A design for the arms of a silver candelabrum by an anonymous draughtsman, c. 1793

A drawing of the arms of a silver candelabrum. Profile, probably full size, 154 x 330 mm.

The reeded arms, each representing a different design with different sockets, have a tripod urn between them. One emanates from a cockerel’s head, the other from the base of the urn. Arms similar to one of those shown here appear on candelabra by John Scofield of 1792, 1793, 1794 (Christies New York 24.5.1977, lot 209; Christies 1.5.1973, lot 167; Robert Rowe, Adam Silver, 1965, pl.63, pl. 95a). The central urn is derived from pl. 207 (dated 29 Feb. 1782) of Michelangelo Pergolesi’s Designs for various ornaments. The termination of one arm in the beak of a cockerel is highly impractical. The drawing has been close- trimmed at the bottom, presumably to allow it to be tried on drawings of candlesticks (8389:4).
This drawing was bought from the dealer Robert Jackson on the 24th of May 1878 with 14 others for £2- 17- 0. This is one of a group of drawings acquired from the dealer R. Jackson between 1878 and 1883. They are nearly all carried out in pen and ink and grey wash and represent silver, which is of dates from c. 1780 to 1795. They are very largely by one hand,one example of which (8389:3) is inscribed with the initials RM which may be a signature. The RM hand is fairly skilled, but poor on perspective, and its pen and grey wash technique is not unlike that of contemporary architectural draughtsmen. This drawing is not by the Rm draughtsman.
Most of the drawings certainly or probably represent silver made in the workshops of the leading London firms of John Scofield, Daniel Smith and Robert Sharp, Thomas Pitts and William Pitts. The drawings fall into two types: small sketches often in perspective and with descriptive notes, and full size profiles, and one perspective. The former group are patterns for showing or sending to customers. The larger type, with the exception of 8389:5 and 8389:6, which are not by RM, can also be described as patterns or preliminary drawings for them, because in one case (8389:16) they are mixed with the smaller type, but also because several (8389:2, 8389:1) bear appropriate inscriptions. Their very high finish, clean state, illusionistic shading and unnecessary repetition of details also point to this conclusion. 8389:18 shows a condiment service with pieces similar to those by both John Scofield and Daniel Smith and Robert Sharp. Hilary Young, in discussing the whole group (Hilary Young, “Neo- Classical Silversmiths’ Drawings at the Victoria and Albert Museum” Apollo Magazine, Vol. 129, N. 328, June 1989, p. 384- 388, 445, fig 9- 10) has suggested that most of the drawings represent the stock of a retailer, such as Robert Makepeace, Jefferys and Jones, or Rundell and Bridge. Certainly Smith, Sharp and Scofield supplied the second, and Smith and Sharp the third, while the appearance of the work of all these goldsmiths in the 1781 plate supplied to William Beckford (M. Snodin, M. Baker, ‘William Beckford’s Silver I’, The Burlington Magazine, November and December 1980, pp. 734- 748) strongly suggests the services of a single retailer. The application of handles typical of Smith and Sharp on a cruet stand, which may be connected with Scofield (8389:17), raises the possibility of collaboration of a more complex kind, perhaps through the agency of a designer supplied by the retailer. A similar collaboration is suggested by the repetition of the same motifs on the candlesticks linked to Scofield (8389.20) supplied to Sir John Fane as appear on his toilet service of the same date made by Smith and Sharp (Vanessa Brett, The Sotheby's Directory of Silver 1600-1940, 1986, 19.6.1969, lots 159-63).

8389:5