington craftsman Porter Clay. Hunter died of cholera on August 13, 1835 in Versailles. (See The Register of the Kentucky State Historical Society, Volume 19, A History of Thomas Canfield and of Matthew Camfield with a Genealogy of Their Descendants in New Jersey, and Wm. E. Railey’s History of Woodford County, Kentucky.)
Portrait of William S. Hunter: © John Drew Photograph
While the association with an early Kentucky family makes a similar overall origin seem plausible, the Hunter family beaker’s marks might at first be misleading when making comparison to a published discussion of a similar punch utilized by a partnership of two silversmiths in early Virginia. Catherine Hollan, in her remarkable compilation of research entitled Virginia Silversmiths, Jewelers, Clock– and Watchmakers, 1607-1860, Their Lives and Marks, references on pages 608-609 the joint work of Virginia silversmiths John Foster and William Phillips who worked together in the small community of Winchester from 1817 until 1820. She describes and depicts marks of a “P&F” configuration attributed to their partnership. As well, she discusses (but fails to illustrate) record of a mark on a large ladle in a private collection. It would seem, from her description, that this unpictured mark was one of those used by Thomas Phillips along with one or both of the Frazer Brothers (Robert and Alexander) in Bourbon County, Kentucky. Ms. Hollan records that this particular mark reads “F & P” rather than “P & F”, and is accompanied by an additional city punch for “Paris” in a shaped cartouche, the same extra mark used by Thomas Phillips in later years after the Frazer Brothers ended their partnership(s) with him. Interestingly, Ms. Hollan attributed this “F & P” variant mark to the time after March of 1799 when Robert Frazer left Paris, Kentucky for Lexington to open an independent shop there, leaving his younger brother Alexander to work in Paris. Though records neither deny nor corroborate her hypothesis, this scholar agrees with her that Phillips continued to work for a brief time with the younger Frazer, as there is no indication to support the idea that both brothers ended their partnership immediately with Phillips. The author’s only correction to Ms. Hollan’s conclusions deals with her assumption that this was the only mark utilized by Thomas Phillips while working with either or both of the Frazer's. As the Hunter family beaker now aids in proving, the partnership utilized at least two distinctly different punches, one of which, likely the first one made, displaying an ordination of hierarchy placing Thomas Phillips as the initial senior partner as indicated by the “P & F” punch now depicted and here recorded for the first time.
The unique mark, unrecorded by Boultinghouse or Hollan, as found on the Hunter beaker
Naturally there is found initial similarity in comparing marks composed of the exact same initials, so a closer examination of the punches themselves and the design of the letters is required to accurately rule out the unlikely chance that an early silver beaker with a strong Kentucky provenance to the correct time period could actually bear the marks of a somewhat later (<20 years) rural Virginia silver firm. Mark (a) as illustrated on p. 607 of Virginia Silversmiths is documented with both a collection history and provenance of ownership to Virginia, so there is no reason to question the mark as shown as being that used by William Phillips and John Foster of Winchester, Virginia. The punch is designed with a fairly distinct rectangular field within which lie the 3 separate components of the P, ampersand, and F. The second mark given attribution to this firm, Mark (b), was denoted as being represented on a single spoon in a private collection without recorded provenance to any particular town or region. Ms. Hollan makes the educated assumption that this mark was also used during the 3 years that this partnership made silver. While the author doesn’t wish to challenge this conclusion, he would point out that most rural smiths at this time used the same punches for long periods unless they became damaged. Sometimes they continued their use even then. Mark (b) is distinctly different from (a) both in proportions and in the style and design of the letters themselves. Mark (b), as Ms. Hollan points out, is shorter (tighter as she describes), with a very different font design. The ampersand crosses itself only once, rather than twice as with (a), the left leg ending at an even juncture with the right, which then extends to the very top of the character where it then outspreads to the right to make the top of the F. Again, contrary to (a), the serifs of the F in the (b) mark end in an almost floral-like trumpet shaped flourish, a lower/middle serif which truly crosses the F and extends past its back. Both serifs on the F of Mark (a) end in simple, definitive and broad downward strokes. These two marks are so very different, one might speculate that Mark (b) could at some point be attributed to another maker altogether.
