{...} Early in the eighteenth century, however, there becomes apparent the beginning of a leaning towards the employment of names -- of men or places, or other words. PARIS* occurs early and repeatedly -- alone or with a cross, or crown, or letters; or PARIS CITY, HIL IN PARIS, GO PARIS, IN PARIS. Among others the following occur: -- ITALY, GERMANY, SPAIN, PRVSSIA, ASIA, CHINA, FRANCE, EGYPT, INDIA, ENGLAND, HOLAND, PEKIN, SAVOY, LYONS, MADRID, BREST, DOWAY, HANOVER, SIAM, BARCELONA, BERLIN, HAVANA, MARTINICO, PATAGONIA, CONGO. There is in existence a paper-backed book, attributable to this period, into which long lists of place names have been copied, from some other gazetteer, for the help of perplexed Freemen {that is to say, cutlers who have completed their apprenticeships and are considered working tradesmen}. The names of English towns were often taken, as YORK, YORK CITY, NORWICH, YARMOUTH, LINCOLN, DOVER, BATH, SARUM; and it is significant, as bearing on the perennial controversies with the Metropolis {specifically, the Worshipful Company Of Cutlers of London was none too pleased by Sheffielders stamping their city on stuff and regularly made a big stink of it for decades}, that no impediment was placed on the Company to grants of the word LONDON, with or without an accompanying symbol -- like Jonathan Hamby’s Mark {fleur-de-lys}{heart} LONDON. Such variations as IN-LONDON, with crescent moon, LONDON CITY, are met with. The later prohibition of any word expressing or implying official testimony to the quality of the article had not been thought of, and accordingly we find these assigned: BEST, SOUND, EXCELLENT, SUPER, ROYAL, CITY, BEST STEEL, PATENT, IMPERIAL, none of which would have passed muster at a later date.
Freemen often adopted their own names as Trade Marks -- as GREEN, FOX, SHAW, ROSE, BEAR, ROEBUCK, SOUTH, NUT, NORTH, SAMSON, PARKER, OATES, HOBSON, BATE, BARKER, NOWIL, RILEY, HAMMOND, VESSY, SILCOCK, BINKS, WILKINSON, ROBERTS, WADSWORTH, SEYNER, NEHEMIAH, SPUR, WATKINSON, CHARLES, ANANIAS (Ananias Rodger), BROOMHEAD, FREDERICK, MADIN, ELLIS, CAWTON, MOSES TAYLOR, CHATTERTON, HABBERSAM, BRITON (Benjamin Brittain). Even SMITH was thought sufficiently distinctive. But as time went on, this employment of family names caused such embarrassing complications that the following cumbersomely-worded rule was laid down: --
“24 Sept 1773. The Company, observing that the striking and using of the names of Persons upon their goods, together with their Marks, or their names without the Marks, causes great confusion. As there are now many Freemen of the same Family name, and others now having their names assigned for their Marks -- it is resolved that for the future no name shall be assigned to any person either consisting of his own name or any other persons name whatsoever.”
There was another reason, although it is not mentioned in the Company’s papers, why the use of proper names as Trade Marks was undesirable. In an old rhyming production of 1720, entitled “The Wandering Spy, or the Merry Traveller,” Sheffield blades, derided as rusting and worthless, are contrasted unfavorably with the excellent knives of one How, of Southend. But HOW, a local family name, was an old and popular Mark here. Before 1735 it was struck alone, by John Gray; with a sceptre, by Thomas Nutt; and with a crescent moon and shamrock by Joseph Ellis. Gray and Ellis botuh thought it was valuable enough to reserve it for their sons, and John Gray, junior took it, with the Shamrock, in 1737. Again in 1765 HOW IN LONDON was struck by John Holland, and in 1774 and 1787 Thomas Maxfield of Balm Green used it in conjunction with a cross and fleur-de-lys. It is perfectly evident that the astute Southend dealer, in claiming the HOW knives as his manufacture, was wounding Sheffield with a shaft winged from her own bosom.