Documented mark of the Virginia partnership of Phillips & Foster, so similar, yet distinctively different from that of the Kentucky silversmiths
At this time, however, the author does not feel that the 2nd mark Ms. Hollan infers to be that of Phillips & Foster of Virginia might actually be an unrecorded mark for the similarly named Kentucky entity of Phillips & Frazer. This mark, while very similar in form to that on the Hunter beaker, does not contain the uniquely cut letters found on both it and later punches used by Thomas Phillips early in the 19th century when working alone. It is intriguing that the Hunter beaker marks and Mark (b) both incorporate an ampersand that parallels and connects to the F’s top in the mark, but that coincidence alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusion. The Hunter marks both display an ampersand with a left leg intersecting through the right but resulting in sharp downward angularity. Again in contrast to the Virginia marks, the serifs on the Hunter mark letter F, while similar in angular placement, don’t just point downward. The upper does, but the crossing serif to the F creates something akin to a backwards “check mark”, jutting down to the right, then making a vertical rise, the two right serifs ultimately flanking one another. As well, the Hunter beaker displays the appearance of a marked downward left serif on the top of the F at the juncture with the connecting leg of the ampersand, separating it from both Marks (a) and (b).
The differentiation in the design and cut of the letter P in the Hunter beaker marks, more than any other indicator, would tend to leave Hollan’s Mark (b) a mystery, while verifying a relationship to Thomas Phillips’ “TP” cartouches (with or without the additional shaped “Paris” mark). Actually that rather unique P that Phillips used in his surname becomes a primary forensic indicator in identifying his personal mark when the city mark for Paris is not included. Even with both marks attributed to the Virginia smiths of Phillips & Foster, there is seen a concentric duplication of the inner and outer lines creating the borders of the positive and negative space of the “belly” or “head” of the P. This is to be expected, in fact, in most choices of font. Strangely, this is not seen on the P used on punches by Thomas Phillips of Paris, Kentucky. Instead, Phillips’ punches contain a P cut with contrasting, rather than concentric, lines defining the “head” of the P. The outer negative space defines a vertical back and a rounded protrusion to the right, while the inner negative space rotates this “D” shape 90 degrees leftward, giving the semblance of a “D” lying on its back. This juxtaposition of placement of negative space seems consistent throughout the career of Thomas Phillips, though very oddly he never used the same creative font for the “P” in his shaped punch designating “Paris.” The Hunter beaker bears a “P & F” cartouche inclusive of this particularly differentiated P within a slightly misshapen, almost a “shaped” rectangle that bulges somewhat to the lower right. A very similarly cut P utilized in a “T P” cartouche has been documented to an unidentified Scottish silversmith. Further study is required however before making an attribution to Phillips’ use of marks prior to his arrival in America.
Glasgow, Scotland
In making final verification that the markings on the Hunter beaker coincide with that of Thomas Phillips from his earliest working dates in America in the 18th century rather than William Phillips from toward the end of the 1st quarter 19th century, we must as well examine the form itself. No hollowware is recorded to the Virginia partnership of Phillips & Foster. (One Lexington antiques dealers explains that he once handled a pair of juleps bearing a P&F mark which he sold on the assumption they were made in Virginia. Likewise, he recalls a similarly bright-cut decorated beaker with a P&F mark selling at auction in Tennessee some years prior, again represented as being by Phillips & Foster but without a Virginia collection history. Sadly, no visual record of the marks on these three cups was retained. There is great probability that all were actually crafted by Thomas Phillips and the Frazer brothers in Paris, Kentucky*.) The Hunter beaker reflects a shape, size, and construction style appropriate for the late 18th century. As previously mentioned, the bright-cut engraved shield decoration is fitting with an attribution of craftsmanship in the later 1790s. This form of motif and engraving style would be somewhat outdated by 1817. It is clearly much earlier than the ca. <1820 era when the Virginia firm worked. Comparable decoration is documented on Virginia silver, but once again found only examples dating to this earlier period of ca. 1795 (see Hollan’s In the Neatest, Most Fashionable Manner: Three Centuries of Alexandria Silver, pp. 27 & 29). To date, no other example of Kentucky hollowware has been noted from so early an era*, much less with this sort of decoration. It would appear to be the earliest such example of decorated Kentucky silver thus far documented.
It should be here noted that the career of Thomas Phillips has yet to be fully and correctly laid out. Previously, in Mark Boultinghouse’s 1980 publication Silversmiths Jewelers, Clock and Watch Maker of Kentucky 1785-1900, the biography of Phillips indicated he was an early settler of Nelson County, Kentucky. This is apparently incorrect, as is his date of death and the place of his burial. This attribution apparently comes from confusion with Thomas Fretwell Phillips (1729-1810), formerly of Charles Parrish, Virginia, who settled in Nelson County and resided there until his death. In actuality Thomas Phillips was a Scottish-trained silversmith, having been born in Glasgow, Lenarkshire Scotland on October 10th, 1774 in the central Lowlands region of that country. He emigrated to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the latter half of the 1790s, staying perhaps a year before moving on to Paris, Kentucky. Very likely he became introduced to Robert and Alexander Frazer (Frazier) while all three smiths resided there. They may even have all traveled to Kentucky together. These dates coinciding so closely, it is highly unlikely that any of these men had time to establish independent shops in Paris initially. Their group partnership was apt to have been formed by late 1797 or early in 1798. Robert Frazer exited the business relationship in early spring of 1799, moving on to Lexington, but Alexander remained in Paris. As mentioned, there is no indication that Alexander Frazer dissolved his working relationship with Thomas Phillips until he too moved to Lexington after March of 1800 to partner with his older brother and their nephew, Robert Frazer Jr., who had come with them from Ireland (reference Bourbon County Tax List for 1800). That venture also soon ended, with Alexander and Robert working separately by August of 1801. There is some indication that Samuel Best arrived in Paris that same year and formed a short-lived partnership with Thomas Phillips which was ended by 1802. No other partnerships are known for Phillips, and it is safely assumed he worked independently from 1802 on. As for a record of military service, the dates of Phillips’ entry to America clearly rule out any Revolutionary or post-war service under George Rogers Clark.
Other previously published discrepancies in Thomas Phillips’ life can also now be defined. He has been confused with Thomas Phillips born in Wales ca. 1776 that emigrated to the U.S. about 1808, settling in Natchitoches, Mississippi and working as a tailor there by 1810. Thomas Phillips the silversmith has as well been identified with another, later generation, Thomas Phillips who was appointed as a justice when Anderson County, Kentucky was created Feb. 5th, 1827. Once again, there is no known connection by this Lawrenceburg, Kentucky tavern keeper with the silversmith Thomas Phillips of Bourbon, & later Todd, Counties.
Phillips remained in Paris during those first years of the new 19th century, marrying the young widow of Thomas Reeder on May 19th, 1803. Susannah Edwards Reeder was the daughter of United States Senator from Kentucky (serving along with John Brown as one of the Commonwealth’s first two senators from June 18, 1792 until March 3, 1795) John Edwards (1748-1837) and Susannah Wrae. (John Edwards had assisted in the drafting of Kentucky’s first state constitution. ) There remains some confusion as to the family’s length of stay in Bourbon County after the birth of their daughter Susan in 1804. They may possibly have explored the notion of moving to Western Kentucky as early as 1806, but we do know, as Boultinghouse cites, their removal to Hopkinsville in Christian County by 1818, some four years after the birth of their daughter Mary Jane. Their stay there was certainly brief, as they are recorded in the United States Federal Census of Aug. 7, 1820 as residing in Todd County, Kentucky where their household included one “foreigner, not naturalized” as well as 8 slaves and 1 “free person of color.” Later, Phillips claims a grant of 13 acres on the Elk Fork of the Red River in Todd County, surveyed Feb. 29, 1823 (see Ky. Land Grant Book “N”). While there is no record of his ever having entirely left Kentucky, as Boultinghouse claims, we do know that Thomas Phillips and family ultimately settled permanently in Elkton, Todd County, Kentucky, where the silversmith died in August 15th, 1843 (see “McReynolds Family Collection 1794-1965”, Western Kentucky University, Todd County, Kentucky Family Histories, 1995, also E. B. Crisman’s Biographical Sketches of Living Old Men of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church). Susan died 5 years later and was buried beside her husband in the family cemetery there in Todd County near Elkton. Interred with the couple were their children Emily Phillips Bone (1809-1840), wife of Rev. Matthew Houston Bone, Susan Phillips Reeves (1804-1829), wife of Davis Clarke Reeves, Ellen Phillips (1819-1838), and son Benjamin E. Phillips (1811-1844).