The prohibition of surnames was not, of course, retrospective, nor did it bar words drawn from mythological, historical or other sources. There were culled from the classical dictionary, among others, JUPITER, VENUS, APOLO, PAN, AEOLUS, MIDAS, THALIA, CLIO, ATLAS, OLIMPUS. Stannington showed a prediliction for the poets of antiquity {houndstooth border}HOMER {houndstooth border} VIRGIL HORACE. And all manner of other words were tried -- NON, NAB, PIn, FINIS, HOPE, ONE, TRY, REX, LOVE, JOY, WAR, RAZOR, LIFE, LUCK; or meaningless combinations of letters, EWTO, EDG, PYL, ELT, GES. Some of these stood alone, others in combination with a star, cross, crescent, circle, coronet, sceptre, or such sumbol. Robert Wilkinson boldly chose
IHS with a Greek cross; TE DEUM, AMEN, ACTS were inappropriately selected by others. A certain exhaustion of the vocabulary is suggested by recourse to eccentricities like BY OF ME, HATBAND, I SAY, ISSA, ENBONTEMPS, FEED UPON, HUAUH, GROVENAZZO, KING HEROD, ME HAPPY, NO CREDIT, JOLLY SAILOR and so forth. For a company troubled by similarity of Marks, RARIS seems to come perlously near to PARIS, and the distinction between AETNA and AETNA+ might, nowadays, suggest colourable imitation. Variety was occasionally sought by sinking the letters within a raised margin MATAS, RW, II {these are illegible in the Google Books version}. Such avoidances of capitals as HERO, Porto Rico, Use, did not find much favour.
{Omitting a brief section of bizarrely arranged alphabetical and numerical characters}
But that contrivances of this kind were also unsatisfactory is evident from the following record: --
“30 October 1772. Anthony Yates was charged by George Gill with striking and using upon his knives a false Mark, different from that assigned to him, {sic}wch said Mark so nearly resembles the Mark of the said George Gill as easily to be taken for the said Gill’s Mark without careful examination, as appeared to the Company comparing the Mark assigned to George Gill, to wit {2 Greek cross M, each over the other character} with the Mark assigned to ye said Anthony Yates {M 2 Greek cross, sequentially} , which the said Yates struck and used in this manner {Greek cross 2 M, each over the other character} to resemble George Gill’s Mark. The Company thereupon demanded the sum of forty shillings of ye said Yates for the forfeiture of striking & using the {sic}ffalse Mark upon two knives which were then shown to him, and which he acknowledged to be of his making -- which forfeiture he promised to pay the next meeting day.”
http://theshiveringbeggar.com/wp-con...8f6dff0420.jpg
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that these were the components of Marks, rather than Marks themselves. The fleur-de-lys, the coronet, and the Greek cross occur over and over again in all manner of combinations -- sometimes repeated, at others in juxtaposition with other symbols, or with letters. Hearts, stars, crosses were also much used: --
http://theshiveringbeggar.com/wp-con...0707e36aff.jpg
The use of figures was, as has been seen, no new thing. Single figures, or a figure with a letter or sign, as 66, 93, W{over}12, +{over}2, F{over}9, 2{over}B, 8{over}9, 8{over}y, 6{over}S were employed. After William Creswick set the example of taking the year in which his Mark was granted (1748), there was something of a competition for Anno Domini. Thus we find 1749, and 1749 with a crown. William Langstaff, finding himself forestalled with 1756, boldly jumped a century ahead and took 1856. The employment of numerals was largely extended on the passing of the Act of 1791, as a simple plan solving difficulties of choice. From the 24th of June, the day on which that Act became operative, the Marks granted were, though with occasional designs interspersed, progressive numbers. Beginning, after a few false starts, at 91. They went consecutively forward until 1814, when the figure reached 3694. Convenient as this was for identifying the maker of any article, there was a lack of individuality about these marks apt to be embarrassing, rather than helpful, to purchasers in the markets of the world. To distinguish clearly between such numbers, for instance, as 2856 and 2857, pre-supposes close observation and considerable power of memory. It was indeed, admitted, in the statement of a case submitted to Counsel in 1821, that “these Marks had been considered of so little value by the holders that they had scarcely ever been used.” By the law of the survival of the fittest, some have, however achieved wide fame, and now constitute valuable properties. In 1839 Messrs. Thomas Burdett Turton, Joseph Turton and William Turton, on taking out their Freedoms, had the Marks 3707, 3710, 3711 assigned to them respectively, and as late as 1858 Messrs. John and William Hill took 3712 and 3713 as their Marks.