©2015gdg
Post Script
Brief mention should also be made here of Robert Fraz(i)er and the perpetuated confusion regarding his extended immigrant family. It has never been adequately explained that there were two distinctly different men, of differing generations, referred to as “Robert Frazer Jr.” Robert & Alexander Frazer did clearly either arrive in America with, or were followed very shortly thereafter by, a nephew named Robert. The 1810 U.S. Federal Census for Bourbon County, Kentucky lists two separate households for the family. Alexander is shown as head of his own household, while his brother Robert is listed as head of a household that included their nephew Robert Jr. Per the listing for Robert Frazer Sr., and with the generally accepted date of birth for him of ca. 1769, the elder Frazer was 41 years old. This fits with the delineation of the Census for “1 white male age 26-44.” Robert Jr. is found next as “1 white male age 16-25,” putting his date of birth between 1784 and 1794.
There are several possible explanations for the eventual disappearance of this Robert Jr. and the ultimate blending of his history with that of another Frazer relation by the same given name who later migrated to Kentucky from Ireland and also took up residency with the family patriarch, Robert Frazer Sr. (He may well be the R. Frazer that Boultinghouse referenced in Missouri advertisements for 1821, having migrated nearer to another uncle, James Frazer.) Those theories, however, are best left to a more intense focus upon this entire family and their contribution to Kentucky decorative arts outside the scope of relationship with Thomas Phillips. Let it suffice for now to show and prove that Robert Frazer Jr. II was born in Ireland ca. 1810-19 and is the jeweler referenced when discussing activities of the family during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 19th century. Robert Frazer Jr. I worked as silversmith & watchmaker in Lexington prior to the birth of this younger relation and was likely active from 1800 until ca. 1820. Little can safely be documented to this individual, though an 18k pocket watch survives in this author’s collection which is marked by Robert Frazer Jr. of Lexington, KY and dates to that period of the 1st quarter 19th century, prior to the age of majority for Rbt. Frazer Jr. II.
Very likely Robert Frazer Jr. I was also the man who appeared on War of 1812 service rosters rather than his uncle, Robert Sr. Regardless, there is little indication that Robert Frazer Jr. I remained in Lexington more than a couple of decades. Just when he was supplanted by his younger relation as well remains undocumented, but the newcomer’s April, 1831 marriage in Louisville to Catherine E. Coleman was announced in the local newspapers. The date of their marriage would call into question the 1850 Fayette County U.S. Census listing for the couple, where Robert Jr. II is listed as being 31 years old. That would make him about 12 at the time he married Catherine, who herself would have been, per these records, just 15. The 1860 Census, however, confirms an 1819 birth year for Robert Frazer Jr. II, along with an estimated date of birth for Catherine Coleman Frazer of 1813 rather than 1816 per the prior Census. That at least makes her 18 at the time of her wedding in 1831. The later Census as well changes Catherine’s place of birth from Pennsylvania to Ireland.
Despite all the contradictions and void of data, three men bore the name of Robert Frazer in the annals of jewelers and silversmiths in Lexington. Future scholarship will have to examine immigration records and passenger lists to ferret out the details of this rather complicated familial association.
Compiled & written by Gary Dean Gardner, ©2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment