Proquest Dissertations

NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pgs 172,174,188,193-196,198,202-203,209

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLETCHER AND GARDINER: PRESENTATION SILVER FOR THE NATION

Ann K. Wagner

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Early American Culture.

Spring 2004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1420558

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI

UMI Microform 1420558 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLETCHER AND GARDINER: PRESENTATION SILVER FOR THE NATION

Ann K. Wagner

Approved: Donaidrl.. I^imirtiore, M.A. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Acting Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: Mark W. Huddleston, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Approved: Conrado M. Gempe§Aw II, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic and International Programs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The most valuable experiences throughout this project have been the help and

encouragement given by so many kind and intelligent people at Winterthur and other

institutions. I am deeply indebted to my advisor Donald L. Fennimore for a year of

patient listening, inspiration, and thoughtful guidance as well as his abiding knowledge

of Fletcher and Gardiner’s work. He was generous with his own research, and

unflagging in his support of mine.

James W. Cheevers earned five (civilian) stars for sharing his encyclopedic

knowledge and fantastic resources at the U. S. Naval Academy Museum. Other

curators who contributed insights and resources include: Beth Carver Wees, Fritz

Hamer, Medill H. Harvey, Margaret Hofer, David Miller, and Jeffrey Ray. Invaluable

assistance came from regional archives scholars, Bruce Laverty, and Winterthur’s

librarians and staff. Bert Denker and photograph files in the Winterthur Library were a

godsend. Collectors’ names are remaining anonymous, but I will never forget their

kindness or hospitality. Above all, I am grateful to my mentor and friend, Julie

Emerson, for launching me eastward on a silver path.

I wish to dedicate this thesis to the family who supported me throughout this and

every other project that absorbs too much of my attention: Bonnie, Bill, Keith, Kim,

Amy, Carl, and Irlene. They make everything possible.

Ill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...... v-vii

ABSTRACT...... viii

INTRODUCTION...... I

Chapter 1 RAISING SPLENDID PIECES OF PLATE...... 12 With a Name Like “Hull” He Had to be a Naval Hero ...... 15 Variations on a Theme...... 26 War of 1812 Urns as American Symbols ...... 54

2 EMPIRES OF WATER IN SILVER: MERCHANT PRINCES AND THE “WARWICK” TYPE...... 62 The Warwick Type in New Y ork...... 64 The Warwick Type in Philadelphia...... 82

3 PATRIOTIC REGALIA: FLETCHER AND GARDINER PRESENTATION SWORDS...... 100 Presentation Sword Manufacture...... 102 Designing American Swords...... 108 Ceremonies and Presentations...... 120 Fletcher and Gardiner’s International Presence...... 123

4 MERCHANT-ARTISANS TO THE NATION...... 133

CONCLUSION...... 165

APPENDIX A: LIST OF PRESENTATION SWORDS...... 212

APPENDIX B: PRESENTATION SILVER AND SWORD MARKS...... 213

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

1 Pencil sketch, Thomas Fletcher, ca. I8I5-I8I6. Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia...... 170

2 Pencil sketch, Thomas Fletcher, ca. I815-I8I6. Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia...... 171

3 Isaac Flull um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1813. Private collection ...... 172

4 Isaac Hull um (details)...... 173

5 Tavola I,Giovanni-Battista Piranesi, Diverse maniere d ’adornare i cammini.. .a toscana, (1769) ...... 174

6 “A Vase from Piranesi.” Henry Moses, Collection of Antique Vases (1814) ...... 175

7 “Pot-a-Oille.” Charles Percier and Pierre-Franpois-Leonard Fontaine, Recueil de decorations interieures, (1812), Plate 46 ...... 176

8 Charles Percier and Pierre-Fran 9ois-Leonard Fontaine, Recueil de decorations interieures, (1812), Plate 72 ...... 177

9 Isaac Hull um (fmial detail)...... 178

10 Trade card, Fletcher and Gardiner. The Winterthur Library, Downs Collection...... 179

11 Oliver Perry um, Fletcher and Gardiner, ca. 1813-1814. U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection...... 180

12 Oliver Perry um (detail) ...... 181

13 William Bainbridge um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1814. From Benson Lossing, Pictorial Field-Guide o f the War of 1812, (1869) ...... 182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 James Biddle um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1813. U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection...... 183

15 James Biddle um (handle detail)...... 184

16 James Biddle um ...... 185

17 Jacob Jones um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1814. Delaware Historical Society Collection...... 186

18 George Armistead punch bowl, beakers, ladle, and tray, Fletcher and Gardiner with Andrew E. Wamer, 1816. National Museum of American History collection...... 187

19 John Rodgers dinner service, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1816-1817. Maryland Historical Society collection...... 188

20 John Rodgers dinner service, tureen, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1816-1817. National Museum of American History collection...... 189

21 Andrew Jackson um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1817. South Carolina State Museum collection...... 190

22 Andrew Jackson um ...... 191

23 Frederick Graff vase, Harvey Lewis, 1822. Atwater-Kent Museum collection... 192

24 De Witt Clinton vase, Fletcher and Gardiner, dated 1824. Metropolitan Museum of Art collection...... 193

25 De Witt Clinton vase, Fletcher and Gardiner, dated 1825. Metropolitan Museum of Art collection...... 194

26 De Witt Clinton vase (details) ...... 195

27 Hugh Maxwell vase, Thomas Fletcher for Baldwin Gardiner, 1829. Law Institute of New York City, loan to New York Historical Society...... 196

28 James Fisher vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1830. Atwater-Kent Museum collection.. 197

29 James Fisher vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1830. YaleUniversity Art Gallery collection...... 198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 James Fisher vase (Figure 28, base detail) ...... 199

31 Cadwalader Evans vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1830. Atwater-Kent Museum collection...... 200

32 Cadwalader Evans vase (fmial details) ...... 201

33 United Bowmen’s bowl, Thomas Fletcher, ca. 1828-1830. Atwater-Kent Museum collection...... 202

34 Gwinn Harris vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1831. Maryland Historical Society collection...... 203

35 Henry Ballard sword, Thomas Fletcher, William Rose, and John Meer, Jr., 1829. Private collection ...... 204

36 Henry Ballard sword (hilt detail)...... 205

37 Joseph Cross sword, Thomas Fletcher, William Rose, and John Meer, Jr., 1829. Maryland State Archives collection...... 206

38 Joseph Cross sword (hilt detail)...... 207

39 David Geisinger sword, (and detail) Thomas Fletcher and William Rose, 1831. U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection ...... 208

40 Edmund Kennedy sword, Thomas Fletcher and William Rose, 1837. Maryland Historical Society collection...... 209

41 John L. Krimmel, “Procession of the Victuallers of Philadelphia, on the 15* of March, 1821,” aquatint by Joseph Woodward, ca. 1821-1822. Winterthur Museum collection, 1988.56 ...... 210

42 William Strickland, “Sprigs of Laurel,” engraving, Winterthur Museum collection, 1957.811 ...... 211

Vll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

This thesis considers presentation works in silver and gold created hy America’s

leading designers and manufacturers Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner in the

context of their relentless efforts to produce artistry unmatched in the young republic.

Fletcher and Gardiner partnered in 1808 and in the following two decades their firm

became the most recognized retailer of jewelry, fancy hardware, and fashionable silver

in the country.

The renown gamered from presentation pieces (specific works created to

commemorate public figures and historic events), played a critical role in raising and

sustaining the artistic and business ventures Fletcher and Gardiner pursued from

Philadelphia to Vera Cruz. This investigation of silver ums, vases, and gold-hilted

swords makes use of unpublished objects and archival information to update and

examine the firm’s history. Topics investigated include stylistic influences,

craftsmanship practices, shifts in cultural meaning and consumption demands, and

consideration of the life of objects through time.

Vlll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTION

“When will the puhlic feeling be excited to this degree again?”

—Thomas Fletcher to his brother James in 1814

Histories, even revisionist ones, often follow the path of exceptional figures to

explore a fingerprint of a culture and time. Persons with puhlic talents, internal

motivation, interesting circumstances, and resilience are irresistible to those who seek

understanding of the past. In the case of artists and craftsmen, their artifacts also

contribute to not only understanding some dimension of the creator’s vision, but of

tastes and beliefs imbedded in their social culture. This thesis will consider presentation

works in silver and gold created hy America’s premier designers and manufactures

Thomas Fletcher (1787-1866) and Sidney Gardiner (1787-1827) in the context of their

puhlic sphere and their relentless efforts to produce artistry unmatched in the young

republic.' Fletcher and Gardiner partnered in 1808 and in the two following decades

their firm became the most recognized retailer of jewelry, fancy hardware, and

fashionable silver in the country.

Through monumental presentation ums and gold-hilted swords, Fletcher and

Gardiner codified a style and form of public commemorative silver that began with

commissions for War of 1812 naval heroes and continued for political and civic figures.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The national renown gamered from their presentation pieces (specific works of art

created to commemorate public figures and historic events), played a critical role in

raising and sustaining ambitious artistic and business ventures Fletcher and Gardiner

pursued. The firm’s stmggle to build a national reputation and further their silver

manufactory was directly challenged by personal tragedy, business and bank failures,

and the ever-evolving marketplace.

This investigation of silver ums, vases, and gold-hilted swords makes use of

unpublished objects and archival information to update and examine the history of the

country’s foremost late classical era silver manufactory. Topics investigated include

stylistic influences, constmction practices, the symbolic character of presentation silver,

shifts in cultural meaning and consumption demands, and consideration of the life of

commemorative objects through time. Deliberately framing this study are objects

commissioned for public presentation, rather than familial or private presentation silver,

although these were also produced by the firm. The investigation was limited to objects

in public institutions or made available by private collectors, consequently it is not an

exhaustive tally (miraculously most major public commissions are preserved). One

constraint was the year-long closure of research access to the Maryland Historical

Society, thus other scholars’ work with that collection was substituted for first-hand

observations.

The silver manufactory and retail business built by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney

Gardiner has not been unexplored by scholars. Primary resources are plentiful and

detailed. Among his many talents, Thomas Fletcher was an archivist. His surviving

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. documents include: one account book, six letter books, decades of business and

personal correspondence, contracts, a pocket sketchbook, and finished pencil and ink

drawings. Thomas Fletcher was a man who maintained extensive business and personal

correspondence in an elegant script. No information about his youthful education in

Lancaster, Massachusetts, has surfaced, hut his adult letters reveal familiarity with

classical and contemporary authors. He helped to finance his youngest brother Levi’s

education at Harvard, hut does not appear to have attended college himself.

Fletcher’s talent for silver design indicates some formal training in drawing, hut

his facility with ink and gouache owes much to self-tutoring and his acquisitive eye.

[Figs. 1-2] As a designer, his pencil strokes are firm and easy, whether in his pocket

sketchbook or in finished drawings now preserved in collections at the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, Winterthur Museum, and the Maryland Historical Society. Fletcher’s

apprenticeship in the city of Boston with jewelry and fancy goods importer Joseph Dyer

put him in reach of European designs as well as tastes. This beginning also accounts for

his lifetime desire to run the leading merchant firm wherever he settled.

Sidney Gardiner’s document record, hy contrast, is sparse. Letters between the

partners reveal Gardiner as a man with business ambition equal to Fletcher’s and with

concerns largely focused on the silver manufactory and his workmen. In a few short

years Sidney Gardiner transitioned from a skillful young jeweler in Boston to a master

overseeing at least 16 apprentices and numerous joumeymen in the country’s most

important silver workshop. Both Fletcher and Gardiner are well represented hy silver

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hollowware and flatware now in public and private collections, but little is known of

Gardiner’s jewelry.^ His artistry is often under appreciated by exhibition catalogues.

Gardiner maintained the fine jewelry end of their business and he set precious

stones in gold at the same time he fabricated monumental ums and developed his silver

work to impressive sophistication. Gardiner’s late eighteenth-century Boston training is

revealed in his solid workmanship in tea and coffee services, as well as presentation

pieces. As master, he guided the silver manufactory in traditional hand-raising and

omamenting techniques as well as to incorporate rolled and stamped silver. Although

Gardiner and Fletcher judiciously included new technical procedures in their silver, they

merged mechanization and handcraft with their artistry rather than just for the sake of

efficiency and competition. Finally, in efforts to advance the shop’s reputation and

increase intemational business, Sidney Gardiner was the impetus behind Fletcher and

Gardiner’s participation in Mexican markets.

To date, most decorative arts exhibitions of the late classical epoch in America

feature works by Fletcher and Gardiner. Without a monograph to consult, scholars rely

on seminal works published by Donald Fennimore and Elizabeth Wood that interpret

documents in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Athenaeum of Philadelphia,

and Winterthur Library’s Joseph Downs Collection. Fennimore’s unpublished

master’s thesis explored stylistic inspiration and production techniques through the

firm’s vast body of household silver. His research and interpretation of the partners’

early years in Boston as well as their incorporation of machine-aided production is

particularly insightful. Elizabeth Wood’s object-driven article focused on nine

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. presentation works and featured Thomas Fletcher’s artistic and business talents. Less

frequently cited, but an excellent source is the research in Deborah D. Waters’s

unpublished doctoral dissertation that examined the firm in the context of other

Philadelphia precious metal artisans."^ There are no museum catalogues of Fletcher and

Gardiner’s silver. Rather than retracing the thorough research conducted by Fennimore

and Waters in archive collections, this study benefits from their scholarship and adds

documents specific to each presentation award. Other troves of invaluable research

were museum and historical society object files reflecting curatorial scholarship,

particularly at the U. S. Naval Academy Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the

Atwater-Kent Museum, and the South Carolina State Museum.

Important published contributions to knowledge about Fletcher and Gardiner’s

oeuvre include works cited in the bibliography by the following scholars: Berry B.

Tracy, “Late Classical Styles in American Silver, 1810-1830;’’ the exhibition catalogue

Marks ofAchievement: Four Centuries of American Presentation prepared Silver by

David B. Warren, Katherine S. Howe, and Michael K. Brown; the exhibition catalogue

Neo-Classicism in America: Inspiration and Innovation 1810-1840, published by

Hirsehl & Adler Galleries.; and an early accurate study of Fletcher’s presentation

swords by Richard H. Randall, Jr.

The scope of this thesis incorporates first-hand examination of presentation

silver created by the Fletcher and Gardiner firm with primary source documentation

cited to recapture business and creative practices during their rise and maturation as the

young nation came of age. Fletcher and Gardiner gamered the largest and most

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prestigious silver commissions in America during their time. Their artistic and business

practices capitalized on their reputation; it was partly responsible for carrying their

ambitious visions well beyond the region of their store.

The Fletcher and Gardiner partnership was a complex and diverse venture,

reaching from Boston to New Orleans and Vera Cruz. It barely survived the bank and

business failures of the 1820s and 1830s, or the disastrous results of their own

speculative diversification. They dared to take entrepreneurial risks and Fletcher and

Gardiner’s history exhibits the challenges and pitfalls merchant-artisans of the young

republic could experience. From an artistic perspective; however, the quality of their

silver and influence on competing silversmiths, as well as their role in translating the

intemational style of neoclassicism into American silver were unquestionably

successful.

Domestic or household silver: coffee and tea vessels, serving pieces, and

flatware perhaps best illustrate Fletcher and Gardiner’s pervasive presence in the

translation of style and design influences on other silversmiths. Because Donald

Fennimore’s master’s thesis explored their domestic silver, the current study

concentrates on the extraordinary efforts undertaken by the firm to create public

commemorative works. These were objects originated with a progenitive impulse

shared by the patron and maker to an extent that far exceeded the manufacture of a

typical household form. Commemoration is an act of recognition in the present time,

yet also a preservation of a memory for a future time,ad infinitum. This tjqie of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. commission called for very conscious and calculated attitudes toward object design and

manufacture.

It is challenging to write about the firm’s presentation silver and gold without

hyperbolic prose. Not only did Fletcher and Gardiner dominate design, workmanship,

and patronage, hut recipients of their works influenced the nation’s history. As Gerald

Ward accurately ohserved,“[h]ecause these objects were made to commemorate a

specific event, both patron and silversmith imagined future generations looking over

their shoulders, and the one was willing to extend his pockethook and the other his

skills to create works of art that could withstand the scrutiny of time.”^

The active strain of puhlic commemoration never really left American culture

after the Revolution. It gained momentum following George Washington’s death with

puhlic recognition for aging Revolutionary War veterans. Private commemoration was

also a steady business; Fletcher and Gardiner produced hair and mourning jewelry

toward that end for decades. The naval engagements of 1812-1814, close on the heels

of the Tripolitan wars, created new military heroes. Individual state governments as

well as the national legislature puhlicly cultivated champions.

Memorialization practices around these men reveal a sense of the individual’s

place in time as well as a cultural self-consciousness for the future. The lengthy

passages of praise engraved on the bodies of silver ums created hy Fletcher and

Gardiner require an interpretation extending far beyond the stylistic examination of the

objects. A War of 1812 presentation um was a gift of celebration and gratitude, as well

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as a monument for the private sphere in the way a commemorative sculpture functioned

in the public environment.

The impulse for public commemoration shifted visibly into the marketplace after

the war. Although aging veterans still received gifts, the choice of an equally costly

presentation sword with a dramatic gold hilt answered most military commissions. By

contrast, Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm sought and received silver um commissions for

commercial and civic leaders. Patrons for these weighty ums stemmed from a similar

public impulse to those of the War of 1812 (which was largely motivated by American

economic concems). Committees of businessmen commemorated industrial feats as

they had earlier celebrated naval engagements.

The ambitious canal building ventures in the mid-Atlantic region offered

Fletcher and Gardiner a new outlet for commemorative ums. The language used in

inscriptions for these awards, as well as their overall symbolic form, demonstrates how

presentation silver endorsed character or added legitimacy to semi-public ventures. The

public show made by the presentation of a Fletcher and Gardiner silver um to a private

individual could be as much a meaningful political gesture as one of genuine gratitude,

particularly in Philadelphia in the 1830s. The late classic style favored by the firm was

associated with national iconography, which suited the taste of new merchant warriors.

A comment must be made about object terminology in this paper. In the first

flurry of presentation commissions, Fletcher and Gardiner used the word “um” to

describe their silver vessels. Over the time of a decade, their letters and newspaper

accounts slowly shifted preference to “vase,” although the objects themselves remained

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tall handled bodies with lids. In the period, solid or wrought silver was frequently

called “plate,” not to be confused with imported or local silverplate. To my knowledge,

Fletcher and Gardiner retailed English and some German silverplate, but never

fashioned their own objects from it. Their contemporaries; however, knew the firm for

its production of “splendid pieces of plate” for domestic and presentation purposes.

As explained in ensuing chapters, the partnership of Thomas Fletcher and

Sidney Gardiner lasted until Gardiner’s demise in 1827. Thomas Fletcher, frequently

identified in catalogues as a “silversmith” and in directories as a “jeweller” was, among

many things, a merchant and a gifted driven designer of silver. It is very unlikely that

he ever picked up a planishing hammer. Fletcher used the “Fletcher & Gardiner” name

and touchmark for several years after Gardiner’s death. Financial pressures and

workshop employee shortages in the 1830s prompted a new partnership with Fletcher’s

nephew Calvin Bennett, thus the firm name changed to “Fletcher & Beimett” in 1835.

During this period Fletcher used a touchmark with just his name or his initials in

hallmark form, prompting later interpretations that he made silver rather than just

guaranteed it.

Fletcher assumed the master role of the silver and jewelry workshop after

Gardiner’s passing, but overseerers and joumeymen created the silver much as they had

under Sidney Gardiner’s leadership. For consistency in this paper, references to

“Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm” will be used for presentation work, although neither

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. partner may have actually put a hand to it. Both partners were responsible for the

artworks that met European aristocratic silver on its own terms and launched an

American public tradition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

’ Sidney Gardiner’s date of birth is recorded in previous scholars’ work as 1785, but his obituary of 1827 declared his age to he forty years, which suggests a birth date of 1787. I have been unable to confirm his birth year.

^ Martha Fales, Jewelry in America 1600-1900, (Suffolk, UK: Antique Collectors’ Club Ltd., 1995), pi. 60, p. 100.

^ Donald Fennimore, “Elegant Patterns of Uncommon Good Taste: Domestic Silver by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner,” (master’s thesis. University of Delaware, 1972). Elizabeth I. Wood, “Thomas Fletcher A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio 3 (1967), pp. 136-171.

^ Deborah D. Waters, “Philadelphia’s Precious Metals Trades,” (Ph.D. dissertation. University o f Delaware, 1981).

^ David B. Warren, Katherine S. Howe, Michael K. Brown, Marks o f Achievement: Four Centuries of American Presentation Silver,exhib. cat., Barbara M. Ward and Gerald W.R. Ward, ed., (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1987), pp. 15-16.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1

RAISING SPLENDID PIECES OF AMERICAN PLATE

The successful story of the Fletcher and Gardiner firm’s public presentation

silver began at the same time the imported goods portion of their business looked its

worst - during the War of 1812. Philadelphia’s important harbor and location on the

road between Washington, Baltimore and New York brought military companies and

much war business through the city. Military and political traffic produced a critical

patronage shift and a much larger audience for the youthful, newly relocated Fletcher

and Gardiner firm. While Boston, New York, Baltimore, Charleston, and other urban

areas also sponsored gifts of silver and swords for military champions, Philadelphia was

the hub of precious metals awards. Despite their Yankee origins, Fletcher and Gardiner

gamered a lion’s share of Philadelphia’s presentation silver business, cultivating a

national reputation with each new commission. This chapter will examine the Fletcher

and Gardiner firm’s presentation ums and awards from the post-war commissions,

while considering artistic design, constmction, and the broader impact on the business.

During the War of 1812 early naval successes were celebrated immediately with

vigor and righteousness in public celebrations organized by civic and political leaders.

State legislatures strove to out-do each other by commissioning portraits, medals, silver

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. services, and ornamental swords, as well as voting cash awards and hosting celebrations

for their native-born heroes. The miracle of America’s challenge to British naval power

and national awareness of an intemational military presence were acclaimed by

newspapers, lavish public displays, and manifested in artistic expression. Philadelphia,

like other urban areas, hosted banquets and military parades featuring painted

transparencies (large cloth banners) depicting specific victories, music, flags, and

evening illuminations. Naval battle scenes painted and engraved by Ameriean artists

were widely reproduced, even on handkerchiefs, tobacco boxes and other personal

items. Poets published rhapsodie praises, musicians composed and sang new heroie

tunes. And in silver, the tallest, weightiest, and most eapacious objects ever produced in

America were ereated by Fletcher and Gardiner in Philadelphia.

Gifts of silver in recognition of heroism or military service have a long history

of practice in westem culture, but groups of citizens in this era of the young republic at

war sponsored a relatively unexplored branch of the silver manufactory business in

North America - grand presentation ums. Customary trophies sueh as a horse-racing

prize bowl or double-handled cup no longer suited the prevailing vision for a war hero’s

“suitable plate” award. The taste for expansive and enormous expressions of gratitude

in silver was matched by the significant funds raised for each gift. Groundswells of

appreciation in urban areas promoted publie subscription campaigns to raise money for

silver awards. Heroes in the first victory. Captains Isaac Hull and Jacob Jones, were

both recognized with ums from the citizens of Philadelphia made by Fletcher and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gardiner, although Hull was from Connecticut and Jones from Delaware. Ultimately,

Fletcher and Gardiner produced silver awards for at least nine of the war’s heroes.

The grand um commissions won by Fletcher and Gardiner were risky from a

business point of view, with the promise of potentially mixed results. Creating new

forms of presentation silver demanded a big investment in creative design time,

fabricating entirely new forms instead of working with existing pattems, designing or

obtaining casting molds, and engaging talented joumeymen for special tasks. The

genteel, early classical model, Richard Humphrey’s tea um given by the Continental

Congress in 1774 to Charles Thomson was no longer a form equal to public impulses

demanding new presentation plate from American silversmiths. Thus, work time and

labor were costly risks, and payment was often limited by the subscription amount

before Fletcher and Gardiner knew how much the finished product might cost. The

firm also risked disappointing the public. The pressures were ponderous.

Entering into an artistic and patronage sphere quite different from private

household silver, Fletcher and Gardiner had to generate novel designs that pleased

recipients, donors, and the general public. Presentation silver also needed to artistically

represent the powerful emotions of pride and gratitude that Americans expressed for

their war heroes. These awards were not expensive tokens from a distant royal

benefactor, but gifts of silver often directly funded by public subscription or requested

by civic and legislative bodies. In Fletcher and Gardiner’s interpretation, an um

became much more than a silver surface bearing an effusive engraved record of fellow

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. citizens’ thanks. It was an iconographical statement fusing a national hero and the

American public in a permanent memorial of majestic proportion.

The task was ripe for a young, confident, and gutsy firm. Presentation silver

produced hy Fletcher and Gardiner reveals their experiences with a learning curve in

artistic design and in business practices. They absorbed design ideas from

Philadelphia’s artistic community and European printed sources, deliberately filtering

and shaping their own style. In response, the public renown gained through awards for

War of 1812 heroes launched Fletcher and Gardiner as the premier silver manufactory

in America. Others followed their lead. This reputation was invaluable, and something

Thomas Fletcher struggled to sustain during the firm’s entire career.

With a Name Like “Hull” He had to be a Naval Hero

The firm’s first war commission commemorated the navy’s first successful

engagement, led by Captain Isaac Hull (1773-1843). Captain Hull’s instant national

status resulted from the courageous action of the frigate Constitution under his

command on August 19, 1812. The Constitution dismasted, and ultimately sank

Britain’s Guerriere east of Boston. The long-awaited news of a decisive naval victory

in 1812 swept through the seaports on tides of public enthusiasm and relief. From

Boston to Baltimore euphoric citizens treated Hull and his officers to dinners, salutes,

and parades while newspapers spread accolades to other regions. Within a few short

weeks of the battle, citizens in New York pledged funds to make presentation swords

for Hull and his officers.' Simultaneous impulses in Philadelphia led to a public

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subscription list directed “for the purpose of procuring a splendid piece of Plate to be

presented to Captain Hull and another of less value to Lieut. Morris in testimony of our

warmest admiration and Esteem.”^ The “splendid piece of Plate” for Hull from

Philadelphians was none other than the heaviest, tallest, most ornate and elegant work

in silver produced on the American continent.

Public subscription lists are fascinating documents reeording an individual’s

patriotism and refleeting a city’s patriotic emotion. They demonstrated loyalty to the

nation’s war efforts, and on an intimate level, the sacrifice of personal funds to show

gratitude to naval officers defending national economie rights. The language used on

the document was designed to motivate contributors, not only by the compelling

bravery of the Constitution's crew, but to encourage an extravagant public gesture for

Captain Isaac Hull and Lieutenant Charles Morris (from Philadelphia), out-shining the

pledge of swords from New York’s citizens.

Philadelphia raised the astounding sum of $3,000. As the subseription list

eirculated for signatures and pledges, the promised amounts probably became publie

knowledge.^ Fletcher and Gardiner contributed $20 to the effort on September 21,

1812. After assembling public support, a committee of Commodore Robert Dale,

William Jones, George Harrison, Charles Biddle, Thomas W. Francis, and John

Sergeant met in Philadelphia on September 5. Their business was reported in the

Aurora Daily Advertiser on September 7 with the resolution “that a piece of plate of the

most elegant workmanship, ornamented with appropriate emblems, devices, and

inscriptions, be presented.. .to eaptain Isaac Hull.”^

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No account survives of how Fletcher and Gardiner won the commissions to

make silver urns for Hull and Morris, hut the young partners from Boston, whose prior

manufactory work was largely jewelry and tea service items, were eager for the

challenge. [Fig. 3] Presuming that the committee selected Fletcher and Gardiner in

September 1812, the entire process of Hull’s award lasted more than one year’s time.

Thomas Fletcher wrote to his father Timothy with pride on December 19, 1813: “We

have got our silver urn finished for Captain Hull - it cost $2200 - we have had

thousands to view it, and it is allowed to be the most elegant pieee of workmanship in

this country - we have plenty of work in hand - The Philadelphians don’t like to see the

Yankees get above them so.”^ This letter reveals several important results from the

commissionfor Fletcher and Gardiner. The um was displayed prominently to the

publie once completed, and crowds evaluated the visual and verbal messages carried in

the silver. Had their firm satisfied the committee, honored the national hero, and

reflected well upon the abilities of their silver manufactory? Achieving the “most

elegant piece of workmanship in the eountry” was clearly a goal of Fletcher and

Gardiner with this um; renown was invaluable advertising. Thomas’s comment to his

father that they had plenty of work in hand indicated the patronage resulting from this

public commission, and the endorsement of the quality of work they produced.

Thomas Fletcher wrote his brother James in New Orleans early in 1814 to

express his pride in the firm’s work, saying that the um weighed nearly 502 ounces, and

cost nearly $2,300. He boasted, “we do not fear a competition very soon - when will

the public feeling be excited to this degree again?’’ Clearly the partners were elated to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be a public sensation. Thomas Fletcher continued, reporting that the Hull um yielded

further commissions: “Others are in hand for Bainbridge, Jones, Morris, Biddle, & the

Immortal Perry - we have them all to make.”’ Adopting a practice only just emerging

in American silver workshops, Fletcher and Gardiner engraved their names on the front

face of the Hull um base: “FLETCHER & GARDINER FECER.T PHILAD.A.” [Fig.

4] Pride in authorship, business savvy, and the awareness of having their name on an

object associated with a national historic moment all may have impelled Fletcher and

Gardiner’s prominent signature in Latin.

Artistic design was the first challenge the firm faced and the choices they

pursued forecasted future presentation artworks, thus a detailed description of the Hull

um is appropriate. Thomas Fletcher’s design for the Hull um is a bold twenty-nine inch

high, lidded, double-handled vessel on a rectangular base supported by four hairy paw

feet. The profile is statuesque and elegant, with a broad bowl over a narrow waist; if the

um could walk on its paws it would swagger. The pedestal stem was raised from one

ingot with countless hours of hand chasing invested in the perfectly measured foliate

layers encircling the stem. The upper portion of the bowl was hammered separately,

engraved, chased, and soldered to the pedestal. Lavish cast omamentation exhibits a

taste for archaeological classicism just emerging in American silver: dolphins with

entwined tails, a continuous milled band of scallop shells, frieze-like female figures of

Fame and Fortune, bosses of Neptune’s head, and anthemion-wrapped comers over

muscular paw feet. [Fig. 4] The artistry of cast features, in particular the masterful

rams’ heads, feathered eagle fmial, and delicate draperies of Fame and Fortune indicate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a high degree of sculptural sensitivity as well as ahility to work with sophisticated

casting techniques.

One can look in vain for a contemporary model for this um. Establishing a

pattem he would follow in future design work, Thomas Fletcher judiciously selected

motifs and forms directly from published classical models, appropriating them to suit

the firm’s tastes, just as his European counterparts did. Significantly, contemporary

American images were also part of their silver designs. Fletcher and Gardiner

fashioned distinctive neoclassical style silver inspired hy, but never a slavish copy of,

others’ work. Their first significant effort, the Hull um, drew upon contemporary

French designs published by Charles Percier (1764-1838) and Pierre-Franfois-Leonard

Fontaine (1762-1853) and British engravings from Roman and “antique” models.

Thomas Fletcher also favored antique motifs filtered through the engravings of

Giovanni-Battista Piranesi (1720-1778). He probably directly consulted a source used

heavily by European designers: Diverse maniere d ’adornare i cammini...e toscana,

engravings published by Giovanni-Battista Piranesi in Italian, French, and English in

1769.

Artists of British late classical style and Napoleon’s French Empire revival

repeatedly mined Piranesi’s series of engravings for models. Piranesi’s “Tavola I ”

gathered “Etmscan” decorative details providing nearly one dozen motifs used on

Fletcher and Gardiner silver. [Fig. 5] The “Aquila,” or eagle, number “60” strongly

resembles the triumphant eagle finial on the Hull um. The ram’s head and reeded loop

handle, numbers “93” and “87,” reappear in a British publication by Henry Moses with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an engraving o f “A Vase from Piranesi” dated 1811.^ [Fig. 6] This vase’s handles are

identical to Fletcher and Gardiner’s Hull um and other elements such as the overlapping

oval leaf motif around the bottom of the bowl and the horizontal design registers appear

inspirational.

However, French designers of interest to Fletcher also borrowed from Piranesi

or his sources, including Napoleon’s team of Percier and Fontaine. Their 1812

publication Recueil de decorations interieures reproduced a “Pot-a-Oille” design which

had been fabricated by one of France’s leading goldsmiths Martin-Guillaume Biennais

and displayed to the Parisian public in 1806.^ [Fig. 7] Scholar Elizabeth Wood

convincingly argues that Fletcher and Gardiner considered this design when creating the

Hull um, in particular the frieze omament and lower portion of the bowl.'^ Design

elements from other plates in this publication appear in later Fletcher and Gardiner

silver and support her conclusion.

Most convincingly the final engraving in Recueil de decorations interieures,

Plate 72, depicts a magnificent chimney design glorifying Napoleon and featuring three

imperial eagles grasping Zeus/Jupiter’s spiral thunderbolts in their talons much like the

Hull um fm ial.[Figs. 8, 9] Other motifs in this design such as the rams’ heads, laurel

wreaths, and overlapping oval leaf motif were used to omament the Hull um, not as

copies, but emulative of Napoleonic motifs appropriate for a conquering American

military hero. Fletcher and Gardiner’s choice to feature pure, reflective, and unadomed

areas of silver distinguishes their taste from less-restrained European designs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The scale and rich omament of Isaac Hull’s um were tmly imperial and intended

to visually impress in the manner of Percier and Fontaine’s work for Napoleon or

Rundell, Bridge & Rundell’s metalwork for Great Britain’s Prince Regent. Thomas

Fletcher’s acute personal patriotism, however, should he figured into the mixture. His

designs borrowed and integrated symbols of ancient Mediterranean cultures and

European royalty to create specifically American objects. Zeus’s symbolic eagle,

already adapted into the American national eagle, served as the dynamic fmial; Fame

and Fortune flank an American naval victory, and Neptune’s head as well as the

entwined Roman dolphins were allusions to the new mlers of the seas. The square

platform base supported by massive hairy paw feet would become a distinctive Fletcher

and Gardiner constraction.

The Hull um was a memorial promising timeless, etemal fame through

association hy its mythological motifs as well as the permanence of its silver body. The

victorious bald eagle and naval emblems sculpted on the domed lid endorsed this award

with symbols of national triumph and timeless stature. The um referenced

contemporary fame with its specific naval portrait of theConstitution and with the

engraved dedication to Captain Hull from the citizens of Philadelphia. It was

personalized to an American naval hero and his crew’s success. The combination of

Fletcher and Gardiner’s appropriation of the visual language of antiquity and

contemporary regal European silver, and the largess of the public gift, placed Captain

Hull within a realm of American patriotic “royalty.” If viewers of the um could not

decode the antique and imperial motifs of triumphant naval warriors, (oak leaf garlands.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dolphins, water leaves, Neptune’s head and tridents, or the ram for Mars), they still

appreciated the significance of this monumental work. This first of many

commemorative silver urns made by Fletcher and Gardiner established iconographical

references they would use for ensuing awards of plate and swords.

Whether Sidney Gardiner or another journeyman chased the naval scene directly

on the bowl opposite the dedication is unknown. The source was a much-reproduced

print depicting theConstitution victoriously dismasting the Guerriere. The gently

curved, cast bodies of the allegorical figures Fame and Fortune overlap the illusionary

frame created by a repousse molding chased around the scene. 12 They symbolically

elevated the significance of FIull’s naval battle to immortal status and the ffieze-like

section instantly mythologized the war’s first American success.

An important detail begun with the production of Hull’s um perpetuated by later

presentation commissions was Fletcher and Gardiner’s collaboration with talented

journeymen. The lengthy dedication on one side of the um is signed: “Engraved by W.

Hooker,” a rare occurrence in American silver. An independent craftsman, engraver

William Hooker (active 1804-1846) worked in Philadelphia, Newburyport, and New

York during a long career. Fletcher and Gardiner would engage him again for Oliver

Perry’s um. Engraver’s names were fairly standard practice on British and American

prints, but uncommon on silver. Like Fletcher and Gardiner, William Hooker’s name

on the um was recorded as much for contemporary recognizance as for posterity.

The Hull um’s dedication is descriptive and laudatory; “The Citizens of

Philadelphia, at a meeting convened on the 5''’ of Septr. 1812, voted / this Um, to be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. presented in their name to CAPTAIN ISAAC HULL, Commander of the / United States

Frigate Constitution, as a testimonial of their sense of his distinguished / gallantry and

conduct, in bringing to action, and subduing the British Frigate Guerriere, / on the 19*^

day of August 1812, and of the eminent service he has rendered to his / Country, by

achieving, in the first naval conflict of the war, a most signal and decisive / victory,

over a foe that had till then challenged an unrivalled superiority on the / ocean, and thus

establishing a claim of our Navy to the affection and confidence / of the Nation /

Engraved by W. Hooker.”

The weighty words personalized the um to Isaac Hull and to a very specific

moment in American history. This passage transformed the entire side of the um into a

permanent bearer of text, like an historic document or memorial stone. Subsequent War

of 1812 ums bear pithy dedications in comparison. By framing the words with a

repousse border equal in dimension to the naval scene on the opposite side, Fletcher and

Gardiner symmetrically balanced the design. As later work demonstrates, the location

of donor and recipient names as well as dedication text and image on presentation silver

were design puzzles with several answers.

From a connoisseur’s point of view, the enormous hand-raised body, masterful

castings, and overall proportion are fantastic technical and artistic achievements for

silver in North America. This um is more than five inches taller than the later

magnificent ums created for Govemor De Witt Clinton and represents the single

heaviest example in silver for a War of I8I2 award. However, Fletcher and Gardiner

may have considered the handle loops too rigid or plain, judging by a variation also

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. using rams’ head handles on the um for Jacoh Jones. The Hull um’s planar interplay

between cast, engraved flat, and repousse surfaces was not quite integrated. The firm’s

trade card featured this vase, but reflected a sensitive adjustment to angles of the ram’s

heads and changed the handle loops entirely while otherwise remaining a faithful

facsimile. [Fig. 10] The challenges presented by moving so much silver to raise the

body and lid were addressed hy later ums which show preference for shorter, deeper

bodies with less cast and repousse omament. Fletcher and Gardiner’s design tweaking

and experimentation in subsequent War of 1812 ums must reflect alterations to working

practices as well as cost considerations.

The staggering size of the Hull um, unprecedented in the history of American

silver, proclaimed not only the importance of the victory to a country at war, but its

effect on the industry of silversmithing rapidly-adapting to more legislative patrons and

public commissions. The um was also a cheeky declaration to London’s Paul Storr and

Rundell, Bridge & Rundell that the artistry, talent, and resources in Philadelphia could

match English output for royal patrons. Presentation silver, like American ships of war,

was equal to the British challenge. From individual seaports to state governments to the

national legislature, American patronage demanded swords, medals, ums, and dinner

services in precious metals, creating a new direction for American silversmith’s work. 13

With few exceptions, these awards were made in the United States rather than imported.

As statements of the excellence possible in American silver industry, they could not be

more overt.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Even so, the techniques employed to create the behemoth work of art for Isaac

Hull followed traditional craft methods of hand-raising, engraving, and casting with all

the laborious filing, chasing, and burnishing to finish varied surface textures. Only the

milled bands of scallop shell moldings used to mask soldered joints indicate

mechanically aided work. Philadelphia tea and coffee services of the late federal and

early classical eras certainly took advantage of proto-industrial techniques, but the um’s

complicated curves and tapering cones designed by Fletcher could not be met by rolled

sheets of silver. Sidney Gardiner’s silver manufactory maintained hand-raising and

traditional eighteenth-century practices ironically even as their output led American

nineteenth-century style.

Forecasting a challenge that would remain with Fletcher and Gardiner’s silver

manufactory was this tension between hand fabrication and the patronage pull for

industrialized efficiency and speed. Throughout the firm’s career, the dynamism of

stylistic change required to stay competitive conflicted with cost-cutting and labor-

saving work achieved through repeated pattems. Additionally, the wider market of less-

costly silver created by mechanically-aided manufactories exported by Great Britain

and Europe and the industrial made silverplated objects often retailed in their own store,

effected the quality and artistry of hand-crafted silver. American silver from this era,

before domestic manufactories fully invested in rolling, stamping, and other labor-

saving machinery, and yet during the growing cultural taste for silver objects made in

less costly ways, exhibits many transitional techniques. What set Fletcher and Gardiner

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. at the top of design was not only their exquisite hand construction, but also their tasteful

and judicious integration of new mechanized decoration.

Variations on a Theme

The immediate pressure to produce an half-dozen presentation ums for

deserving military heroes following the Hull commission necessitated design alterations

for Fletcher and Gardiner. They maintained the overall form of a large lidded um

surmounted by an American eagle and supported by a chased pedestal on a platform

base with hairy paw feet. Subsequent ums were shorter and lighter, with considerably

less complicated omament, sustaining their late classical taste for broad planes of

smooth silver.

One missing link in the evolution from Hull’s um to subsequent naval awards is

the plate “of less value to Lieut. Morris” of the Constitution. Thomas Fletcher’s letters

record the commission, but descriptions of its design are absent from archives and the

um is not in a public collection. Early in 1814 Thomas Fletcher wrote to his brother

James that the manufactory was to make plate for Bainbridge, Jones, Morris, Biddle,

and Perry. Ums or images for four of these five survive, so it is probably that the

Morris um was of a related design. The firm created these five ums between 1814 and

1815 and worked on them simultaneously.

Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry (1785-1819) of the Niagra led the fleet’s

victory over the British in the Battle of Lake Erie, securing access to the Great Lakes

and northwest regions on September 10, 1813. Immediately a national hero. Perry

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. received presentation gifts from Washington, Philadelphia, and Boston, but the

commission for a large silver um came from his native state, Rhode Island.''^ A

committee of citizens in Newport organized a subscription list, first raising $400, then

procuring and additional $150 so the plate “can be executed in a manner very honorable

to the taste of the subscribers.”'^ Like the um designed for Hull, Perry’s um

incorporated the classical elliptic shape with an engraved scene of the naval engagement

on one side and a dedicatory text on the other. [Fig. 11] The eagle-topped um stands

approximately one foot lower than the Hull design, and dimensions of cast parts reflect

a proportionate scale. Thus, the eagle fmial is smaller, the handle loops terminate in

just one cast mount rather than two, and the hairy paw feet are daintier. The overall

visual impact, however, carried the same imperial grandeur of a monument to personal

and national greatness.

Fletcher and Gardiner retumed to the fine hand of engraver William Hooker for

both passages on Perry’s um. Hooker contributed a rendition of Francis Keamy’s

engraving which appears to be a cropped view of Michel Felice Gome’s (c. 1752-1845)

watercolor, “First View of Com. Perry’s Victory.”'^ Hooker’s source was a detailed

engraving with painterly perspective and he adapted most of the flotilla to fit the

rectangular space on the um. This vision of Perry’s naval victory was directly engraved

onto the smooth side of the um and framed by a narrow border. At each lower comer

Hooker engraved the names: “Keamy DEL.T” and “Hooker SC” to identify the source

print’s engraver and his own work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fletcher and Gardiner managed planar interplay with finesse on Perry’s um,

demonstrating choices teamed while constracting Hull’s um. The illusionary

perspective depth indicated in Hooker’s engraved battle scene progresses to the um’s

smooth curving side, and out to the sculptural cast handles. The engraved dedication on

the verso achieves a similar horizontal emphasis by floating unframed block letters in

the frieze area. A reduction in the cast omament applied to Perry’s um draws the

viewer’s eye horizontally to the handles in a visual line complementary to the overall

elliptic form. The smooth expanse of silver contrasts with the rich drama of chased

acanthus leaves on the lid and bottom of the howl, and with the cast eagle finial and

paw feet.

Perry’s um design appears restrained when compared to Hull’s; however, the

cast and chased omament equaled it in quality. The eagle fmial on Perry’s um was the

same mold the firm used for the Jones, Biddle, and probably the Bainbridge and Morris

ums, all with slight variation to the emblems and ground texture beneath the eagle.

Perry’s eagle perches on an anchor secured in a rocky ground and attached to a coil of

silver cable. [Fig. 12] This finial survives upright and in good condition; notable

because several other eagle finials have bowed submissively through time instead of

retaining their original proud stance. The attitude of the head, care given to feathers,

and muscular sense of the body in eagle finials are signs of the excellent craftsmanship

and casting molds used by Fletcher and Gardiner.

The crowned head of Neptune, cast and applied as handle terminals, is an

exceptional passage of omament in American silver. Combining motifs from the Hull

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. um, cast dolphins were mounted with a trident and paddle cut from a sheet of silver and

grouped around Neptune’s head. The sand-cast hairy paw feet with tendons, knuckles,

and nails carefully modeled are approximately one-inch high and two-inch wide and

identical to those supporting Biddle, Jones, and probably Bainbridge and Morris ums.

The workshop raised the body of this um by hand from the center to the midline

where a milled band of gadrooning hides a neat joint to the upper collar. Innovative and

labor-saving, Gardiner had the separate upper collar fashioned by machine rolling and

flattening to a sheet then cut and seamed into an oval. The rectangular foot was

hammered and chased as one piece with a center circle cut out where it meets the bowl.

All four vertical sides were engraved with delicate fronds and a wreath around the “P”

in the French style and cast hairy paw feet were mounted on triangular comer brackets.

Sidney Gardiner used milled trim to subtly mask joints on the lid, body, and pedestal,

but most other decoration on the um was cast and/or chased by hand. This um, like

Hull’s, was a work of art and a tribute to a national hero. In addition to marking the

inside of the base with their touchmark, “F&G” and “PHILAD.A” in two places, the

firm probably had William Hooker engrave “FLETCHER & GARDINER

PHILADELPHIA” on the exterior of the base on the same side as the naval scene.

The donors’ inscription on Perry’s um was less encyclopedic than Hull’s: “HIS

FELLOW CITIZENS OF NEW PORT TO/ OLIVER H. PERRY/ A MEMORIAL TO

THE SENSE OF HIS SIGNAL/ MERITS IN ACHIEVING THE VICTORY OF THE/

10™ SEPT 1813, ON LAKE ERIE.” In addition to this um, the U.S. Naval Academy

Museum collection also preserves the letter Commander Perry sent to the committee of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. donors in Newport on December 28, 1814 thanking them for the tribute. Even more

remarkable are the survivals of a letter the committee sent earlier that day with the um

to Perry, a draft of the committee’s earlier appeals for more subscriptions to fund it, and

the armouncement they composed for theNewport Mercury and Niles ’ Weekly Register.

These written documents supply contemporary intended meaning and

interpretation of the potency of this gift, revealing a conscious sense of an historical

event in donors’ formal words. The committee in Newport: Asher Robbins, Christopher

Fowler, Jonas P. Mann, William Ellery, and Benjamin Hazard, wrote that the um was a

testimonial for Perry’s achievement on Lake Erie which “from its important

consequences and splendid character, is a source of pride to every citizen of your

Country.’’ His capture of the British fleet, “an event so rare in Naval History, that it

cannot fail to cormect your name with all the future History of your Country, as

illustrating its fame.”'’ The citizens of Newport perceived Perry as a human trophy

exemplifying America’s merit, and felt the gift of a weighty, elegant silver um would

carry some of their sentiment. In a draft submitted to newspapers, they described the

um as “a vase of the largest size.. .surmounted by a Eagle, embellished by a number of

emblematic figures and appropriate decorations.. .the Piece is a valuable monument.”'*

The committee’s choice of the word “monument” to describe their perception of the gift

is revealing.

Perry addressed his thanks on the same day to the committee:

Gentlemen, Among the testimonies of respect I have received from my countrymen for the part I had in the action on Lake Erie, — none has given me more satisfaction than the very flattering expressions of regard which

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. accompany the present of a superb piece of plate from my fellow Townsmen. The convincing proof of esteem shewn me by those with whom I have passed my happiest days, and, among whom my strongest affections are placed, is a source from whence I have always drawn the greatest pleasure. Accept gentlemen the assurance of my unfeigned respect, and believe that I am your Obd. Humble Servant, O. H. Perry.

The award of a copious tureen-shaped um on a pedestal inscribed with his name, his

countrymen’s appreciation, and an artistic rendition of the battle that launched his

career clearly was important to this hero. The personalization of this gift to a national

hero, funded by his townsmen, armounced their pride in his achievements. It also

expressed their wish to add fame to his name with public newspaper descriptions of the

gift as well as the words inscribed on the um. This um remained with Perry family

descendants until it was given to the U.S. Naval Academy Museum in 1947.

Thomas Fletcher’s letter about the Hull um triumph written to his brother James

in January 1814 declared: “Others are in hand for Bainbridge, Jones, Morris, Biddle, &

the Immortal Perry,” but documentation establishing the sequence of um constmction is

not yet discovered. Oliver Perry’s um shared some design elements with Lieutenant

James Biddle’s (1783-1848) um and the surviving engraved image of the um made for

Captain William Bainbridge (1774-1833). The inscription on James Biddle’s um offers

1813 as a presentation date, but his was not completed until early 1814. The inseription

on William Bainbridge’s um supplies 1812, the date of his capture of the frigate Java,

proving inseriptions an unreliable source for dating presentation silver. It is accurate to

state that Hull’s um was completed in 1813 and the five others were finished by 1814.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While not reliable as dating tools, dedications engraved on the ums are

intriguing statements that preserve contemporary adjectives and sentiments deemed

appropriate hy citizen donors of the early republic. The language selected was a form

of verbal omament for the honored hero’s character, reinforcing the testimonial

message of a silver um. Bainbridge’s um from the citizens of Philadelphia, for

example, records battle statistics to underscore the testimony. Although this um is not

currently in a public collection, a visual description and copy of the dedication survive

in Benson Lossing’s 1868 publication. Pictorial Field-Guide o f the War of 1812.

The um’s engraved dedication preserved public sentiment and Bainbridge’s

record for all time: “Presented hy the citizens of Philadelphia to Commodore William

Bainbridge, of the U.S. frigate Constitution, as a testimonial of the highest sense they

entertain of his skill and gallantry in the capture of the British frigateJava, of 49 guns

and 500 men, and of their admiration of his generous and magnanimous conduct toward

the vanquished foe. Loss in the action of 29*’’ December, 1812 - C., 9 killed, 25

wounded; J., 60 killed, 101 wounded.”^** The funds for this award were likely raised

through public subscription in 1813 following Bainhridge’s command in an engagement

off the coast of Brazil. Tossing reported that Bainhridge’s other awards included “an

elegant service of silver plate” also from the citizens of Philadelphia.21

One item from the service, a bread basket with wide scroll handles and paw feet,

is currently on loan to the Seattle Art Museum. The basket, and probably the entire

service, were created hy Fletcher and Gardiner.^^ Its handles were inscribed: “From the

citizens of Philadelphia to Commodore William Bainbridge” on one end with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Constitution” and “Java” as well as two columns listing “K” over 9 and 60; and “W”

over 25 and 101 on the other handle. The numbers record the tally of men killed and

wounded on either ship. The bread basket’s profile, with volute handles reminiscent of

a Grecian couch, reflected the abilities of Gardiner’s workshop to fashion very stylish

new forms in American silver. It incorporates large cast flower ornaments and a rose

milled border pattem not yet used on presentation ums, but repeated on other domestic

silver.

Captain Bainbridge’s victory on the Constitution followed young Captain Hull’s

success on the same ship just a few months after the change in command. Both men

joined Captain Rodgers to march through Boston in a heroic procession early in 1813.^"^

They were escorted by the Boston Light Infantry Company of Winslow Blues, a group

that granted Thomas Fletcher honorary membership in 1807 due to an armiversary ode

he composed in their honor.^^ Public gifts to Bainbridge included presentation swords,

gold boxes, a portrait by John Jarvis, a Congressional gold medal, and a $50,000 reward

for the ship’s officers and crew.^^ (Although less handsomely rewarded with cash than

other War of 1812 captains, Isaac Hull would possess the most splendid and costly of

the presentation ums.)

Captain Bainbridge’s um is recorded standing eighteen inches high by Benson

Lossing. [Fig. 13] This was ten inches shorter and quite a bit lighter than Hull’s, but

more statuesque than other ums.^^ Bainbridge’s um, according to Benson Lossing’s

sketch of the 1860s, resembled Biddle’s and Perry’s with cast elements of an eagle and

Neptune’s head handle terminals. If the drawing is accurate, the pedestal base appears

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. austere with just one row of chased leaf gardrooning around the foot and perhaps a

milled foliate band aroimd the base. The form’s emphasis is vertical and round. A

horizontal segment featured the engraved dedication on one side and an engraved

plaque showing the naval battle on the other. Relying upon the accuracy of the 1860s

sketch, the eagle finial appears to repeat the cast finial on Hull’s um. This magnificent

eagle would suit Bainbridge’s eighteen-inch high um, but would overpower a shorter

one. Lossing’s description helpfully recorded that the um was inherited by

Bainbridge’s children in the 1830s and was in Philadelphia in the 1860s when he

sketched it in a Mrs. Susan Bainbridge Hayes’s home.^*

Lossing’s account and accompanjdng sketch indicate that the city of

Philadelphia raised a significant amount of money to commission a silver um for the

long-suffering captain. Bainbridge had been imprisoned during the Tripolitan wars and

wounded during the successful encounter with the Java off the coast of Brazil.

Although Bainbridge was bom in Princeton, New Jersey, Philadelphia’s citizens, many

of whom were merchants dependent upon the Atlantic sea trade, made the extravagant

gesture of a personalized silver um and service to commemorate his success. His

arrival in Philadelphia in November 1813 was celebrated with a banquet at the City

Hotel and the silver was presented in the following year.9Q

Philadelphia native James Biddle (1783-1848) served with William Bainbridge

and was imprisoned with him in Tripoli during the wars (1803-1805). In 1812 he

helped capture the British sloopFrolic, but in a twist of war, the Frolic was reclaimed

and Lieutenant Biddle taken prisoner until 1813. After Biddle was recovered by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exchange and given command of the sloop Hornet, his bravery was acclaimed at home

in Philadelphia. His naval career included four decades of national service, but his

success while commanding the Hornet during 1813-1815 earned a Congressional gold

medal, awarded in early 1816. The Hornet captured the British sloopPenguin on

March 23, 1815 and despite being seriously wounded, Biddle survived to continue his

naval service.

Fletcher and Gardiner had the order for James Biddle’s um by January 1814

(probably after he was released in 1813), prior to his famous battle with the Hornet.

The um recognized his 1812 encounters while a lieutenant aboard the Wasp. TO [Fig. 14]

In the same spirit that organized townsmen in Newport to reward Oliver Perry, a

committee of Biddle’s friends determined to recognize his heroism, and perhaps bolster

his fame, commissioned “a Silver Um, bearing upon it an appropriate inscriptions, and a

representation of the action between the Wasp and the Frolic, in which you so

conspicuously assisted to exalt the naval character of your country.” This statement

from a committee of his personal associates in Philadelphia proclaimed Biddle’s valor

and was published as an open letter in a local paper.B iddle’s reply (dated April 25,

1814), followed in the same column. He declared, “Such a testimonial of esteem from

gentlemen with whom I have long been associated in habits of intimacy, is in the

highest degree flattering to me, and has excited all my sensibilities; whilst I cannot but

be aware, that the partiality of your feelings toward me has greatly overvalued my

services on the occasion alluded to in your communication.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The inscription Biddle’s committee submitted for the um drew upon the text of

their published letter. Although the naval scene on the opposite side celebrated Biddle’s

war successes and the um resembled others made for national heroes, the text was

personal. The elegant cursive script of the engraving preserved a private memento of

his friends’ regard: “To Lieut.t James Biddle U.S.N. / From the early Friends and

Companions / of his Youth, who, while their Country / rewards his public services,

present / this testimonial of their esteem for / his private worth. Philad.a 1813”.

Biddle’s human character and substance were emphasized as worthy of fame over his

individual heroic exploits. The gift and descriptive statement published in the local

paper celebrated Biddle as a republican common man as well as virtuous national hero.

Some of the wealthier citizens of Philadelphia were on the silver um committee.

Biddle family’s standing in the city’s elite circles may have precluded a grassroots

public subscription campaign for an award like Hull’s; however the Pennsylvania

legislature awarded a sword and a service of plate after the battle of the Hornet and the

Penguin.^^ James Biddle’s family was connected to the profitable China trade and

active in Philadelphia’s financial circles, thus his naval career directly defended family

business as well as national interests.W hen Biddle and the Hornet captured the

British sloop Penguin in 1815, Thomas Fletcher was already in Liverpool. His younger

brother Charles related the news, writing with optimism “[we] hope we shall have

another um to make.. They did not.

Biddle’s friends presumably selected Fletcher and Gardiner because an award

from Philadelphia’s finest silver firm conveyed the symbolic meaning and caliber of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. memorial Biddle deserved. Like a publicly commissioned um, Biddle’s signified

greatness, gave recognition for national service, and endorsed his heroic status.

Biddle’s friends funded an um with the scaled-down grandeur of Isaac Hull’s um,

particularly seen in the laborious, multi-layered leaf chasing on the French-style

pedestal base. The oak leaf and acom branches engraved on either side of the applied

naval scene repeated motifs from Hull’s design. Biddle’s um was presented about six

months earlier than Perry’s, and may predate Bainbridge’s, thus the handle designs with

exquisite cast heads of Neptune and dolphins were probably first used on Biddle’s um.

[Fig. 15] This um stands fifteen and one-half inches tall and the entire bowl was raised

from one ingot, despite its appearance of a mid-level joint. Adopting what would

become a Fletcher and Gardiner standard naval fmial, the bald eagle perches on an

anchor and cannon on the lid. The trophy surrounding it includes cannon balls, a

curved naval dirk, and a coil of silver cable. This fmial was repaired at least once and

presently leans too far forward.

One can envision presentation ums displayed or even used to serve beverages

when the owner entertained. The unnatural pose of the eagle fmial on Biddle’s lid is a

telltale of impact with a hard surface. Fletcher and Gardiner created complex, jewelry

like cast parts for these presentation lid assemblages, but did not design them with

impact in mind. The eagles on every um were cast and chased to feathery perfection.

A small cannon, cluster of carmon balls, and large orb all present on Hull’s um also

once appeared on the Biddle and Jones ums (Jones now misses a cannon; Biddle misses

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the cable coil). Only Perry’s finial survived intact, with an anchor and cable on top a

rocky base.

Cast elements on the Biddle um lid were mounted on a circular base, joined to a

hand-raised dome decorated with chased leaves, and soldered to a hand-raised lid that

flares to the upper lip of the um. A narrow milled hand of trim masked the joints and

transitions between the leafy and smooth sections of the lid. The overall forms of

Biddle’s um and lid created harmonious stacked concentric circles and represented

another design experiment for Gardiner’s silver workshop. Typical of Fletcher and

Gardiner um bases, the pedestal foot was raised as one piece with four vertical sections

soldered to the base to make squared sides. Triangular bracket platforms stabilized the

sand-cast paw feet.

Attentive handcrafting and integrated design are hallmarks of Fletcher and

Gardiner’s best work. The decoration on Biddle’s um, however, suggests the firm was

experimenting with omament as well as body shape. The tablet depicting the Wasp and

Aro/ic encounter was produced separately and soldered in place. [Fig. 16] It does not

have Hooker’s fine hand and the chased surface suggests production by a trained

silversmith rather than a joumeyman engraver. Its sculptural dimensionality and rolling

clouds resemble scenes on ums for Bainbridge and Jones. The specific naval motifs of

engraved oak leaf and acom branches flank the battle scene and, although well

executed, appear stylized and less integrated. Occasionally a m otifs symbolic meaning

merited its appearance rather than its artistic contribution to overall composition.

Fletcher and Gardiner’s presentation silver repeatedly experimented with the balance

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between a bold, sculptural overall form, cast and applied omament, and smooth surface

planes.

This um was loaned to the United States Naval Academy Museum by Mrs.

Emily Biddle Churchman in 1940 and it was given through her estate in 1946. She was

Commodore Biddle’s great-great grandniece and inherited the um from her grandfather.

Captain James T. Biddle.

Captain Jacob Jones (1768-1850) was commander of the sloop Wasp when

Biddle served as a lieutenant. Jones received an um from Gardiner’s workshop with a

more official character than Biddle’s. Following the successful triumph over the Frolic

in 1812, Jones was immediately celebrated by citizens and honored with congressional

awards. In December 1812a victorious Jones visited Philadelphia. His appearance

prompted a parade of sailors in the streets, and a banquet hosted at the City Hotel was

presided over by Chief Justice Tilghman. Oberholtzer recounted the event: “The men

bore transparencies, flags and a triumphal boat decorated with the colors of many

nations. Captain Jones was called to the front of the hotel, to receive the acclamations

of the crowd.”^^

Philadelphia’s public enthusiasm for Jones generated support for a presentation

um commissioned by citizens from the workshop of Jean Simon Chaudron (1758-

1846), now in the New York Historical Society collection. Chaudron’s shop produced

fantastic examples of neoclassical silver, bringing specialist joumeymen to work with

him on complex designs, cast parts, and chased omament. The chased dedication on the

front, “THE CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA / TO CAPTAIN / JACOB JONES” is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. identified on the bottom of the um as the work of local engraver William Kneass (1780-

1840). It is conceivable that Chaudron or the artist in his shop who made the Neptune’s

head handle terminals also borrowed or loaned molds for similar heads on Fletcher and

Gardiner’s urns for Bainbridge, Perry, and Biddle.

The State of Delaware commissioned an um for Jones from Fletcher and

Gardiner in late 1813; he most likely received it in April 1814.^^ [Fig. 17] A trae case

of unrestrained legislative composition, the lengthy inscription echoes the formality of

Philadelphia’s language on the Hull and Bainbridge ums: “Presented to Capt. Jacob

Jones, Commander of the U.S. Sloop of War, / the Wasp, by, the Legislature of the

State of Delaware, as a / testimony of the / high sense of gallantry, intrepidity, and skill

displayed by him on the 18*, of October 1812, in the capture of the British Sloop of /

War the Frolic, a vessel of superior force, after an action of 43 minutes; / By which

brilliant achievement he has reflected high honor upon the / arms of his Country, fixed

on an imperishable basis his own fame. / and entitled himself to the admiration and

gratitude of his Native State.” Perhaps the first time “intrepidity” was used in a

dedication, this long text presented a new design problem for Fletcher and Gardiner. It

would not easily fit on the upper frieze-like register of the body. Instead an engraver set

the long cursive inscription on the bulbous lower bowl beneath the lozenge-shaped

image of the Wasp and Frolic.

This design placed the triumphant naval battle image and dedication on the same

side of the um. With a state legislature rather than group of citizens sponsoring the

commission, the um was further embellished with Delaware’s official coat of arms in a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. war trophy setting on the opposite side.^^ The coat of arms and naval scene were both

chased directly on the urn’s upper register. Like Perry’s um, the upper register of

Jones’s um was fashioned from rolled sheet silver joined with a seam covered by the

left handle. Gardiner’s workshop experimented with time-saving eonstmetion

technology rather than hand-raising the collar as they had for Hull’s um. Jones’s

highly-omamented pedestal foot and identical ram’s head handle terminals recall the

Hull um, although in compensation for the smaller scale only one ram was needed on

each side. Each foliate handle loop suspending a sphere was east from the same molds

used on other presentation ums. The current condition of this um with a dented side,

damaged eagle finial and lost cannon, indicate a rough life prior to its accession in the

Delaware Historical Society collection.

By contrast to the um Chaudron created for Jones, Fletcher and Gardiner’s

design favored more complicated form and eonstmetion for the um body, less cast

elements, and an austere platform base. The Fletcher and Gardiner um eschewed the

gadrooned trim and sculptural omament that reinforced the horizontal emphasis of

Chaudron’s design. Instead, their um conveyed smooth upright verticality from the

concentric circles in the bowl to the domed lid. Fletcher and Gardiner made deliberate

design choices with their interpretations of late classical motifs they deemed appropriate

for American monuments. Whether because the workshop was already well-known in

the Delaware River valley, or because their emerging presentation silver was so

distinctive, Fletcher and Gardiner did not place touchmarks or engrave their names on

either the Jones or Biddle ums.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The firm’s records indicate a silver um produced for Lieutenant Charles Morris

in 1814, valued higher than Perry’s, Biddle’s, or Jones’s, but its present location is

unknown. Morris was recognized for his bravery aboard the Constitution in the battle

with the Guerriere. Without contemporary descriptions, it is speculative to suppose this

more costly um resembled the others, although Gardiner’s silver workshop efficiency

encourages that conclusion. It is also possible that the award included more than one

item. When Thomas Fletcher’s brother Charles was in Washington seeking federal and

private silver orders in 1829 Thomas reminded him to use the earlier award

persuasively: “If you could see Capt. Morris and get him to show the Genl. [Jackson]

'JO his um it might have some weight.”

A delightful anomaly amidst Fletcher and Gardiner’s statuesque classically-

influenced presentation ums is the circular design for a gigantic punch bowl awarded to

Lieutenant Colonel George Armistead (d. 1818) in mid-May 1816 by the citizens of

B altim ore.[Fig. 18] The spherical design was novel in American silver. The design

was also directly connected to the heroic actions of Armistead and the character of

British bombs he and his men withstood in 1814. This punch bowl could not be more

personalized to the recipient by design or dedication. It very literally memorialized a

specific historic event in silver, as the inscription relates: “Presented by a number of the

Citizens of Baltimore / to / Lieut. Colonel / GEORGE ARMISTEAD / for his Gallant

and Successful defense of / Fort McHenry / during the bombardment of a large British

Force, / on the 12* and 13* September 1814 / when upwards of 1500 shells were

thrown, / 400 of which fell within the area of the Fort / and some of them of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. diameter of this Vase.” On the opposite side is a delicate unsigned engraving

illustrating the event, probably after the print the “View of the Bombardment of Ft.

McHenry” published by John Bower in Philadelphia in 1816. A wreath-like oval frame

composed of oak leaves and acoms encircles the bombardment image and war trophies

of the Star Spangled Banner, drums, and a soldier firing a rifle decorate the outer edges.

The timing of this award, commissioned after the war’s conclusion and while

the firm’s designer Thomas Fletcher was on his first trip to Europe, meant that they

engaged another artist to produce sketches for Gardiner’s manufactory. George

Bridport (d. 1819), an English painter who worked with Benjamin Latrobe, collaborated

to design this award. Bridport’s assistance was recorded in a letter from Charles

Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher in Liverpool in 1815. Charles reported, “Mr. Bridport has

just completed the drawings for Col. Armistead’s um - in the form of an shell supported

on 4 Eagles standing upon a round foot: the body without any chasing.. The “shell”

referred to the cannonball shape, which the Baltimore committee must have specifically

requested. The informative tone of Charles’s letter suggests that Thomas Fletcher did

not contribute much to the design, although the cast eagles, wreathes of laurel for loop

handles, and new Egyptian-style winged paw feet supporting the bowl carried the

monumental grandeur of his earlier um designs.

Thomas replied to Charles a month later from Paris: “If you can send me a

sketch of the um you are making and some other matters & things that I can turn to

advantage - such as the portraits of our naval officers &c. it will be well.. The

popularity of French porcelain and British transfer-printed creamware bearing images of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. American military heroes shortly following the war’s cessation probably explains

Fletcher’s request for engraved “portraits” of naval officers he could use while

overseas. We can presume that Thomas Fletcher at least approved, if not tweaked

George Bridport’s design for the punch bowl.

Armistead’s award is of a scale proportionate to the firm’s other ums (eighteen

inches high), although it was originally several inches higher with an eagle finial. The

spherical bowl, roughly equal to a thirteen-inch bombshell, was hand-raised in two

sections. A wreath of laurel chased into the crown of the lid and bands of parallel lines

encircling the upper and lower third of the bowl completed the omament. The bowl’s

only points of contact with the base occur in a small silver pad soldered behind each of

the four eagles’ heads. The cast eagles have slightly opened beaks and free-standing

outspread wings and tails. Only their thick shanks and elongated talons reveal the

workshop’s challenge of balancing the weighty round body on just a few supporting

points. Silver bolts under the talons fasten the entire bowl into the flat base. A flat,

applied band of beaded and lined molding encircles the base, interrapted by four floral

omaments placed above each sand-cast winged foot. The paw feet, with wings that

barely meet the base, were reinforced with brackets to support the ensemble with

deceptive ease.

The unmarked tray with winged paw feet that supports the service was created at

the same time, and was most likely produced by Fletcher and Gardiner. Although not

conclusive, the rose and leaf pattem border matches omament on other Fletcher and

Gardiner silver of this period and the six winged feet are very similar to the punch bowl.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The tray’s regal proportion is of a scale to their other household waiters, and the lack of

a Baltimore assay mark contributes to this attribution. A public report of the

presentation to Armistead indicates the bowl, tray, beakers and ladle were all given at

the same time: “The vase was accompanied by silver cans and ladle, and the whole

placed on a large silver stand or tray.’’"*^

The repetitive but lucrative task of creating (at least) twelve barrel-shaped

beakers and a globular ladle to match the bowl went to Baltimore’s silversmith Andrew

Ellicott Warner (1786-1870). The beakers’ barrel shapes might refer to gunpowder

kegs, but barrel hooped drinking tankards, tumblers, and pitchers were common in late

eighteenth-century silver."^^ Scholar Jennifer Goldsborough offered an explanation for

the firm’s collaboration with Warner as the award committee’s option for avoiding the

expense imposed by Baltimore’s two-year old assay law by having most of the silver

made in Philadelphia.'^'^ Fletcher and Gardiner’s reputation for tasteful awards was

firmly established by 1816 and this probably also steered the commission to

Philadelphia. Warner’s contribution was sympathetic to the punch bowl design and the

beakers were conceived as a joint-commission to be fashioned by separate workshops.

A later list kept by Thomas Fletcher indicated the value of $2,000 for the punch bowl.

Whether that also included Warner’s costs is unknown; presumably it was for the whole

award.

Confirming joint production, both workshops engraved their names on this

presentation award. “Fletcher & Gardiner fecerunt / Philadelphia” appears on the top of

the base between two eagles. “A.E. Warner” was engraved on the base, suggesting he

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contributed to the punch bowl as well as the beakers.^^ The touchmark, “Philad.a /

Fletcher & Gardiner,” appears under the circular base. Warner’s beakers have

Baltimore’s assay mark on the bottoms and an assay mark with “A.E.W.” on the ladle.

The punch bowl was presented during a public ceremony honoring Armistead

and Lieutenants John A. Webster and Henry S. Newcomb held on a Saturday at noon on

May 11, 1816 at Fort McHenry.'^*’ Armistead’s reply to the citizen committee’s

complimentary address credited his fellow soldiers and spiritual intervention for their

success. Regarding the public testimonies and award, he responded: “.. .1 am proud to

receive it, and glory in this opportunity of transmitting to my posterity, so distinguished

a mark of a country’s gratitude; giving thereby, to that country, an indisputed claim to

their talents and exertions in support of that free and happy constitution and laws, under

which we live.”"^^ Lieutenants Webster and Newcomb were to receive swords also

made by Fletcher and Gardiner’s shop, but only Webster attended the ceremony.

The punch bowl was indeed transmitted to Armistead’s “posterity.” It appeared

in public again during General Lafayette’s visit to Fort McHenry in 1824 when

Armistead’s widow Louisa lent it for a public reception. She bequeathed the bowl to

their son Christopher Hughes Armistead with the “waiter, ladle and cups” in 1861."'* In

1921 most of the service was placed in the National Museum of American History by

Armistead’s great-grandson Alexander Gordon, Jr. and it is currently displayed with the

Star-Spangled Banner.

On the third anniversary of the British bombardment of Fort McHenry, the

citizens of Baltimore recognized Commodore John Rodgers (1773-1836) for his role in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. defending the city. Rather than a personalized silver bombshell, however, the

committee of 1816-17 invested $4,000 in a fifty-two item dinner service with

monumental serving pieces. Fletcher and Gardiner received the commission and

delivered the set in 1817."^^ Surviving examples from Rodgers’ service are in the

Maryland Historical Society, National Museum of American History, and Saint Louis

Art Museum collections. [Fig. 19] While the grand scale and large number of pieces

conveyed regal monumentality, they were designed to be functional. Only the engraved

dedications identified the presentation purpose. The entire service was exhibited for

several days prior to the ceremony at Mr. F. Lucas’s bookstore in Baltimore.^^

On June 14, 1817 Baltimore’s Niles ’ Weekly Register ran a long column

detailing the presentation service:

Commodore Rodgers. The compliment designed to be paid by certain citizens of Baltimore to this able and patriotic officer, is ready for delivery. It is a most superb service of plate ‘intended for the dinner table, and consists of a large fish dish: four large meat and four smaller dishes: four covered dishes for vegetables; two soup tureens and ladles: two large pitchers, four sauce boats and ladles: a bread basket, and a dozen forks - all of the most substantial workmanship, and reflecting on the artists, Messrs. Fletcher and Gardiner, of Philadelphia, the highest degree of credit.’ Each piece has the following inscription: ‘Presented by the Citizens o f Baltimore to COM. JOHN RODGERS, in testimony o f their sense of the important aid afforded by him in the defence [sic] o f Baltimore, on the & 13‘ ofSeptr. 1814. Never ’ was such a compliment more honestly, more faithfully, earned - never was one presented with a deeper interest and feeling than this occasion will give rise to. The unwearied volunteer-like services of [C]om. Rodgers in the defence of Baltimore in Sept. 1814, were as a host in strength - teaching by example, spreading confidence every where, and infusing into each breast a portion of his own invincible spirit. This service of plate cost $4000. It is splendidly ‘ornamented with borderings and embossed figures

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. after the manner of the Egyptian and Grecian sculpturings,’ and it is universally admired. It was exhibited for a few days for the gratification of the subscribers and others.

Other city papers reprinted the announcement, including itemization of the

lavish number of serving dishes, and Fletcher’s and Gardiner’s names. One paper in

Norfolk remarked, “this is the true way to reward public men, either as meritorious

Soldiers, Statesmen, or Citizens - A dinner passes away, and is no more thought of; but

a splendid present like the one we now speak of, is a monument ever present to the

receiver, and descends to his posterity, exciting future generations to heroic deeds in the

service of their country.While individual pieces in the service were of a grand scale,

the cumulative effect of so much silver for dining at one man’s table was monumental

to contemporary eyes.

Baltimore’s commission of costly services for Rodgers and one for Stephen

Decatur from Andrew E. Warner (also in 1817) pushed both silversmith firms to expand

their domestic forms. Fletcher and Gardiner’s service for Rodgers refined their

particular interpretation of French neoclassical style. They used antique vessel forms,

often paired for symmetry, and retained a preference for smooth reflective surfaces with

judiciously limited omament. Egyptian-influenced elements included the chased leaf

bands on the pitchers, winged eagle head handle terminals, and a dainty winged lion

feet on the sauce boats and bread basket. These new feet were similar to cast feet used

in local Philadelphia silver, which originated with Percier and Fontaine designs.

The pair of large ewers reused an earlier cast eagle head handle pattem

(designed for a private presentation pitcher) and added an eagle head terminus as well

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as new tri-leaf paw feet, indicative of the continuous design refinement in Gardiner’s

w orkshop.Rodgers’s oblong bread basket reveals a transition from the difficult

pieced and soldered volutes used a few years earlier on Bainbridge’s bread basket to a

tighter rectangle with shorter handles.

The most fantastic show of silver in the Rodgers service was a pair of oval

tureens approximately fifteen inches high. Like presentation ums, these tureens were

mounted on square plinth-like bases with anthemion wrapped comers. [Fig. 20] The

massive sand-cast feet with Egjqitian-style wings resembled the Armistead punch bowl

and tray feet. Cast pairs of fierce eagle head terminals decorated loop handles on the

ends. The heavy pomegranate finial and foot design visually punctuated the top and

bottom of the tureen. In sum, at least three different designs for cast feet, several types

of eagle head handles, and varied border pattems were employed on both round and

oblong bodies comprising one “service.” Other dinner services the firm created echoed

many of Rodgers’s distinctive forms, but only very wealthy patrons like Daniel Webster

ordered similar tureens for the table.

The final monumental presentation um produced by Fletcher and Gardiner for a

War of 1812 hero was commissioned by “the ladies of South Carolina” for Major

General Andrew Jackson (1767-1845). In addition to its artistic presence, this um is

fascinating to consider as an expression of women’s public initiative in South Carolina

and their ability to raise a significant sum of money for a public award after the war’s

conclusion. Although contemporary wealthy, titled British women awarded silver to

heroes, American women’s large gifts of silver were generally demonstrated by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. widows’ wills awarding silver to their ehurch or family members. Jackson’s success

sparked an occasion for women in the democracy to unite in a project distinct from their

men, and to honor their own hero. Newspaper accounts indicate a state-wide

subscription led by a group of Charleston women recognized Jackson’s leadership in the

Battle of New Orleans with a silver award.^^ According to Thomas Fletcher’s

documents, the ladies raised $500 during 1815 and commissioned an um. The resulting

design’s fresh interpretation of the um form reflected Thomas Fletcher’s recent personal

exposure to monumental French and English silver. [Fig. 21]

The oval body and deep square base resembled the Rodgers service’s massive

tureens, but a concave central register chased with laurel branches and the wider sweep

of the collar and lid added complexity to the smooth body. Sinuous double-headed

snake handles would not appear unusual on high-style French and English silver of this

era, but they were just emerging as Egyptian-styled east omament in American

neoclassical silver. One of Paul Storr’s tureen creations for Eondon’s Rundell, Bridge

& Rundell (1805) now in the Winterthur Museum collection has a closely related

handle design.^'’ The complex snake bodies and jewel-like surfaces on the Jackson um

handles were great feats of casting craftsmanship requiring new pattems for the

workshop. Their shape brought dynamic spiraling energy to the edges of the design,

which was echoed by the eagle finial with a fierce new asymmetrical pose.

Other cast omament applied to the base included four massive winged paw feet

(also on Rodgers’ service tureens) and three flat bosses of eagles perched on spiral

thunderbolts which were direct quotations from Piranesi.^’ A drawing finished prior to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the vase eonstmetion indieates four east eagles and trophies identical in size and design

to one on the lid were mounted on comers of the square base.^* Although the eagle

finial is slightly different in attitude from the drawing, presumably four others were cast

from its mold and used on the base. The current small birds on rounded discs (applied

with new bolts) are not to the scale of the overall design. Details from the South

Carolina State Museum records indicate the um was vandalized in 1905 and restored

shortly afterward with replacement eagles. Fortuitously, no other parts were damaged

by the “despoiling.”

This um was personalized with a scene of Andrew Jackson’s defense of New

Orleans against poorly-led British forces on January 8, 1815, post-dating the declaration

of peace. Jackson’s record of just over one dozen casualties versus hundreds of killed

or wounded British soldiers was celebrated and the event appeared immediately in

prints depicting views of “The Battle of New Orleans.” Fletcher and Gardiner

collaborated with an engraver to record the scene directly on one side of the base.

Relocating the battle scene from the um ’s curved body to a larger flat surface gave the

engraver more room as well as changed the character of the static platform base used by

Fletcher and Gardiner. This transition from a plain antique architectural base to a

decorative surface appropriate for American pictorial views would be exploited later in

vases the firm created for urban merchants. Jackson’s image was not signed by an

engraver, although the firm’s name, “Fletcher & Gardiner fecerant. Philadelphia” was

placed prominently just above the battle scene on the base.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The um’s dedication begins with the patriotic women: “Presented by the Ladies

of South Carolina / to / Major General Andrew Jackson.” On the opposite side the arms

and motto for South Carolina omamented the lower portion of the bowl. An ebullient

letter from a Mr. Strohel who visited the Philadelphia store in 1815 reported the firm’s

design to readers of the press in Charleston and endorsed the ladies’ choice of Fletcher

and Gardiner for the award. He remarked:

There appears to be every anxiety on the part of Messrs. Fletcher & Gardiner.. .to gratify us to the utmost extent of our wishes. They have laid aside every other work, to enable them to employ their whole force, both in taste and execution, upon the one in question. I have no hesitation to declare that I believe when the vase shall be exhibited in Charleston, it will excel by far any thing ever exhibited there. I am warranted in this belief, from having seen with admiration, the pieces executed by them for the other heroes of our late glorious war. Messrs. F. & G. are of opinion that the arms of the state will give a most elegant appearance to the work.[Fig. 22]

Unfortunately, the ladies had to wait over a year, perhaps because the service for

local hero John Rodgers took precedence.

This um was presented to Jackson in 1817 from the ladies through a chain of

Charleston worthies. A printed account recorded: “Thomas Lee, Thomas Bennett, and

J.S. Richardson, esquires, for the ladies of Charleston, S.C. have presented to the ‘man

of Orleans,’ .. .through Col. Hayne and Major Gadsden, the elegant silver Vase

prepared at their cost for him.” TheSalem Gazette also reported the presentation,

detailed the weight “14 lbs., 10 oz.,” and concluded: “it is the work workmanship of

Messrs. Fletcher and Gardiner, of Philadelphia, and is said to be of uncommon taste and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elegance.”®' Jackson kept the um in his possession until his death when a tmly

interesting chapter of the um’s history began.

According to museum records and the inscription later added below the South

Carolina state arms, Jackson retumed the um to the state by bequeathing it to the last

surviving member of the Palmetto Regiment. Thus after 1845 the um acquired the

following inscription: “Presented by / General Andrew Jackson / to / Wm. B. Stanley /

President of the Palmetto Association in tmst for the / last survivor.” Jackson re-gifted

the um to the longest surviving veteran of the Mexican War (1847-48) who kept it

privately until the early twentieth century. At his demise, the um then became state

property and was housed in the state archives collection until the State Museum

acquired it.®^

Despite its present altered appearance, this um is the triumphant final expression

of Fletcher and Gardiner’s War of 1812 presentation silver. The Jackson um heralds

the mature neoclassical design manifested in their household silver services and

contains eonstmetion details that reappear in civic presentation ums commissioned in

the next decade. The firm’s teaming curve of producing eight different presentation

ums and several presentation services in just a few short years tested their design

originality, pushed the adoption of some mechanically-aided techniques, and demanded

a streamlined manufactory organization. The other side of the coin of fame and

national patronage was the pressure to maintain artistic and business leadership in

challenging economic times.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. War of 1812 Urns as American Symbols

The role presentation ums played in mediating and intensifying the public

sensation of military hero awards must have been in the forefront of the firm’s creation

of forms new to American silver in their monumental scale. Fletcher and Gardiner’s

transmission and filtering of French and English neoclassicism, antique motifs, and

American national sjmibols claimed the um form as their design patrimony. By 1815

ums were tmly intemational forms - in ceramics, silver, fumiture, architectural details,

wallpaper, portraits, prints, and memorial silk needlework. They functioned like

symbolic visual shorthand for multiple meanings such as heroism, memory, the antique

world, and in this case, as a reliquary vessel large enough to contain a nation’s

expression of gratitude.

Many surviving Fletcher and Gardiner silver ums were kept by family members

until the first half of the twentieth century and now are in public collections. This

preservation speaks to personal meaning inspired by an um as well as the growing

practice of cultural historicism. War of 1812 presentation ums originated in an

intensely patriotic environment, but how did they appear to an owner years later? Their

history of family provenance extended a perceived value to successive generations. The

fact that nearly all of Fletcher and Gardiner’s presentation ums passed through family

lines rather than being melted or sold reveals their worth in several dimensions. An

um’s implicit value far exceeded the bullion and artistry employed. It carried a

dynamic meaning that was at once nationally official and also personal. These artifacts

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were historic events; they preserved in silver the intersection of a national hero, a

committee of citizens, and artistic vision.

Award ceremonies, detailed descriptions in local papers, participation of citizens

through subscription campaigns, and even caimy storefront window displays were all

factors helping to establish what endures today as a culture-wide symbol for attainment.

Silver tournament cups and athletic prizes are imbedded forms recognizable now

because they were repeatedly commissioned throughout the nineteenth century, a

century anchored by Fletcher and Gardiner.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

’ Baltimore’s Niles ’ Weekly Register, September 12, 1812, p. 29. Also noted in Elizabeth I. Wood, “Thomas Fletcher: A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio 3 (1967), p. 139. Hull received a gold sword made by Nathan Starr in 1819.

^ Isaac Hull subscription list, September 3, 1812, Miscellaneous, Subscription Lists, Box 5-C, Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Permsylvania. Charleston (South Carolina) presented a six-piece gilded silver tea service to Captain Hull in 1813. It is English, made by Ann, Peter & William Bateman, ca. 1802-1805, and illustrated as Figs. 23-24 in Helen Richmond, Isaac Hull A Forgotten American Hero, (Charleston, Mass.: USS Constitution Museum, 1983).

^ Isaac Hull subscription list, September 3, 1812, Ibid.

^ Wood reported that approx. 194 pledgers paid in full. Wood,Ibid., p.140.

^ Aurora Daily Advertiser, September 7, 1812. Quoted in Wood, Ibid., p. 139.

^ Thomas Fletcher to Timothy Fletcher, December 19, 1813. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection 1994, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ Thomas Fletcher to James Fletcher, January 19, 1814, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ Henry Moses, A Collection of Antique Vases (1814).

^ Charles Percier and Pierre-Fran9ois-Leonard Fontaine, Recueil de decorations interieures, (Paris : Chez les Anteurs au Louvre, 1812), plate 46.

Wood, Ibid., pp. 143-144.

’' The Roman motif of an eagle clutching a spiral thunderbolt symbolized the god Jupiter/Zeus and was adopted in 1804 for Napoleon Bonaparte’s (1769-1821) imperial coat of arms designed by Denon, Gay, and Biennais.

These female figures are bolted in place using a technique directly related to contemporary French and English practices for precious metalwork. For examples, see: Clare Le Corbeiller, “The Construction of Some Empire Silver,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 16 (1982), pp. 195-198.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For another Philadelphia example, see presentation ums ereated for Commodore Stephen Decatur made by Thomas Whartenby & Peter Bumm in 1816.

Ellis Oberholtzer wrote that Perry received “ a sword which had cost $700” in 1815 and that he had been celebrated with a banquet in Philadelphia’s City Hotel on Febmary 8, 1814. Ellis Oberholtzer, Philadelphia: A History of the City and Its People, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., ca. 1898), p. 22.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, November 6, 1813. See also a later subscription list in the U. S. Naval Academy Museum files.

See also: Engravings by W. B. Anmin in Abel Bowen, The Naval Monument, (1816). My thanks to James Cheevers for this connection. Come was bom in Italy and brought to Massachusetts by Elias Hasket Derby, Jr. in 1799. His naval portraits were popular in Salem, Boston, and later in Newport, Rhode Island. Francis Keamy (1785-1837) worked as an engraver and publisher in Philadelphia.

Letter to Oliver Perry from the Newport award committee, December 28, 1814, U. S. Naval Academy Museum files.

“Commendation” draft by the Newport award committee, U. S. Naval Academy Museum files.

Letter from Oliver Perry to the Newport award committee, U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection.

Benson Lossing, Pictorial Field-Guide of the War of 1812, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1869, p. 463. Statistics like these were reported in local papers and in the Niles ’ Weekly Register.

Lossing, Ibid., p. 462.

Thomas Fletcher’s undated (semi-reliable) list recorded a value of $1,000 for Bainbridge’s awards with a delivery date of 1816; the um probably cost $500-600. Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, reprinted in Donald Fennimore, “Elegant Pattems of Uncommon Good Taste: Domestic Silver by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner,” (master’s thesis. University of Delaware, 1972), p. 93.

Compare to the Fletcher and Gardiner bread basket of identical form with different cast omament and no visible inscriptions in the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lossing, Ibid., p. 462

Thomas Fletcher’s membership card for the Winslow Blues dated May 1, 1807. Folder 4, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Kenneth Failor and Eleonora Flayden, Medals of the United States Mint, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 203.

Of the known Fletcher and Gardiner War of 1812 ums, Bainbridge’s is three inches taller than those for Jones and Biddle.

Lossing, Ibid., p. 463.

Oberholtzer, Ibid., p. 22. When Bainbridge died in 1833 accounts recalling his naval career and leadership were printed in Philadelphia area papers. For example, see: Village Record, August 14, 1833, (Item #3393 on-line through Accessible Archives).

Dating this um is problematic using documents. Thomas Fletcher’s semi-accurate list, as reprinted in Donald Fennimore’s thesis, says the um was delivered in 1813, prior to Hull’s. However; Thomas Fletcher mentions it in a January 1814 letter to James Fletcher, and a letter describing it appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette on July 6, 1814 according to Wood, Ibid., p. 149. Most likely, Isaac Hull’s um was fabricated first, but delayed in presentation.

Biddle um committee: Thomas Cadwalader, Charles Ross, George Reinholdt, Bemard Henry, Condy Raguet. The entire letter from the committee is quoted in Wood, Ibid., p. 149 It appeared with Biddle’s letter in reply in thePennsylvania Gazette, July 6, 1814, p. 3.

A report of these awards and an engraved image of Biddle’s um are preserved in Lossing, Ibid., pp. 453, 991.

Philadelphia Museum, Philadelphia and the China Trade 1784-1844, exhib. cat. (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984), p. 159.

Letter from Charles Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher in Liverpool, July 2, 1815. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Oberholtzer, Ibid., p. 21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. State Archivist’s letter to Elizabeth I. Wood, December 1, 1964, Delaware Historical Society object files.

See Wood’s report of members on Jones’s committee. Wood, Ibid., p. 148.

The Morris um is referred to in Thomas Fletcher’s letter to James Fletcher in January 1814 and then again in 1829 when Charles Fletcher was in Washington City trying to obtain a dinner service order for the Jackson President’s House. Thomas urged Charles to use the reputation of silver made 15 years earlier, such as Rodgers’s dinner service and the Hull um, in addition to Clinton’s vases, to persuade the president: “If you could see Capt. Morris and get him to show the Genl. his um it might have some weight.” Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Charles Fletcher, Febmary 25, 1829, Box 3, Folder 27, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, pp. 185-186

Letter from Charles Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher in Liverpool, 1815. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Charles Fletcher, August 31, 1815. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, p. 185.

Fletcher and Gardiner used the hooped form for a pair of tankards now in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum collection, #2001.0001-2.

See Jennifer Goldsborough, in Classical Maryland 1815-1845: Fine and Decorative Arts from the Golden Age (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993), p. 152; also her article, “Silver in Maryland,” 125, no. 1 (1984), p. 266.

The engraved name “A. E. Wamer” was not visible to me in the exhibition case, but others report it on the punch howl base. See: David Warren, et ah, Marks o f Achievement: Four Centuries of American Presentation exhib.Silver, cat. (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1987), p. 110.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Niles ’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, p. 185-186. There is also an undated and unsigned note to Lieut. Webster from a committee of citizens of Baltimore, 1816: “The committee appointed by the citizens of Baltimore to procure a suitable piece of plate to be presented to Lieut. Col. Armistead for the defense of Fort McHenry were also instructed to procure and present to you a sword as a mark of their esteem and gratitude for your gallant defence [sic] of the six gun battery on the 13* & 14* of September 1814. The Committee intend, on Saturday next at 12 o’clock, to present the plate to Lieut. Col. Armistead in Fort McHenry and they are desirous of presenting to you the sword which they have provided at the same time and place, if agreeable to you. They therefore ask the favor of you to be present at that time & place.” Mss. 1846, Maryland Historical Society Library.

47 Niles’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, p. 185.

Louisa Armistead’s Last Will and Testament, September 12, 1861, by Isaac P. Cook, register of wills for Baltimore City, in National Museum of American History files.

Complicating Jennifer Goldsborough’s claim that assay costs drove major Baltimore commissions to Philadelphia was the simultaneous creation of a significant service for Stephen Decatur valued $6,000 by Andrew E. Wamer. Goldsborough, Classical Maryland, Ibid., p. 152.

American Beacon and Commercial Diary, June 16, 1817.

Niles’ Weekly Register, June 14, 1817, p. 245.

American Beacon and Commercial Diary, June 16, 1817.

For example, see Anthony Rasch’s sauce boat at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, #1959.152.1. These feet also appeared in a design by Charles Percier for a mustard pot, reprinted in Anthony Phillips and Jeanne Sloane,Antiquity Revisted: English and French Silver-Gilt from the Collection o f Audrey Love, (London: Christie’s Inc., 1997), Fig. 54, p. 109.

For example, see the Fletcher and Gardiner covered pitcher now in the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, dated 1815, presented by Lady Houstoun Colonel James Johnston, Jr. of Georgia. David Warren, et al.. Ibid., pp. 118-119.

Fritz Hamer, chief curator of history at the South Carolina State Museum, kindly supplied visual verification and historical details about Jackson’s um. I am deeply indebted to his assistance.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sir Wilfrid Lawson tureen and stand, Paul Storr, 1806-1806, silver, Wintherthur Museum collection, 1996.4.

See: Giovanni-Battista Piranesi, Diverse maniere d ’adornare i cammini.. .e toscana, (1769), Fig. 60, Tavola Ipag 31,reprinted in Jonathan Scott, Piranesi, (London: Academy Editions; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975), fig. 264, p. 227.

Pencil and ink drawing, attributed to Thomas Fletcher in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Whittelsey Fund, 1953.652.4.

American Beacon and Commercial Advertiser, November 9, 1815, pp. 2-4.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, March 15, 1817, p. 48.

Salem Gazette, September 27, 1816 in Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

This chapter did not have the benefit of an important early account of the um. For further information, see: Alexander S. Salley, Jr. “The Jackson Vase,” in Bulletins of the South Carolina Historical Commission, no. 1 (Columbia: State Co., 1915).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2

EMPIRES OF WATER IN SILVER: MERCHANT PRINCES

AND THE “WARWICK” TYPE

Fletcher and Gardiner’s reputation expanded with the nation’s naval successes,

so perhaps it is not surprising that the firm’s second wave of major public commissions

followed inland waterway development in the 1820s. The mid-Atlantic region initiated

independent canal projects creating waterway access to inland markets and profitable

water-borne trade. These efforts absorbed tremendous quantities of labor and capital,

heightened economic rivalry between competing harbors, such as Baltimore and

Philadelphia, and encouraged sizeable investment with speculative returns. New York’s

financing, engineering, and completion of the Northern and Western Canals (the Erie

Canal) into territories secured by the previous decade’s battles were triumphs investors

celebrated in silver. For silversmith workshops that survived the financial panics of

1819, a growing cultural practice of commercial presentation awards provided new

opportunities for creative design in monumental forms.

Marketplace changes through public works or private ventures altered

landscapes and lifestyles in many urban areas. In Philadelphia, the city’s fresh water

supply and mechanized waterworks from 1800 were improved and expanded as the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fairmont Waterworks. Superintendent Frederick Graff received a silver vase in 1822

from the Watering Committee in thanks for his role. The vase perpetuated

Philadelphia’s orientation toward French neoclassical design for inspiration and

combined antiquity’s motifs with contemporary American imagery. [Fig. 23]

Silversmith Harvey Lewis (ca. 1783-1835) produced the vase, which incorporated a

square middle section of chased panels with a view of the waterworks, a classical river

deity symbolizing the city’s fresh water supply, and an engraved dedication.

Lewis’s shop was near Fletcher and Gardiner’s on Chesnut Street and the

similarity of overlapping leaves chased on this vase’s bowl to their Hull um might have

been aided by proximity as well as by similar French designs sources.' To twenty-first

century eyes, Lewis’s overall composition might appear awkward or unbalanced, but it

suited the purpose of a stylish, permanent silver memorial and symbol of gratitude for

Graff. This example is only one of many civic awards of silver pitchers, salvers,

services, and ums produced by American firms as gifts for local worthies. Judging

from surviving silver a great flourishing of private presentation pieces followed the War

of 1812. Fletcher and Gardiner were not alone in seeking prestigious civic patronage,

however; when a significant commission arose, few firms could compete.

When Fletcher and Gardiner won the award commission for the govemor of

New York in January 1824, the firm must have been jubilant with the opportunity to

reassert its national superiority in the competitive silver market. Merchants from New

York City’s commercial core on Pearl Street recognized Govemor De Witt Clinton for

negotiating the troublesome completion of the Northem and Westem Canals. To thank

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Clinton a committee of investors launched a contest in December 1823 to seek “pieces

of silver plate as they may consider appropriate” for an award. The committee’s call to

artists, as recorded in a 1908 transcription of a “Memoir of De Witt Clinton,” stipulated:

“A premium of $100 is offered for the best design for two vases, to be made in

pursuance of the preceding resolutions. It is the wish of the Committee that the vases

should be of the same outline, but differing in ornament.”^ Triumphing over New

York’s silversmiths, Fletcher and Gardiner proffered two vases expressing the

significance of the canals to New York State and celebrating the achievements of the

govemor. The firm quickly created a proposal between early December and mid-

January. The story of this massive pair of silver vases, from design to unveiling,

capitalized on Thomas Fletcher’s genius for leadership in public taste and ability to fuse

classical designs with America vision.

The Warwick Type in New York

In a monumental show of artistic confidence and awareness of taste on an

intemational stage Fletcher and Gardiner appropriated an aristocratic silver form,

altered its mythological imagery, and added contemporary American iconography to

create their distinct, hybrid presentation vases for Govemor De Witt Clinton. (Note:

The prevailing use of “vase” rather than “um” even for covered vessels shifted by the

1820s and this paper will henceforth favor the new term.) Illustrating the tmly multi

national reach of the late classical style, Fletcher’s English inspirations had appropriated

their design from a second-century A.D. vase excavated near Rome in the early 1770s.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The original marble vase, discovered in fragments at Hadrian’s villa in Tivoli, was

purchased by Sir William Hamilton, extensively reconstructed, brought to England, and

acquired by bis nephew George Greville, Earl of Warwick. Its bath-sized opening is

encircled by a leafy grapevine which originates in the entwined vine handles."^ A

middle panel bolds raised-relief carved symbols of revelry and fertility including masks

of satyrs, the god Bacchus, and animal skins.

The “Warwick vase’’ as it became known in England gained renown in some

circles through engravings in Piranesi’s Vasi, Candelabri, Cippi... (1778), the

Gentleman’s Magazine (1800), Thomas Hope’s Household Furniture and Interior

Decoration (1807), a full illustration in Henry Moses’s A Collection of Antique Vases

(1814), and through reproductions in silver by Paul Storr (1771-1844) for British

aristocracy. In fact, the silver or silver-gilt version of this vase was in such demand as a

wine cooler that Paul Storr steadily created pairs for Rundell, Bridge & Rundell from

1810 -1 821. The Prince Regent alone ordered one dozen silver-gilt coolers between

1812 and 1814.^

It is important to note that unlike the original marble vase or published

engravings, Fletcher and Gardiner’s Clinton vases incorporated lids and a footed base.

Thomas Fletcher saw a Paul Storr Warwick-style vase personally in 1815 when he

visited the royal goldsmith shop of Rundell, Bridge & Rundell shop in London, but the

engraving published by Moses also seems to have informed his design. As Donald

Fennimore discovered in Thomas Fletcher’s 1815 letterbook record of experiences

abroad, Fletcher saw a “fine vase copied from one in the possession of the Earl of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Warwick... which was dug from the ruins of Herculaneum, [sic] [It] is beautifully

made - it is oval, about 2/3d the size of that made for Hull, the handles are grape stalks

and a vine runs all around covered with leaves & clusters of grapes - below are heads of

Bacchus &c. finely chased - some wine coolers in the same style.. Storr’s typical

wine coolers in this design weighed several hundred ounces and were approximately

seventeen inches high. These would appear like dainty tabletop ornaments next to the

two-foot high vases of approximately 400 ounces (each) produced by Fletcher and

Gardiner. For Governor Clinton’s award the Philadelphia firm emulated an existing

form, but they created new monuments with specifically American iconography. [Figs.

24, 25]

Fletcher’s Clinton vase designs transformed the central frieze area from images

of Greek debauchery into a virtuous tableau for mythic figures and a panoramic

celebration of New York’s industrial landscapes. Drawing upon their previous practice,

the workshop streamlined production by creating mythological and pictorial tablets

independently of the vase. All twelve concave cast and chased tablets were framed with

a milled border of laurel leaves and bolted into place. The bolt fastening technique was

employed for every ornament on the sides of each base, including the stylized

anthemion comers; a method also practiced in French and English silver. Ultimately,

Fletcher and Gardiner designed many elements to be fashioned separately and applied,

evidence of the workshop’s labor specialization. The firm took approximately one year

to complete the vases, dating the first one “December 1824” and the second “Febmary

1825.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The vases’ grapevine handles with a center twist resulted from complicated

multi-part easting, soldering, and chasing to achieve the distinctive Warwick vase

handles. Repeated sections of grapes and leaves soldered together and raised off the

surface encircle the vases below the lip much like the original design. Chased animal

skins and acanthus leaf omament decorating the lower howl mimicked the Warwick

example. The square platform bases supported by enormous new cast paw feet recalled

the firm’s earlier presentation urns and were not part of the antique vase design.

Other omament on the vases that repeated motifs or molds from the firm’s War

of 1812 ums included the eagle fmials on the lids. The workshop modified the fmial

mold used for Andrew Jackson’s um by adding a wreath and the state’s arms in the

eagle’s talons. This ensemble was mounted over the outline of New York State on a

semi-globe. Each vase included a grouping of Neptune’s head, entwined dolphins with

a crossed trident and paddle very similar to handle groups on at least three naval

presentation ums and appropriate for the canal theme. The classical reference to the

mler of the seas was echoed on either side of the base by small oval medallions

depicting a river deity.

The iconographical program for these monuments was very specific,

complicated, and layered with American and mythological sjmihols that, from the

beginning, Thomas Fletcher narrated to the public in-person or with a printed guide.

The vases featured emblems of progress in several forms: human and mythic;

intellectual and physical; and personal and national. By framing American historic

views with classical figures the vases symbolically linked the ancient world to present

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. time. The conceit was certainly not a novel one, but one Fletcher’s contemporaries

perpetuated intellectually and in their architecture. The survival of the printed

broadside composed by Thomas Fletcher (with help from committee member Isaac S.

Hone), “Description of the Vases,” is invaluable for understanding the artist’s original

n interpretation of the program.

In the written description Fletcher first explained the small classical figure

groups on the back of each base before detailing the larger images around the middle.

In execution, these small groups resemble ceramic decoration on Wedgwood’s

Jasperware and on Sevres’s porcelain from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

century. The Clinton vase groups were conceptually linked together and “intended to

represent the progress of the Arts and Sciences from their rude origin to their present

improvement.” The group representing the arts illustrates productivity in a pastoral

setting. [Fig. 26] The group of the sciences includes “a youth holding a drawing board

with a diagram of one of the first problems in mathematics, and an old man directing his

attention to the figures beyond, which denote the sciences still unexplored, and

encouraging him to persevere.”* [Fig. 26] These frieze-like narrative figures were

clearly important to the overall artistic program and gave the vases a philosophical

dimension extending well beyond the physical achievements of canal builders.'^

The small figure groups illustrating cultural progress associated the vases’

overall narrative content with European academic painting traditions. Like history

painting subjects, the vases located contemporary American heroes (Clinton) and works

(the canals) at the rational end of an intellectual and artistic legacy begun in Greece and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rome. Although the Warwick form was deliherately selected from a popular English

design, Fletcher avoided Anglo or French parallels by only referencing classical gods

and allegorical narratives as direct inspiration for American contemporary events. The

concave pictorial tablets in the middle of each vase demonstrated the same program

more prominently by depicting views of the canals flanked by allegorical figures. By

linking the canals to the realm of mythological gods, the vases placed New York’s

achievements in annals of world history, or Historia, through their iconography.

The four views of canal technology were taken from prints produced by the

canal’s geological surveyor, James Eights (1798-1882).^° The vase dated 1824 depicted

scenes near Albany and Rochester, opposite ends of the enormous project. On the 1824

vase, the broadside described the omament:

The front view is the Guard Lock and part of the basin at Albany, where the Canal is connected with the Hudson, together with the mansion of Mr. Van Rensselaer and the adjacent scenery, and Canal boats passing... The plate on the right of this tablet exhibits Ceres with the emblems of agriculture... that on the left Mercury, with the emblems of commerce... The reverse centre tablet contains a view of the aqueduct at Rochester, and a boat passing, drawn by horses; below are seen the Falls of the Genessee, and a number of unfinished buildings.. .This view supported on the right and left by Minerva... and Hercules... indicating wisdom and strength.

The vase dated 1825 illustrated two impressive sections of canal near the mouth of the

Mohawk River. Its description explained:

The concave belt around the middle of this vase bears six tablets in bas relief, the two centre tablets exhibit views of the Cohoos Falls.. .and of the Little Falls of the Mohawk, with the stone aqueduct and bridge, and parts of the Canal.. .The figures on each side of the former are Fame.. .and History.. .on one side of the latter is an Indian contemplating the stump of a tree recently felled, and the ax lying at its root.. .and on the other. Plenty with her comucopia....

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The ellipses inserted in both descriptive passages replace imbedded references to

Fletcher’s figure numbers. The broadside was intended to guide public viewing of the

vases and numbers were probably directly placed on different areas of each vase to

ameliorate visual navigation." The printed description indicated Fletcher’s careful,

didactic intent for public comprehension of each artistic detail.

The firm’s depictions of Greek deities and allegorical figures were linked

closely to the scenic views: Ceres and Mercury flank the lock connection between

upstate agricultural land and down-river commerce centers; Minerva (Athena) and

Hercules flank the engineering marvel of bridge over the Genesse Falls; Fame and

History flank the dramatically flowing Cohoes Falls surmounted by a bridge; and Plenty

and the Native American man flank the lush treed lands and Little Falls of the Mohawk

River now spanned by a bridge. The depiction of a Native American man, rather than

the typical woman personifying New World abundance, is curious on this vase. His

bead is bowed and bis body leans gently on a tall bow with one arrow awkwardly held

behind bis body. The broadside described him “contemplating the stump of a tree

recently felled;” the tablet shows a large stump with several young saplings rising from

the old base. An interpretation under the thematic structure of national progress would

encourage a reading of a subdued and conquered native culture acquiescing to the more

technologically advanced culture, or perhaps the dominating Anglo-American presence

in formerly unimproved native landscape. Either view is painful for today’s

understanding of the tablets, but probably easily recognized by contemporary viewers.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The printed description of the vases concluded with sentiments familiar to the

audience of merchants and urban investors commissioning the works. It declared that

the wild animals “who haunted our western region before the industry and enterprize of

1 'y our brethren made ‘the wilderness to rejoice and blossom as the rose.’” Progress

measured as development of landscape resources for profit had not yet been tempered

by the writings of William Wordsworth or Henry Thoreau. Thomas Cole’s painted

series of the Course of Empire was still a decade in the future. The Clinton vases

presented a celebration of American industry, ingenuity, and nation building.

Employing natural resources to make the wilderness “blossom as the rose” carried a

virtuous moral mandate as well as an economic meaning. The reinforcing presence of

classical symbols and motifs encouraged further industrial heroics and placed the Erie

Canal at the peak of national achievement. The underlying visual extravagance of the

pair of silver vases gave weight and credence to the entire artistic program.

Were these vases perceived as illustrating hegemonic early industrial

imperialism?^^ Fletcher and Gardiner were not the first to include domestic scenery in

presentation silver; however, they integrated views artfully into a proportionate design

and an overall intellectual program. American landscapes and mechanical feats such as

bridges and waterworks were already part of the national visual culture in printed

engravings and even on British transfer-printed creamware. In the same year the firm

received this commission Thomas Fletcher became a founding member of

Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute. His passionate support of the mechanic arts was an

aspect of wider promotion of national industrial development. In Fletcher’s experience.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. large scale works for public benefit (like canals) were lauded by ceremonies, newspaper

accounts, and recorded by artists in print, painting, and silver much as past military

conquests had been.

Public reception of the vases and their presentation to Governor Clinton

received press coverage, thus a seemingly official record of contemporary impressions

survived along with Fletcher’s personal reflections. After an exhausting and tense

overland trip, Thomas Fletcher wrote to his wife on March 12, 1825 from New York

City. Fie displayed the vases in the city before they went by steam boat to Albany.

Fletcher reported: “There is to be a meeting of the subscribers this evening at the City

Flotel where the vases will be exhibited. It will then be determined how much I am to

get for them.... The vases are to be exhibited to the public on Monday and Tuesday and

I shall have to attend and explain the work... I shall dine with Mr. [Isaac] Hone

tomorrow and after dinner he and I shall draw up the description for publication.”''^ As

Donald Fennimore recognized, the personal risk for Fletcher and Gardiner to invest

resources and materials in these monuments without a final price settled was a

staggering revelation in this letter.'^ The “description” Fletcher referred to was the

broadside quoted above and also printed locally by the New York Commercial

Advertiser}^ It is probable that Fletcher and Gardiner displayed the vases in

Philadelphia first, before they were viewed in New York City and then in Albany.

Isaac Hone gave a speech on March 19th at Govemor De Witt Clinton’s home in

Albany during the presentation ceremony. Hone spoke for all of the Pearl Street

merchants and recalled Clinton’s “devotion to the public interest” by pressuring the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. state legislature to follow through on the vast canal project (which was officially

celebrated in October). Hone continued: “What was then theory has now become a

splendid reality, and at every new development of our resources, and every new display

of the power and grandeur of our State, its citizens feel additional inducements to

admire and honor your character.”'^ Clinton responded with a longer speech, thanking

the committee for the “splendid fabrics” (vases) and praising the thriving city of New

York. His comments revealed an entitled sense of progress arching over the canal

project: “And we may certainly cherish these expectations without the just imputation

of arrogance or ostentation. We ought to know our power with a view to its judicious

application, and we should form a just estimate of our faculties and capabilities in order

to promote in the most effectual manner the welfare of our country and the happiness of

mankind.”^*

A Baltimore publication, Niles ’ Weekly Register, announced the award of the

vases on March 19‘*’ and then reprinted a report of the presentation one month later:

“The governor’s mansion, (says the Albany paper), was so crowded with citizens and

strangers, to witness the presentation of those superb vases, which were exhibited, a few

days since, in New York. After the ceremony was over, his excellency complied with a

request from the citizens of Albany, to permit the vases to be exhibited for the

gratification of the citizens of that place, and they were removed to Knickerbocker’s

hall for that purpose.

The spectacle of the vases, their detailed description, and the public’s awareness

via newspapers, stretched from New Albany to Baltimore in a manner unprecedented

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. even by the firm’s Isaac Hull um. The vases tmly were nationally famous, receiving

more print coverage than any other American works in silver. Thomas Fletcher was not

in Albany for the presentation, however, he met with Govemor Clinton in May and he

quoted the govemor’s response in a letter home: “He says they have been much

admired, and good judges have pronounced them superior to any they have seen in

Europe.”^®

The end of the broadside and newspaper item “Description of the Vases”

proclaimed: “These vases were made by Messrs. FLETCHER & GARDINER of

Philadelphia, and designed by their Mr. FLETCHER.” More permanent signs of

attribution were the names engraved just below the dedication to Clinton on each vase.

Both vases bear “Fletcher & Gardiner, Makers” on the lower left comer and the city and

date on the right comer: “Philad.a December 1824” and “Philad.a Febmary 1825.”

Dates do not appear in the engraved dedications, thus these refer to artistic manufacture,

not the completion of the canals or the presentation ceremony.

This visible claim of “authorship” for the artistry and production of Clinton’s

vases followed Fletcher and Gardiner’s earlier practice on some presentation ums and

the custom of major London and Paris goldsmith firms. More than a guarantee of

quality or an opportunity for advertising, the inscription preserved Fletcher and

Gardiner’s link to Clinton’s monuments in a very personal way. With Gardiner’s long

trips to Mexico and then passing in 1827, these vases were probably the last

presentation works displaying both of the partners’ names to the public. The firm also

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. used a unique Z-shaped banner touchmark devised for the commission to record their

names on the bottom of the bases.

The engraved dedications on the vases were brief and heroic: “The Merchants of

Pearl Street, New York, / TO THE HON. DEWITT CLINTON / Whose claim to the

proud Title of “Public Benefactor,” / is founded on those magnificent works, / The

Northern and Western CANALS” on the 1824 vase, and “TO THE HON. DEWITT

CLINTON, / Who has developed the resources of the State of New York. / AND

ENOBLED HER CHARACTER, / The Merchants of Pearl Street offer this testimony

of their / GRATITUDE AND RESPECT” on the 1825 vase. Mr. Clinton owned the

vases for precisely three years. Information in the Metropolitan Museum of New

York’s object files records that after Clinton’s sudden death in 1828 his property was

seized in forfeit• for his • debts. 21 The presentation vases’ value and importance to

citizens roused interest in the press. According to an article in the Albany Daily

Advertiser, “the splendid vases have been retained, and a hope is expressed that they

will, eventually be restored to the possession of the family. A lodge of masons at Troy

has subscribed $25 for the purpose.

In Baltimore, the Niles ’ Weekly Register announced Govemor Clinton’s death in

April, criticized news of the sheriffs seizure of property in June, and devoted a column

to the vases’ welfare on June 14, 1828. The final citation also mentioned a John W.

Forbes silver plateau presented to Govemor Clinton in 1825, hinting to the visual

spectacle of both vases standing on its mirrored surface in the govemor’s mansion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A transcription of the item follows:

The Clinton Vases. It is with great pleasure we state that the Clinton vases, which had been struck off at a sale of the deceased’s effects for 600 dollars, have been purchased by tbe grand lodge of the state, and voted to be presented to the family. The worth of the articles, with the plateau on which they stand, is said to be $1,200 in bullion, and the exquisite workmanship on them enhanced their value to $4,000.—The original purchaser bought the vases with a view of their restoration to the family, when the amount paid by him was refunded, and refused to sell them to an individual for $2,000, who wished to send them to London.^^

This item reveals that the vases were cultural landmarks known as the “Clinton vases,”

and curiously mentions an interest to send them abroad, but does not indicate whether

for sale or exhibition.

The vases were kept within the Clinton family until a De Witt relative acquired

them in 1906 and loaned them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.^"^ In

May of 1908 the vases were presented to the New York State Chamber of Commerce

where they stood on view in the great hall.^^ Both vases entered the Metropolitan

Museum of Art’s collection in the 1980s.

The immediate impact of the Clinton vases resonated in Fletcher and Gardiner’s

workshop for several years. It is likely that the vases were displayed in the Philadelphia

store prior to being brought to New York. When the June 7, 1828 Niles ’ Weekly

“splendid vases” the article referenced but did not identify. Fletcher and Gardiner’s

firm was poised to increase a steady new branch of presentation work in gold-hilted

swords and their household silver production was lively. Fletcher took advantage of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fame and seeming financial security to return to Europe in 1825 to order new goods and

personally seek new machinery investments.

Unfortunately, business slow downs and economic woes prior to the 1828

presidential election diminished public presentation silver. The firm’s reputation,

however, was sustained. An oft reprinted quotation from New York City mayor Philip

Hone records his memory of the vases thirteen years after they were first presented:

“Fletcher & Co. are the artists who made the Clinton vases. Nobody in this ‘world’ of

ours herabouts can compete with them in their kind of work.”^*’ Today these vases are

frequently published and exhibited as high water marks in American silver as well as

icons embodying the age of empire.

In 1826, following the meteoric Clinton vases’ fame and probably anticipating

the expanding business scene of New York City, Sidney Gardiner’s brother Baldwin

relocated his fancy hardware business there from Philadelphia. He also sought

commissions for presentation silver, serving as a middleman between patron and

silversmith. In 1828 New York politics entered Baldwin’s business when two sides in a

highly-publicized legal case both commissioned presentation silver from his firm. The

resulting ums are an intriguing comparison of design as well as evidence of factional

political patronage for presentation silver rather than the previous decade’s unified

military patronage.

A heavy lidded um in the New York Historic Society bears Baldwin’s

touchmark and was created in 1828 under his direction for Henry Eckford (1775-1832),

a naval architect and ship builder. As an investor Eckford became implicated in the so-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. called “conspiracy cases” by his efforts to bale out a failing insurance company in New

York.^^ His fellow citizens, grateful for Eckford’s personal losses and sacrificed

reputation, recognized him with a very English-influenced• • silver • um.98 One of

Eckford’s associates and fellow investor, Jacob Barker (1779-1871), was a director of

the failing Life and Fire Insurance Company. When the company collapsed in 1826,

Barker was indicted with fraud and eventually prosecuted by the district attomey for

New York county, Hugh Maxwell (1787-1873). Ironically, Baldwin Gardiner was also

the point person for a presentation vase awarded to Hugh Maxwell for his role in the

bitterly argued case.

Baldwin Gardiner received Hugh Maxwell’s vase commission from a group of

merchants including Henry Wyckoff, John Haggerty who had helped fund the Clinton

vases, and John S. Crary (New York senator 1825-1828) whose relative Peter Crary

chaired the Clinton vase committee. This distinguished group may have influeneed

Baldwin’s decision to write immediately to Thomas Fletcher for a design proposal as

fast as Fletcher could send one.

Other scholars have reprinted Baldwin Gardiner’s letter to Fletcher, but much of

it is transcribed here including a post-script indicating his role as middle man:

I have been applied to, to make a Splendid Vase & a pair of Pitchers, intended to be presented by the Citizens of New York to Mr. Maxwell (the District Attry.) as a token of their respect and approbation of his course of prosecuting the late conspiracy cases, so called - The price to be paid for the Vase & Pitchers, from $800 to $1,000 - These are the particulars. If you are disposed to make them, and in such a way as will answer my just expectations of profit, I shall be glad to have you undertake.. .them - and I am ready to say I shall be satisfied with a verv small profit; the more so to enable you to bestow the greater pains in their elegant execution, for I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shall look as much to the honour of thing, as to the profit. Of course, I should expect to have my name stamped on the bottoms.. .[He wants the order and needs drawings fast for Mr. Crary to make the decision.] None of the silversmiths here know that I have the order, as several of them w.d drop the hammer for me, if they knew I sent to Philad. and as soon as I am ready for such a course [?] on their part, I shall be very glad to have them.... N.B. I am now having made, besides the ‘opposition vase’ for Mr. Eckford, the two prize cups @50$ ea. for the successful Poems on the re-opening the Bowery Thea. and sets of Plate for several Person, I would heartily rejoice if I could throw it all into your hands. BG^^

Thomas Fletcher had already satisfied some of Baldwin’s elite New York patrons

and his response was a vase for Maxwell that made the Eckford award look like

half-hearted attempt.

Rather than adapting an English regency um or Just recombining pattems

existing in the firm’s silver manufactory, Thomas Fletcher’s acquisitive artistic eye

drew upon circulating Egyptian motifs and ideas for a tripod vase he most likely

gathered during recent visits to England and France. The overall impression of

Maxwell’s 1829 award is a Warwick-style vase floating above three sphinxes, which

rest firmly on a triangular, richly footed base. [Fig. 27] The dimensions of the entire

composition are roughly equal to one of Clinton’s vases, two feet high and

approximately twenty inches wide. Maxwell’s bowl is not lidded nor as deep as

Clinton’s, and the plain concave sides flare outward to the upper lip. Fletcher

refashioned his original interpretation of the Warwick type on all points, yet maintained

the general form. For example. Maxwell’s vase handles represent twined grapevine

stalks, but the molds were entirely different from the Clinton handles and resolve in a

lively almost rococo-revival group of grapes and leaves at the rim. The legacy of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sidney Gardiner included silver manufactory talent capable of following Fletcher’s new

designs.

By employing sculptural figures to support a bowl, Fletcher followed a strong

line of silver and silver-gilt masterpieces produced by the French firm of Jean-Baptiste-

Claude Odiot, English master Paul Storr, and other large firms with aristocratic

patronage.^^ Magnificent dessert stands and centerpieces of this scale with tripod bases

and sculptural supports were new forms to early nineteenth century silver and might

explain Fletcher’s change from a covered um or punch bowl to a tmly “splendid vase”

for Baldwin Gardiner’s commission. The taste for Napoleonic magnificence lingered in

silver and the Pompeiian perfume bumer form with a bowl over a tripod base appeared

in metalwork as well as fumiture.

Iconographically, Fletcher elevated a familiar Greco-Roman bowl over the

exotic symbol of Egyptian wisdom, the sphinx. Exquisite engravings of Egyptian art

and architecture published in 1802 by Baron Vivant Denon (1747-1825) nurtured the

growing interest in design sources. Scholar Wendy Cooper questioned New York’s

marked preference for Egyptian designs and noted that Maxwell’s vase “suggests that

the Egyptian style enjoyed a greater height of popularity than has previously been

acknowledged” in her exploration of early nineteenth-century interiors and artifacts.^'

Fletcher’s choice for sphinxes to support the Warwick-style bowl reflected his

sensitivity to New York tastes, although the firm incorporated Egyptian motifs for

borders, handles, feet, and water leaves on silver as early as the Rodgers service.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The vase’s sphinx figures were unusual for the merger of the Egyptian male

bodies with the typical Grecian winged female sculpture. Overwhelmingly the female

form with wings appears in European and English nineteenth centurydesigns.The

choice of a male body may have been dictated by Fletcher’s design for literally putting

an American face on antiquity - the sphinx heads strongly resemble George

Washington.^^ Fletcher’s confident use of the sphinx, the ancient culture’s sign for an

intellectual riddle or eternal wisdom, indicated not only his sensitivity to the nation’s

growing Egyptomania, hut also alluded to Maxwell’s professional ability to discern

wise rulings for contemporary situations. As a designer, Fletcher looked to Europe for

inspiration, but his selection of motifs reveals his own intellectual bent with personal

artistic choices.

Both the Eckford and Maxwell vases were metonymical endorsements for the

recipient’s human worth and refined character, rather than specific heroism. The

inscription on Maxwell’s vase does not mention the recent court case: “Presented to

Hugh Maxwell, Esq.r, by the Merchants of the City of New York in testimony of / their

high opinion of the ABILITY, FIRMNESS, INDUSTRY, PERSEVERENCE &

PUBLIC-SPIRIT / exhibited by him in the discharge of his duties as District Attomey.

AD 1829.”^“^ The Maxwell vase was accompanied by a calligraphic certificate from

August 22, 1829, preserved today in the New York Historical Society files. The

certificate testified to the same characteristics inscribed on the vase and added: “We

know that it will owe its chief value to the number and character of those whose views

it expresses; Permit us therefore to add, that splendid and costly as it is, we do but place

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. before You the aggregate of a great number of smaller and equal gifts from a large and

Respectable Body of Merchants.” An item in the Niles Weekly Register on October 3,

1829 announced the award: “A silver vase, weighing 730 ounces, and said to be a most

splendid article, not surpassed in design and finish in the country, was, on Tuesday last

week, presented to Hugh Maxwell, esq., hy a committee of merchants.. Maxwell’s

vase award may have had a political timing, but public remarks spoke to his moral

character.

The Warwick Type in Philadelphia

Locally, signs of canal fever manifested in Philadelphia and Baltimore in the

1820s as a possible answer to widespread commercial depression. Shook waves caused

by news of the Erie Canal spurred both cities to revive canal projects for access to

northwestern markets. After a five-year struggle, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

opened and the event was celebrated in Philadelphia in 1829 with public ceremony.

Inauspiciously, a mischance involved the near-drowning of a member of the

Washington Grays (militia). A quick-thinking member of the Philadelphia Grays,

Alfred Bennett, rescued the unnamed man. The Washington Grays recognized

Bennett’s heroism and a few months later, an article in The Ariel, A Semimonthly

Library and Miscellaneous Gazette on March 20, 1830 recorded the event. It also

described a silver vase the Fletcher and Gardiner firm created to award Bennett’s

“meritorious conduct.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The present location of the vase is not known, but excerpts of the announcement

described it:

The Committee appointed for this purpose procured an Etruscan Vase, executed by Mr. Thomas Fletcher, bearing the following emblems and inscriptions. On one side encircled bay an Oak Wreath, is the inscription ‘pro Give Servato’ - and above it is a chased tablet, representing the scene of the occurrence - the Canal, Toll House and Lock, at St. George’s - the several canal boats, and their positions at the time - and on the other side are the following words: ‘Tribute of Gratitude. / The / Washington Grays, / To / ADFRED [sic] BENNETT, / Of the / Philadelphia Grays. / At the imminent peril of his life, he rescued / a member of the Corps from drowning, / in the Chesapeake and Delaware / Canal, Sept. 19*’^, / 1829.’ The whole is surmounted by a lid bearing a piece of field ordinance, emblematic of the Corps.

The article also described a parade of the Washington Grays and Northern Liberty

Volunteers to Independence Hall on February 22, 1830 where Captain Childs awarded

Bennett with the vase and gave an address. His speech, as recorded by the paper,

captured a developing nuance in the meaning of presentation silver: “Let these

emblems and these inscriptions speak for me. - They record an action infinitely more

honorable than mere military exploit; they encircle your brows with that civic crown,

for which the proudest conqueror might exchange his laurel, and profit by the

exchange.” Bennett’s response reflected the sentiment in kind: “I accept it as a lasting

monument of your generosity as soldiers, and a sure token of your high esteem for the

more peaceful virtues as citizens....” The event concluded with a convivial dinner

party.

The article’s description of respectful, civilized interaction between Washington

and Philadelphia city militias emphasized the humanity of soldiers as mueh as their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. valor. Ironically, the gift of a costly, ornamented silver vase, modeled upon

presentation awards for battle successes, and the language of Childs’ speech likewise

ornamented with classical references, inflated the heroic spectacle of the event. Still,

Beimett’s noble saving of a fellow man’s life merited reward, thus his civic character

was extolled rather than his military service. In fact, the article italicized “mere”

military exploit; a marked departure from simultaneous public speeches given when

decorating War of 1812 heroes with gold presentation swords.

Philadelphia’s business community supported this impulse of civic celebration

in the early 1830s. A group of silver presentation vases made by Fletcher and

Gardiner’s firm between 1830-1833 carefully followed one similar design pattern. The

patrons must have stipulated the repetition in some cases, but one wonders whether

emulation amongst social circles was also a factor. Two nearly identical vases were the

first in the group, both presented to James C. Fisher (1754-1840), but by different

donors. The stockholders of the old First Bank of the United States recognized him

with a covered vase topped by a Mercury fmial (probably missing a caduceus), and the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal committee thanked their president (Fisher) with a

nearly identical vase topped by Neptune fmial (probably missing a trident). [Figs. 28,

29] These two vases were clearly influential on at least six later Schulykill Navigation

Company vases commissioned from the firm. >

Having reached his venerable three-quarters of a century in age, James Fisher

was a major engineer of Philadelphia’s webs of financial connections and investments.

He served as a director of the First Bank of the United States beginning in 1791. A note

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in the curatorial files at the Atwater-Kent Museum reports: “At the semi-annual meeting

of the stockholders of the older institution [First Bank of U.S.] on March 1, 1830, it was

resolved to give each of the Trustees $500 or a piece of plate of that value. For that

purpose a sum of $6,000 was appropriated.”^^ This note raises interesting questions not

only about Fisher’s award, but the possibility of eleven other First Bank silver awards

created in 1830. (None are known at present, and other silversmiths may have produced

them.)

James Fisher apparently not only selected the option for plate, but also chose

Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm for this award. One might presume an award of cash less

meaningful to Fisher than a handsome silver vase. If so, did Fisher also direct the

award he received from the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal committee in the same year

also to Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm so that he would have a pair of silver vases? A

letter written to Fisher from Thomas Fletcher early in 1831 reminded Fisher that the

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal committee had only approved three-hundred and fifty

dollars toward the vase and asked whether the balance of the cost should be charged to

TO Fisher’s private account. Fisher’s support for Philadelphia canal development

paralleled Govemor Clinton’s work with the Erie Canal, thus his desire for a pair of

valuable and iconic silver vases designed by Thomas Fletcher might be modeled on the

famous vases of just a few years earlier.

Without further documentary evidence, the conclusion of personal emulation

remains speculative; however, the design of Fisher’s vases supports an association with

the Clinton vases. Fletcher directly quoted omament including: the egg-and-dart

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. molding, entwined grapevine handles, band of cast grapes and leaves wrapped around

the upper body, wreath fillet on the pedestal foot, and square platform base with the

dedication on one side. The overall scale is shorter and lighter, and the form has a

vertical emphasis, but the echo of Clinton’s vases is evident in this pair for Fisher.

Thomas Fletcher’s established design aesthetic for architecturally segmented,

proportionate elements, however, prevailed in this pair. The contrast between dense

cast and chased omament and smooth reflective areas of unadorned silver is tastefully

balanced on each lid and body.

While the Fisher vase bodies retain classical motifs, the stylistic revival of

rococo elements appears in a few details. For example, the deep base on the First Bank

(Mercury fmial) vase is omamented on three sides with a cast and chased rococo floral

omament topped by a basket of overflowing garlands. The swags encircle an oval

portrait of the First Bank of the United States repeated on each side. Bolts hold the

elements in place. On the front an engraved tablet with rococo omamental script

records the dedication: “Presented by the Stockholders / of the late bank of the United

States to / JAMES C. FISHER, ESQ. / in testimony of his faithful and / judicious

administration / as one of the Trastees. / March 1, 1830.”

The canal vase, which is housed in the Yale University Art Gallery collection,

bears a dedication also bolted to the base and engraved in script by the same hand:

“Presented by the Proprietors / of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to / JAMES C.

FISHER, ESQ. / in testimony of his faithful and / useful services / as President of the

Company. / June 7, 1803.” The other three sides are identical to the first vase, with the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. substitution of a reclining classical river deity in place of the Bank in the oval

medallions. The elassical reference to water reinforeed the vase’s fmial figure of a

crowned, bearded Neptune balancing on a scallop shell, but also directly recalled the

omament on two sides of the Clinton bases.

These weighty awards to James Fisher brought the artistic legacy of the Clinton

vases to Philadelphia silver and perpetuated the practice of presenting grand, sculptural

covered vases to distinguished achievers in the business realm. Fisher was a local

financier with a Greek-revival house, Sedgeley Park, designed by Benjamin Latrobe

near the Schulykill River. His display of these vases at the country house or in town

may have influenced the growing patronage the firm received for presentation silver and

dinner services from the city’s business leaders. TO

Fletcher did not engrave the firm’s name on the dedication plates for either of

the Fisher vases. The First Bank vase was marked in four places inside the base with

five hallmark style punches in a row (profile head, T, F, eagle, P) and a circular mark

for “FLETCHER & GARDINER” on the bottom of the bowl. [Fig. 30] The canal vase

has the same hallmark style punches inside the base and the eireular touchmark with the

stamp “PHILA.” in a reetangle also on the bottom of the bowl.'^°

A vase of the same pattem and almost identieal dimensions was completed for

Cadwalader Evans, Jr. (1762-1841), another elder financier and first president of

Philadelphia’s Schuylkill Navigation Company. [Fig. 31] The company stockholders

had only recently begun to see results from the Union Canal connection from Reading

to the Susquehanna River and the timing of this award was during a short-lived decade

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of optimism. The canals were constructed to capture some of the voluminous upper

Susquehanna trade from Baltimore and to maintain Philadelphia’s western commerce,

thus the selection of a lid fmial depicting the allegorical symbols of Plenty with her

overflowing cornucopia and water vessel was apropos. [Fig. 32]

Taking another design cue from the Clinton vases, Fletcher included four panels

depicting canal landscapes from the Fairmont Waterworks upper covered bridge over

the Schuylkill River and two upriver scenes. The Fairmont Waterworks and upper

bridge images, if not all four panels, follow lithographs by Philadelphia artist George

Lehman (d. 1870) published in 1829. The soft, naturalistic chased and repousse panels

offer illusionistic picturesque windows bolted on the decidedly neoclassical overall vase

form.

While the landscapes were personally connected to business of the patrons and

Evans, elegant porcelain just beginning to be produced in Philadelphia by William E.

Tucker’s manufactory (active 1826-1838) also featured local waterscapes and scenery.

Philadelphia’s leadership in the engraved and lithographic print industry made artistic

“views” of American scenery available to a wider public."^^ Thomas Fletcher subscribed

to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania’s projectViews in Philadelphia and its

Environs, engraved and published hy Cephas Child in 1830. Childs’s partner for a time

in the 1830s was George Lehman. Some of William Tucker’s (the sometime sword

blade engraver, not the porcelain maker) works illustrated views of local buildings in

Child’s book. There was significant cross-fertilization; collaboration between the city’s

leading artisans fed fashion and heightened competition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Evans’s vase illustrated the “great undertaking’’ of the complete canal, thus the

dedication was engraved on both smooth sides of the bowl."^^ One side identified the

donor and receiver: “Presented / hy the Stockholders of the SCHUYLKILL

NAVIGATION COMPANY / to / CADWALADER EVANS, ESQ., their late

President.” The other side praised his support: “In testimony of their respect and

gratitude for his long continued faithful and laborious services in that capacity as well

as for the valuable support and aid he has at all times given to this great Public Work.”

Evans received this award after his retirement in 1830.

Like the Fisher vases, Evans’s award was hand-raised in a two-part body joined

and soldered together under the delicate milled leaf border. It repeats the cast grapevine

and entwined handles from the Clinton vases. Despite the repetition of form with both

of Fisher’s vases, the quality of workmanship and detailed finish given to chased

omament on Evans’s vase indicated the shop’s standards remained high. Repeating

their practice of touchmarks from the Fisher vase, the workshop used the row of five

hallmark punches four times, on each side inside the base.

In 1833 the stockholders of the Schuylkill Navigation Company commissioned

five additional vases from Thomas Fletcher, thus the company spent at least $3,000 to

reward their officers with what was the ultimate silver canal trophy available in

Philadelphia. A public announcement printed inHazard’s Register o f Pennsylvania the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. president and managers notified the city of the awards:

The Committee appointed on the 7*’^ January, 1833, ‘to cause to be manufactured, and, on behalf of the Stockholders, to present to eaeh of the Managers residing in Philadelphia, who have served in that capacity for more than seven years, a piece of plate of the value of five hundred dollars,’ .. .Five pieces of plate .. .were by their directions manufactured by Mr. Thomas Fletcher, in a manner entirely satisfactory to the Committee, and very creditable to Mr. Fletcher’s taste and skill. One of them was, on the 23*^*^ day of November last, delivered to each of the five following named gentlemen... Mr. Eyre, Doctor Preston, Mr. Firth, Mr. Lippincott, Mr. Nicholson.'*^

At present, only vases for Thomas Firth and Joshua Lippincott are known to

survive.'^'' Firth’s vase is identical and clearly from the same pattern as the Cadwalader

Evans vase. The inscription on the Ifont states: “Presented / by the Stockholders of the /

SCHUYLKILL NAVIGATION COMPANY / to / THOMAS FIRTH, ESQ. / under a

resolution of the 7 of January 1833.” The Lippincott vase is missing the lower section

of the base and all four canal scenes, hut appears to have its original feet. Presumably

vases for Eyre, Preston, and Nicholson looked the same as Evans’s with the allegorieal

figure of Plenty on the lid and scenes of the canal on the base.

These vases are the first known instance for Fletcher and Gardiner’s workshop

to fashion multiples of a monumental award for members of a group. Although the

vases were all hand-raised and produced using many traditional craft techniques, they

reveal a different understanding of the artistry involved in an award. Each vase no

longer represented individual characteristics of certain man. Their uniformity conveyed

common qualities between the group - mainly longevity of service. Historically

multiples of one form in silver hollowware were produced using craft traditions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. although not often for monumental silver. One wonders about the visual impact of

repeated standardized shapes produced in quantity by silverplate manufactories and how

it altered patrons’ expectations from hand-wrought silver manufacturers. Judging from

the close measurements of Fisher’s and Evan’s vases in the Atwater-Kent Museum

collection, Fletcher and Gardiner’s manufactory was capable of very precise repetition

with hand construction.

Did the stockholders request five vases matching Cadwalader Evans’s for

faimess or some sense of democratic uniformity for their awards? Or, perhaps this was

a show of solidarity in a public show resplendent in silver to quell any worries about the

profitability of canal investments? The Lippincott vase was inscribed: “In testimony /

of their sense of his long continued, faithful and disinterested / services as MANAGER,

in conducting / their concerns, under circumstances often of great diseouragement, / and

bringing them at length to an eminently prosperous condition.” The tenuous financial

security of Philadelphia’s canal companies, erratic patterns of toll revenues, and

weather-related limitations made for unpredictable returns on investment.

Thomas Fletcher continued to design silver presentation vases for private

groups, such as the trophy for Philadelphia’s United Bowmen Club, well into the 1830s.

The United Bowmen of Philadelphia commissioned the fourteen-inch diameter circular

footed bowl to commemorate their annual shooting prize and used it to record winners’

names from 1828 to 1855. [Fig. 33] It is currently in the Atwater-Kent Museum

collection. This bowl represents an unfinished artistic statement by the Fletcher and

Gardiner firm. The original vision for east acanthus leaves bolted to the bowl was only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. completed part way around the sides. Heavy cast leaves indicated the manufactory’s

efficient production of repeated ornament rather than the laborious repousse used for

canal vases of the same era, but leaves still required chasing and burnishing. The

handsome pedestal foot was chased separately then soldered under the bowl.

The bowl is also an anomaly amongst the firm’s presentation commissions; it

was owned by a group of members in a sporting club and their names were engraved on

the base, the bowl’s lip, and on hanging pendants. The back of the foot pedestal

declared the timeless collective ownership: “This Bowl is the absolute property of the

United Bowmen.” The transition from group donation of presentation silver to group

possession, turning the bowl into an annually altered monument as well as a perpetual

prize is unusual in pre-Victorian silver.

Past recipients of Fletcher and Gardiner presentation silver returned to

commission awards for their colleagues, such as the Medici-style vase awarded to

Gwinn Harris of Baltimore in 1831 now in the Maryland Historical Society collection.

[Fig. 34] The vase was given by eight military and merchant friends who identify

themselves in the inscription: “Presented to / GUINN HARRIS / by his former

associates / Isaac Chauncey, Lewis Warrington / Wm. M. Crane / Chas. G. Ridgeley /

John Downes / Geo. C. Read, / Hy. E. Ballard & Jos. J. Nicholson / as a testimony of

their / Esteem & Regard / A.D. 1831.” This one-foot high form with loop handled and

elegant chased ornament used familiar borders with new motifs, such as the handle

terminals and leaf pattern on the bowl. The monumental domestic form on a low

circular foot was subtly adapted for presentation. The donors’ dedication received

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. primary emphasis on one side with erossed leafy branches framing the engraved text

like a heroic wreath.

Thomas Fletcher’s letters from this era reveal difficulty in finding engravers and

chasers to work for the manufactory. The Gwinn Harris commission provides historical

evidence of a rare lapse in firm’s attentiveness by spelling his name “Guinn.” Thomas

Fletcher’s letter to Henry Ballard explained the mishap:

Since the Vase has been finished it has been discovered that the second letter of Mr. Harris’s name should be W instead of U - 1 send you the original manuscript Inscription enclosed, which appears to be as the engraving, if there is a mistake I regret it, & would have eorreeted it but for the impossibility of so doing without producing a blemish more conspicuous than the mistake itself. It may be done at some future time, when the vase may require refmishing.'^^

Whether the overall symbolic meaning of a Fletcher and Gardiner presentation vase was

satisf}dng enough to the patrons and Mr. Harris or the opportunity to correct the spelling

never arose, this vase retains the original engraving.

Private commemorative silver existed in Anglo-America from the earliest days

of settlement, and statuesque domestic forms such as ewers and wine coolers in the

empire style became frequent bearers of personal dedications and dates."*^ They were

refined, functional objects of tangible worth and markers of sentiment for an intimate

circle. In late 1829 John Linton of New Orleans ordered a monumental domestic

service for public presentation to the city’s retiring port collector Beverley Chew (1794-

1844).^^^ Chew belonged to a prominent Philadelphia family and had served with

Beale’s rifle company in the Battle of New Orleans. Fletcher’s report of the completion

of Chew’s service indicated that a heavy soup tureen, statuesque vase, and new models

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for the figural finials drove expenses higher than the original budget. His presentation

silver designs never stinted weight or artistry, although profit margins were often slim.

In this case, Fletcher confessed he kept workmanship charges the same despite

increased scale and new designs.^* Letters between John Linton and Thomas Fletcher

in subsequent years indicate a demand for extensive silver dinner services followed the

presentation.

The intentionally designed artworks of weighty vases and dinner services given

as public gestures to reflect the exceptional character of the recipient took on national

significance in large part due to Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm. Beginning with the

Clinton vases, groups or friends and associated merchants joined forces and adopted the

practice of commissioning silver. It is not surprising that silver forms were

appropriated as political endorsements of a man’s character, such as the two New York

vases commissioned by Baldwin Gardiner in 1828-1829, nor as rewards for steady

leadership in troubled times, such as the Fisher and Evans vases. The so-called

transportation wars of the early nineteenth century sponsored not only canal vases, but

related presentation silver for railroad trophies and many other magnificent creations

outside the scope of this paper. Fletcher and Gardiner helped launch an American

practice of commercial rewards in precious metals for new merchant princes that only

grew more monumental and complex later in the century.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

' In 1818 Harvey Lewis relocated his shop from Second Street to 143 Chesnut. Some of his household silver forms and cast ornament follow Fletcher and Gardiner silver very closely.

^ New York City Chamber of Commerce, Proceedings of the Chamber o f Commerce, Fifty-first Annual Report, Part I, May 7, 1908, p. 5.

^ New York City Chamber of Commerce, Ibid., p. 5.

^ The reconstructed vase measures 1.70 meters high and 1.95 meters diameter (5.57 feet high, 6.39 feet diameter).

^ Norman M. Penzer, Paul Storr: The Last of the Goldsmiths, (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1954), p. 27-28.

^ Donald Fennimore, “Elegant Patterns of Uncommon Good Taste: Domestic Silver by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner,” (master’s thesis. University of Delaware, 1972), p. 25 citing Thomas Fletcher’s Letterbook, June 14, 1815, p. 144, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ This description was reprinted by theNew York Commercial Advertiser, March 18 and 22, 1825, and the Niles ’ Weekly Register on April 23 1825. Elizabeth Wood reprints the text. Wood, “Thomas Fletcher: A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio 3 (1967), pp. 169-171.

* “Description of the Vases,” Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

^ The watercolor of the 1824 vase, drawn and painted by Hugh Bridport, depicts the side with the progress of the sciences on the base. The watercolor is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection, #1953.652.2.

James Eights is identified in Berry Tracy, “Late Classical Styles in American Silver,” Antiques 86, no. 6 (December 1964), p. 703; and in Martha Tales, Early American Silver, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973), p. 114.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Melina Fletcher, March 12, 1825. Box 2, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This statement also referenced the different North American animal skins encircling the bowls. Beneath the skins of bear, bison, mountain cat and sheep (draped in the manner of the Warwick vase) are native animals including deer, fox, squirrel, and beaver.

A discussion of Govemor Clinton’s politics is outside the scope of this study, but Federalist-oriented committee members and supporters sponsored the vase awards.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Melina Fletcher, March 12, 1825. Box 2, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Fletcher’s letter continued: “I find it impossible to do anything else till I get rid of the vases and settle with the Committee...” Letter March 12,1825, Ibid.

David B. Warren, Katherine S. Howe, and Michael K. Brown, Marks o f Achievement: Four Centuries o f American Presentation Silver,exhibit, cat., edited by Barbara M. Ward and Gerald W. R. Ward, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1987), p. 91.

New York City Chamber of Commerce, Ibid., p. 6.

New York City Chamber of Commerce, Ibid., p. 7; also Niles ’ Weekly Register, April 23, 1825, p. 120.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, April 23, 1825, pp. 120-121. Announced,Niles ’ Weekly Register, March 19, 1825, p. 33. David Warren also cites the New York Commercial Advertiser, 18 and 22, March 1825. Warren, et ah. Ibid., p. 91

Don Fennimore, Ibid., p. 89 and May 7, 1825, Box 2, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

My deep thanks to Beth C. Wees and Medill H. Harvey for sharing these files.Albany Daily Advertiser, May 24, 1828, reported Sheriff C.A. Ten Eyck’s sale of Clinton personal property, seized after his death, and held at the house on North Pearl and Steuben Streets in Albany on May 23, 1828.

Albany Daily Advertiser (May 24th) quoted in the Niles ’ Weekly Register, (June 7, 1828), p. 233-34.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, June 14, 1828, p. 252. The Forbes plateau is now also in the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection, #1993.167a-c.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mr. & Mrs. Morris K. Jesup (nee Maria van Antwerp de Witt) purchased them in 1906.

An account of the gift ceremony on May 7, 1908 and description of the vases were published by the New York City Chamber of Commerce, Ibid.

Philip Hone, The Diary of Philip Hone, vol. 1, edited by Bayard Tuckerman, (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., ca. 1889), p. 288.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, p. 196.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, pp. 261-262. This citation recounts the presentation of the vase by committee members Cadwallader D. Colden, Peter Harmony, and Stephen Allen.

Letter from Baldwin Gardiner to Thomas Fletcher, August 29, 1828. Folder 19, Box 3, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

A closely related overall composition to the Maxwell vase is the Warwick style bowl made under Paul Storr (ca. 1820) and later mounted upon a tripod foot with three leopards made by John Tapley. In 1956 Norman Penzer reprinted it from the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths Company collection. See: Norman M. Penzer, “Copies of the Warwick Vase,” Part 3, Apollo (March 1956), pp.11-1 A.

Cooper, Wendy. Classical Taste in America 1800-1840, (New York: Abbeville Press and the Baltimore Museum of Art, 1993), p. 141.

Piranesi’s sphinxes were male with pharaonic headdress much like Fletcher’s design. For Greek examples, see Jean-Baptiste-Claude Odiot’s design, in the exhibition catalogue Odiot I ’Orfevre (1990), Fig. 267, p. 170. Paul Storr produced a dessert stand with four sphinxes combined Egyptian and Greek features; see: Sotheby’s New York sale. Fine English and Continental Silver, October 12, 1990, lot 247. In ceramics, an often reproduced nineteenth-century design by Wedgwood, the “Brainstone Vase,” has a black ceramic body incorporating male winged sphinxes.

My thanks to Donald Fennimore for this observation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One end of the base was later inseribed: “EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF HUGH MAXWELL WHO DIED MARCH 31, 1873.” On the other side of the base: “I give to the President o f the Law Institute o f the City o f New York and to his successors in office my silver / vase given as a mark o f regard for professional services as District Attorney by the Merchants of the City / New of York while acting as such under the appointment of Governors Tompkins and Clinton I also / give to the said Institute the portraits of Kent and Emmett my honored friends. This ” vase is currently on loan to the New York Historical Society.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, October 3, 1829, p. 90.

Ariel, A Semimonthly Library and Miscellaneous Gazette, March 20, 1830, p. 188.

Source: Object files from the Atwater-Kent Museum for the James Fisher presentation vase. My deep thanks to Jeffrey Ray, senior curator, for sharing this information.

Letter to James Fisher from Thomas Fletcher, February 8, 1831. Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 206, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

A letter from Isaac Hull to Thomas Fletcher reveals the lasting power of patronage as well as the immediate effect of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal on Fletcher and Gardiner’s business. Hull wrote from the Navy Yard in Washington on December 7, 1829: “Sir, 1 have determined not to have the bason belonging to the um made over at present, 1 will be greatly obliged if you will have the um & the sett of plate sent on as soon as possible. 1 believe there is water conveyance through the canal to this place & should suppose that the best mode of sending it on. 1 shall feel particularly indebted to you Sir for sending it speedily as possible & will thank you for my account. Your obedient servant, Isaac Hull.” Folder 27, Box 3, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Both vases are approximately twenty-one inches high over six and one-half inch square bases and a weight of approximately 5 pounds, five ounces, and 12 penn3weight.

Consider also John Hill’s engravings in Picturesque Views of American Scenery, (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey & Son, 1819-1821).

42 Niles’ Weekly Register, November 8, 1828, p. 162.

43 Hazard’s Register o f Pennsylvania, Vol. 13, no. 3, (January 18, 1834), p. 36.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Firth vase is pietured in the exhibition catalogue: 19^ Century America: Furniture and Other Deeorative Arts, intro, by Berry Tracy, (New York: New York Graphic Society, for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970), Fig. 51. The Lippincott vase is currently on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art from a private collection.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Captain Henry E. Ballard, March 4, 1831. Box 1, Letterbook I, p. 218, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library. This vase bears the circular touchmark of “Fletcher & Gardiner” with “Phila.” stamped inside the circle.

In 1834 public subscription campaigns were still practiced, such as the one-dollar contribution Thomas Fletcher made to a pitcher for Major Jack Downing of the Militia. Folder 47, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

“The merchants and others of New Orleans, have presented sundry splendid articles of plate to Beverley Chew, esq., lately removed from the office of collector of the port, ‘in testimony of his public services during fourteen years.’”Niles ’ Weekly Register, June 12, 1830, p. 292.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to John Linton, Esq. in New Orleans, June 18, 1830. Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 154, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Museum.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3

PATRIOTIC REGALIA: FLETCHER AND GARDINER

PRESENTATION SWORDS

In the two deeades following the War of 1812, the Fleteher and Gardiner firm

repeatedly addressed the artistic challenge of how a physical object could express or

reflect an individual’s courage, patriotism, and skill. They were asked to fashion works

of art that would honor a hero as well as memorialize his deeds. Tapping the same

confident artistry of their silver presentation urns, Fleteher and Gardiner’s swords

explored motifs, shapes, and materials to offer variation within the parameters of an

overall form. The resulting gold-hilted swords, ornamented hlades, and decorated

seahbards revealed the firm’s choices and interpretations of classical motifs adapted to

an expression of American national style. The sometime close interaction between the

firm, an honored veteran, and his state govemment also reveals the care taken with

design and the importance given to presentation swords as symbols. Using heretofore-

untapped document sources as well as first-hand object analysis where possible, this

chapter identifies and interprets presentation swords made under the Fletcher and

Gardiner firm’s direction.

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Silver and gold-hilted presentation swords decorated many nations’ military

heroes in previous generations; post-Revolutionary American federal and state

governments also adopted the practice to reward valor. During this era of firepower and

use of shorter blades for hand-to-hand combat, the cut and thrust sword lost favor as a

weapon. Yet its lean, elegant form, with finely crafted steel blade, and cast or carved

figural hilt elements remained resplendent and valuable parts of military dress.’ The

firm of Fletcher and Gardiner was one of several receiving post-War of 1812 state

commissions for gold presentation swords; other known makers include John Targee in

New York, and Liberty Browne and Harvey Lewis in Philadelphia. The highest quality

swords and longest record for continuous production, however, belong to Fletcher and

Gardiner’s firm. (More than half of the sword commissions arrived after Gardiner’s

death, but this chapter will continue to refer to the firm as “Fletcher and Gardiner” for

coherency.) Their reputation for tasteful, excellent work and their solicitous rapport

with patrons pleased politicians, the public, and prompted some officers to request

Fletcher and Gardiner by name when a sword was proposed.

During a period of nearly thirty years Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm produced at

least twenty-four presentation swords. [See: Appendix A] Their work in cast and

chased gold is the largest scale and most significant single body of the goldsmith’s art

in pre-Victorian America. The artistry and enriching effects of a gold-hilted sword

(rather than silver) vaulted the form into new heights of American arms ornament.

Prized by collectors today, presentation swords from the War of 1812 are resplendent

with national eagles, sculptural pommels, and American classical iconography. The

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. blades, occasionally gilded or blued, were etched and engraved (by specialists) with

battle scenes, personalized inscriptions, and trophies. One sword typically cost equal to

Fletcher and Gardiner’s smaller silver presentation urns ($400-600) and was the highest

regalia adopted to honor military heroes.

A military presentation sword expressed many layers of meaning. It was a

worthy symbol of a state’s official approbation for its native-born hero. As a bearer of

very costly materials and the most excellent national workmanship, the sword was a

statement of taste and skill rivaling and surpassing British and Continental manufacture.

A signifier of virtue, it was also symbolic physical adornment for one’s person to be

wom at patriotic events. It was not unusual for officers to display their gold-hilted

sword in an official portrait. As a personal trophy, a sword preserved one’s heroic

heritage for future generations. It was a permanent memorial inscribed with dedications

and pictorial imagery demonstrating a man’s valor and his countrymen’s collective

esteem. Like the gift of a silver um or “suitable plate,” Fletcher and Gardiner’s

presentation swords perpetuated a pre-existing symbol of gratitude, but created designs

with an American artistic sensibility to decorate the new generation of American

military heroes.

Presentation Sword Manufacture

Goldsmithing, in many ways father to the silversmithing craft, historically

measured as the highest of precious metal arts. From the beginning of their partnership,

Fletcher and Gardiner’s shop produced and imported gold jewelry. They also carried

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. English military swords prior to the War of 1812, and large quantities of knives (mostly

for dining) from English cutlery suppliers after trade was resumed. It is not surprising

that Fletcher and Gardiner jumped into the business of producing swords when demand

for commemorative gold-hilted swords swelled after the War of 1812.^ Their earliest

swords reveal a conservative approach to design, but later hilts exhibit tightly coherent,

mature artistry indicating the firm’s willing investment in creative time and new casting

molds. The manufacture of a War of 1812 presentation sword, however, was not a one-

person job, and multiple commissions meant contributions from a number of skilled

joumeymen.

The question of authorship or artistic responsibility is a fascinating angle to

consider regarding the collaborative production of presentation swords. When a maker

or artist is acknowledged in today’s catalogues or labels, typically one name is assigned

to each sword from this era. Precious metalwork in America remained largely self

regulated and the use of maker’s touchmarks, whether initials or full name and city,

were inconsistently applied until just after the turn of the nineteenth century. For

illustration, consider Fletcher and Gardiner’s use of several different marks or in a few

cases, none, on their presentation silver. Likewise, steel bladesmiths’ and founders’

work inconsistently bore marks and names. As a consequence, a presentation sword

might be marked with either the goldsmith’s or bladesmith’s impression, or none at all.

Both worked in independent workshops, producing artistry in their respective materials,

yet collaborated to create a unified work. (Not to mention the leatherworker making the

scabbard and perhaps the sword case.)

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In examples known by the Fletcher and Gardiner firm, the sword hilt and

scabbard motifs were designed by Fletcher, cast and chased with Gardiner’s supervision

(until 1827), and joined to polished steel blades provided by a bladesmith after being

decorated by a journeyman etcher according to the patron’s and Fletcher’s directions.

In fact, Fletcher and Gardiner presentation swords are sometimes credited to William

Rose & Sons or John Meer, Jr. because Rose and Meer were frequent collaborators. A

“W.Rose” stamp and the etched name “MEER” on opposite sides of the blade appear on

swords commissioned from the Fletcher and Gardiner workshop, but their own

touchmark is rarely present. Which firm made the swords? The answer to the query is:

All of them; however, Thomas Fletcher was the point person. He received the order

and the payment, provided the design, and all the swords produced had to meet his

quality standards.

Tetters in the State of Maryland’s collections and Thomas Fletcher’s papers

record important exchanges between the Philadelphia firm and the governor’s office.

When the Maryland State legislature resolved to award a gold sword, the Executive

Council’s clerk, Thomas Culbreth (1786-1843), sent details of the commission to

Thomas Fletcher, not William Rose. The Fletcher and Gardiner firm’s reputation for

presentation swords grew with each successive commission. In 1836 Maryland’s new

govemor, Thomas Veazey, remarked in a letter about a sword for Captain Edmund P.

Kennedy that: “the Artist engaged is a first rate workman, the same who made the

swords for Genl. Towson & Capt. Gallagher, that were presented last winter & I have

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. •5 no doubt of its being executed in the best manner.” He was writing about Thomas

Fletcher.

An earlier Maryland governor’s commission, the gold-hilted eagle pommel

sword for Lieutenant Isaac Mayo, was repeatedly the subject of correspondence. The

governor’s missives deliberated how much to spend, and Isaac Mayo’s brother wrote on

his behalf to Thomas Fletcher with further suggestions for the blade decoration. From

Mayo’s letter, the personal importance of this honor becomes wonderfully transparent.

Mayo submitted other incidents recalled from his naval career, including diving after an

ordinary seaman who’d fallen overboard and saving a captured (suspected) pirate vessel

from being overtaken by mutinous crew; events ultimately not illustrated on the sword,

but worthy of memorial in his eyes. He also wished “the sword cut and thrust [design]

to suit his person which is about 5 feet 8 inches in height.”'^

After the completed sword was delivered, Thomas Fletcher heard via the

grapevine that it displeased Lieutenant Mayo because the etching on the blade omitted a

depiction of Mayo’s victory on theHornet over the Penguin. Thomas Fletcher’s letter

in response to this news was solicitous;

I regret the mistake but know of no method of correcting it except except [sic] by repolishing one side of the blade and introducing the view which was omitted. Should you determine to have that done in your case please forward the sword & I will attend to it. P.S. If you wish any alteration in the hilt of yours, you had better wait until you send it to me and I can have it done at the same time as the hilt must be taken off when the blade is altered.^

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mayo accepted the offer and Fletcher wrote in August that the new drawings were done,

however, “it will not be possible to put on the blade all the writing you have given in

your letter, but the names of the vessels and dates will be inscribed.”*^ Either John

Meer, Jr. or Thomas Fletcher made the judgment to curtail the pictorial images on the

sword blade for spatial and aesthetic reasons.

It is telling that Fletcher took the responsibility for adjusting Mayo’s sword and

the artist’s error without naming Meer, Rose, or another workman. He was keenly

aware that the Fletcher and Gardiner name and reputation would be questioned if the

sword remained inaccurate. These letters confirm Fletcher’s on-going, direct

involvement in the overall design of each sword. In the public eye, presentation swords

were made by Fletcher and Gardiner, not the network of collaborators who assisted with

n their production.

Ultimately, Mayo received the amended sword and was satisfied with the record

of his exploits as well as the honor expressed by this presentation sword. In a letter

written later that fall, Mayo assured Thomas Fletcher that he would visit the firm when

he was next in Philadelphia.^ This sword was later memorialized for Mayo in a

watercolor showing both sides of the hilt and most of the blade.^ The personal meaning

of this award resonated throughout the lifetime of the man who helped found the U.S.

Naval Academy. Presentation swords were works of art, high marks of craft, and

reflected the character of the owners, who enjoyed displaying them to their peers.

Mayo’s descendents eventually released the sword and it was sold at auction in 1989,

with the watercolor, Mayo’s silver Congressional medal, and other naval trophies.

106

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Because Fletcher and Gardiner collaborated with joumeymen or another

workshop for etched steel sword blades, and production was time-consuming, costs

were difficult to contain. A sense of the personal fmstration Thomas Fletcher

experienced with collaboration is recorded in a letter to his brother Charles, who was

then traveling in Washington. Thomas wrote on March 16, 1829: “The swords are not

yet finished, but hope they will be done in the course of this week.” He lamented that

they did not add to “the fame of the establishment” nor bring much profit. Ironically,

this letter most likely regards the Maryland commission for three brilliant eagle-hilted

swords made for Lieutenants Henry C. Ballard, Joseph Cross, and Isaac Mayo.

Referring to a blade-decorator John Meer, Jr., Fletcher continued: “Meer has proved

himself a mere bungler.. .Tucker would have executed them better..

Whether better craftsmen were unavailable or too costly, or Fletcher’s

perfectionism asked too much from John Meer, the letter barely conceals his displeasure

about results that did not meet standards. However, Rose and Meer would continue to

collaborate with Fletcher and Gardiner for exceptionally fine blades. The date was also

telling: in 1829 Thomas Fletcher was newly responsible for the entire manufactory,

retail business was very dull, money scarce, and he had lost hope of silver remittances

from Mexico. Such conditions brought an end to the patience of even the most

determined entrepreneur. Clearly, Thomas Fletcher understood the influence of highly

visible state commissions upon the daily orders for the manufactory and he guarded

presentation sword quality to preserve the firm’s reputation.

107

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Designing American Swords

Initially, Fletcher and Gardiner’s publicly acclaimed silver urns just after the

War of 1812 attracted new business to their manufactory, but the firm was quickly

recognized as the leader in presentation sword production. The announcement of

Colonel Armistead’s punch bowl in 1816 also mentioned two swords made by Fletcher

and Gardiner for Lieutenants John Webster and Henry Newcomb for the defense of

Baltimore. The swords’ present locations are unknown, but the Niles ’ Weekly Register

described them as “mounted with gold and finished in the most elegant manner.. .The

workmanship of the vase and swords is executed in a very superior style.. ’

According to document sources, other early orders came from southern states:

William B. Shubrick from South Carolina, Andrew Jackson and General Hindy from

Mississippi, Thomas McDonough from Georgia and Delaware, and Daniel Appling and

James McIntosh from Georgia. Only a few of these swords are now known through

public records, and the general form follows an eagle head pommel and cast counter

guard decorated with an eagle.

Appling and McIntosh both led rifle forces against British forces in land battles

near Fort Erie during 1814. Fletcher and Gardiner’s iconographical design incorporates

national and state symbols as well as a wreath-encircled monogram in these very similar

swords.'^ The eagle head dominates the pommel, borrowing a motif from English

presentation swords. (Appling’s sword has a replacement head.) On the counter-guard

a triumphant national eagle clasps a trophy of cannons in its talons. Inventive artistic

interpretation on these hilts includes alligators and face masks featured on the knuckle

108

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bow. These elements have heen interpreted as symhols of Georgia, and the blade is

engraved with the state’s recognition of hoth men’s heroism during battles at Sandy

Creek. Two Native American facemasks are allegorical national symbols on each 1 T counter-guard. The scahbard fitted to Appling’s sword is embellished with cast and

applied ornament including a depiction of battle in the center. Spiral cut ivory grips

enrich the gleaming white hilts and Appling’s gold elements include colors of yellow,

white, and pink. According to a later list tallied hy Thomas Fletcher, these swords were

delivered to the State of Georgia in 1816, after swords made for William B. Shubrick,

Andrew Jackson, and Thomas McDonough.''^

Much of the production of presentation swords immediately after the war

centered in Philadelphia with Congressional orders for midshipmen’s swords fulfilled

by the city’s craftsmen. As mentioned earlier, the established steelsmith firm of

William Rose & Sons became the collaborators of choice for Fleteher and Gardiner in

the 1820s. Evidence of their combined reputation amongst officers survives in a letter

once owned by collector and scholar Jay P. Altmayer. In 1816 the State of Virginia

resolved to award Major General Winfield Scott (1786-1866) a presentation sword, hut

it was not made until 1825 (and then by Harvey Lewis).On July 9, 1821 Seott wrote

to Govemor T. M. Randolph requesting the sword from Fletcher and Gardiner. His

words, reproduced in Altmayer’s book, are a ringing endorsement of Fletcher and

Gardiner and William Rose even though his preference was not granted.

109

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Following Altmayer’s transcription, Scott’s letter to the govemor is reproduced

here in part:

Messrs. ‘Fletcher & Gardiner, Manufacturers in Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,’ are the workmen whom I beg leave to recommend for all the parts of the sword. I have seen several of their make, ordered by public bodies, executed with superior taste & workmanship. They made the best cast steel hlades, & have a great variety of antique models, from which to compose the omaments of their work. No advance will he required of them. Should you think it proper to give those artists an order for the sword, besides the limitations as to cost, it is probable you may prefer to add your instractions for the inscription & device. But should they be left to deduct these from the resolutions [by the Virginia Legislature], or should the omaments in general be left to the discretion of the artists (within the limitation as to cost) may I take the liberty to beg that they be instmcted to take the previous sanction of my friend Genl. Thos. Cadwalader, as to all matters not settled hy your instmctions? General Cadwalader is also the particular friend of General Gaines for whom it is probable a sword will he ordered at the same time. If two swords are made together & of the same pattem (with a difference, perhaps, as to the device) it will be in the power of the artist to render each superior for any given sum of money, than if the two were made hy different artists or of different pattems.'^

Scott’s letter cited a preference for “antique models” and indicated that officers were

displaying the Fletcher and Gardiner firm’s presentation swords amongst themselves

and speaking favorably about the workmanship.

Major General Scott’s desire for classical motifs expressed the prevailing tastes

in American public art and architecture of the 1820s-1830s. The Fletcher and Gardiner

firm’s reputation for generating omament and overall design sensitive to classical

models and national symhols was publicly acknowledged. While limits were set on

blade decoration by spatial requirements for dedications and images of naval battles,

Thomas Fletcher was free to vary hilt invention and design with every commission.

110

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The gold omaments mounted on scabbards generally followed a favored iconography,

but were adjusted to suit hilt motifs. The overall unity of all the parts on a sword and

scabbard indicated Fletcher’s omniscient presence and creative energy.

How much of Fletcher’s creativity was directed by patrons? Surviving letters

indicate he made preliminary consultations about design and budget, and a few finished

drawings reveal his methods for showing the patron a new sword design before the

object was crafted. Records of the State of Maryland’s commissions for at least thirteen

swords show that it was not unusual for patrons to specify instractions for sword

decoration and inscriptions. Eight of these thirteen swords are now in public collections

or have been published, and they are a valuable group to study. The strength of

patronage exercised through Maryland’s Executive Council’s clerk, Thomas Culbreth,

lasted through the terms of several governors.

One detailed letter from Thomas Culbreth, written in August 1828, instructed

Fletcher to produce swords for Maryland natives Captain Henry C. Ballard, Lieutenant

Isaac Mayo, and Lieutenant Joseph Cross;

.. .each a suitable sword, as a testimony of the high sense entertained of their gallantry and good conduct in certain actions in the late war with Great Britain... To be of the cut and thrust form, with an Eagle head. On the side the ships in battle - the spread Eagle with a bunch of Arrows in one claw and an Olive branch in the other. Under the right wing the words ‘E Pluribus Unum.’ Under the left the names of the vessels engaged and the dates of the several engagements. On the other side - Presented by the State of Maryland to (insert the name) March 1828. On the scabbard, near the top, an Anchor with Trident of Neptune and a boarding Pike tied with a piece of cable - Below Neptune’s Car.

I l l

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This very specific iconography was followed carefully hy the manufactory and Meer’s

etching work. Culbreth continued with a list of the engagements:

On Captain Ballard’s sword. The Engagement and capture of the Cyane and Levant hy the Constitution on the 20'*^ day of February 1815.. .On Lieutenant Mayo’s the engagements and capture of the Peacock by the Hornet, on the 20*'^ day of February 1813, and of the Penguin hy the same, on the 23'^‘’day of March 1813 [sic]... On Lieutenant Cross’ the escape of the Constitution from an English Squadron of New York in July 1812. The engagement and capture of the Guerriere by the Constitution on the 19*'^ day of August 1812, and of the Java, hy the same, on the 29**^ day of December 1812, and of the Cyane and Levant by the same on the 20'*’ day of February 1813.

Culbreth’s letter concluded, saying that the govemor set prices of $500 for Ballard’s

sword, $300 for Cross’s, hut had not yet determined Mayo’s cost, so they should work

on the others first: “It will be expected that the swords be of the best quality and finish

that can be afforded for the prices stipulated and that they he ready hy the 15*'^ day of

December next at the farthest.”^^

This letter reflects the official attention given to planning all of the design

elements for the blade ^ the portion over which Fletcher and Gardiner had the least

control - and gives only general details about the gold hilt. Presumably, Maryland

legislators knew the firm would create cast designs and deeorative emblems appropriate

for their deserving heroes. The Fletcher and Gardiner firm produced all three swords in

collaboration with William Rose and John Meer, Jr. and delivered them to Annapolis

for presentation in July 1829, nearly a year after they were requested. The swords

survive, although Cross’s has been damaged. [Figs. 35-38]

112

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ballard and Mayo’s swords both have gold grips (Cross’s is ivory), and were

followed by a similar fourth gold sword made for Maryland native George Washington

Rodgers, commissioned in late 1831 from Thomas Fletcher.’^ The Rodgers sword was

most recently attributed to silversmith Harvey Lewis, but its overall design, casting

molds, style of chasing, and workmanship as well as a letter from 1832, confirm the

older attribution given by Jay Altmayer to Thomas Fletcher.^° Despite his dissenting

attribution, scholar E. Andrew Mowbray aptly characterized these swords: “No group

of domestically produced gold-mounted swords equals the classical beauty represented 91 by this Harvey Lewis [sic] design.”

In 1831 the firm produced three gold-hilted swords of a new design for

Lieutenants David Geisinger, Joseph Smoot, and John Contee. Geisinger’s and Smoot’s

swords are in institution collections, but the location of Contee’s sword is presently

unknown. [Fig. 39] According to memo written several years later by Thomas

Fletcher, the costs of swords for Geisinger, Contee, and Smoot were $400 each.^^ The

new design, mounted on a grip similar to the one used in eagle-headed hilts made just

prior, incorporated the robust character expressed in empire style decorative arts at this

time.

No record exists explaining why the eagle head pommel was exchanged for a

knop-shaped pommel, but its solid slightly squashed shape gave a strong terminus to the

taut lines of the ovoid grip below it. By discarding the knuckle bow and repositioning

the counter guard parallel to the plane of the blade, Fletcher deliberately lost most

references to the hilt design’s functionality as a weapon. New triangular quillions with

113

Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. open, or negative space, dynamically framed the oval American eagle counter guard.

All of the ornamental surfaces on the hilt were cast and chased in lower relief than

previous designs. These adaptations indicate a complete functional transition of the

sword to a work of art for display.

The sword hlades, supplied hy William Rose & Sons, followed the manner of

John Meer’s earlier etched decorations including panels of naval engagements and

dedications. One significant difference was a move to Latin inscriptions. Smoot’s

sword is etched: “JOSEPHO SMOOT FILIO FORTI FT FIDFLI MARYLAND

DFDIT” and Geisinger’s had the same motto with his name. Whether Maryland’s

Govemor Martin or his Executive Council stipulated the change, using Latin brought a

teamed nuance to the dedication as well as a reference to the official language of the

first republic, Rome. The era’s lasting intellectual passion for “antique” references was

conveyed not only in the figure of Neptune and his emblems on the hilt and scabbard,

hut in the language of the dedication on these swords. One additional name appears on

Geisinger’s sword: “FLETCHER” is etched into the ricasso.

On July 4, 1831, Thomas Fletcher was writing instead of reveling. His short

letter to Thomas Culbreth in Maryland reported: “I have the pleasure to inform you that

the three swords, ordered hy the Executive of the State of Maryland, to be presented to

Messr. Contee, Geisinger and Smoot, are completed, and await the orders of His

Excellency the Govemor. Doctr. Ray has seen them, and expressed his approbation of

them.” 23 Unfortunately, Govemor Martin died in office in July and the sword exchange

was in limho, causing Fletcher to write again at the end of the month. He informed

114

Reproduced witfi permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Culbreth, “I am perfectly satisfied to wait until the business can be conveniently

attended to and in the meantime I am going on with the sword for Capt. Rodgers. My

object in writing at this time is to apprise you that my means are limited and that I

should be glad of a remittance for the amount of the three swords,* when it is

convenient.”^'* The asterisk noted that a remittance for the three swords totaled $900,

although a memo written by Fletcher put their value at $400 each. Most likely the

missing $300 was advanced to begin the order.

Staying current with the latest tastes was the ever-present mandate for successful

silver manufactories, and pressures for design change reached to even the seemingly

stable form of a gold presentation sword. Just a few years after the trio of swords,

Maryland commissioned two more from the Fletcher and Gardiner firm. In late 1833,

Governor Thomas of Maryland requested elaborate swords for Colonel Nathan Towson

(1784-1854) and for Captain John Gallagher, trusting Fletcher’s taste and judgment for

9 c motifs and requesting a gold or silver scabbard for Towson’s. At a design crossroads

between the complex eagle-pommel hilts or other pommels, Fletcher wrote back five

days later asking whether he should adapt existing hilt patterns or have a new design

made and he enclosed some drawings.^*’ This was also a tasteful inquiry into how much

money the Governor wished to spend.

One rendition of Fletcher’s concept for Towson’s sword survives in the

Maryland Historical Society collection and illustrates the speed with which he could

adapt and invent a new hilt and scabbard.^^ His drawing offered three views of a

helmet, then continued the Roman inspiration by wrapping the names of Towson’s

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. battle successes around the hilt to create a miniature Trajan’s column for the grip.

Fletcher repeated the triangle quillions from Geisinger’s sword hut inserted suspended

spheres, and moved the American eagle from the counter guard to the scahhard. When

the sword was fashioned it followed this hilt design closely, hut a new counter-guard

and ornamental medallions on the scahhard employed curved lines and foliate frames in

the style of the fashionable rococo revival style.

The iconography of the Towson hilt reduced American and ancient mythological

symbols to the spiraling banner of stars and names of naval battles on the grip. Fletcher

adapted the counter guard into a cartouche space engraved with the dedication and

Towson’s name. 28 Rather than keeping the officer’s name and mottoes on the blade

hidden from view inside the scahhard, this design framed them in the most readable

place on the hilt. Likewise, the pictorial image of a naval engagement replaced the

classical motif of Neptune in his chariot as the center medallion on the scahhard (only

Neptune’s face appeared on the drag). The arms for the State of Maryland decorated

the scabbard’s throat. All of the iconographical imagery moved to the gold external

surfaces. The blade etching changed to a lush leaf pattern surrounding the names of

Towson’s successful battles in 1813-1814 with just ornamental leaves on the verso.

The makers’ names were recorded on this sword; William Rose’s touchmark was

stamped on the ricasso and Fletcher’s name set into the verso of the Maryland State

arms mount on the scahhard.^®

John Gallagher’s sword was first valued three hundred dollars less than

Towson’s sword, for a total of five hundred. Unfortunately, this sword is not known in

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. public collections and it is unclear from documents how closely it resembles Towson’s.

A letter from Fletcher to Culbreth reported that the blades for both swords were nearly

done, but that Captain Gallagher stopped in the store to decide about the scabbard’s

naval emblems. Fletcher advised Culbreth that to save costs, they might gild a silver

scabbard and add solid gold ornaments, “which will look about as well as if the whole

were of gold, and they would cost $130 less.”^' By the end of the year, Fletcher wrote

again to announce that his nephew Calvin Bennett would personally deliver both swords

to Annapolis, but that Gallagher’s sword exceeded the limit set for materials and labor

and the firm would appreciate one hundred dollars more, for a total of six hundred. He

advised Culbreth to ask Bennett’s opinion directly, “he having melted the Gold and

'i'S done the chief part of the work.” Other veterans apparently admired Gallagher’s

sword. Thomas Fletcher replied to inquiries in 1835 about costs and time required to

make one like it from Colonel Hayne and one from General Hamilton, both of South

Carolina.^^

The Towson design appeared at least once more in a drawing for a sword for

Colonel William J. Worth, which was awarded by New York State in 1836.^“^

Modifications shown on the drawing now in the Maryland Historical Society collection

indicate the helmet pommel was turned to profile, the grip given more entasis, and the

quillions and cartouche altered for either engraved or applied ornament. The drawing

suggests a new and unusual trophy of wings, lightning, and Jupiter’s thunderbolts on

solid triangular quillions. The blade is illustrated without a scabbard, but its ornament

of a leafy vine wrapped around Worth’s name suggests that cast gold medallions with

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. naval iconography were probably mounted on the scabbard like Towson’s and Edmund

P. Kennedy’s awards. A letter to New York’s Governor William L. Marcy (1786-1857)

from Thomas Fletcher reported that Worth stopped in the store and modified the

drawing. Fletcher said the sword would cost seven hundred dollars and be done in three

or four months. Correspondence regarding Gallagher’s, Worth’s, and other

presentation swords indicates that surviving drawings were works in progress rather

than finished designs.

Thirty years after his heroism in the Tripolitan wars, Edmund P. Kennedy

received a Maryland presentation sword “FOR HIS GALLANT SERVICES OFF

TRIPOLI IN 1804,” as inscribed on the sword blade. [Fig. 40] American sword scholar

Harold Peterson selected this sword to illustrate a typical naval presentation sword from

1830-50, although Fletcher produced more swords of this form without the helmet

pommel.^*’ Kennedy’s sword, ca. 1835-1837, repeated elements from the 1831 swords

awarded to Geisinger and Smoot, but Fletcher continuously adjusted his designs.^’ The

open triangular quillions and oval medallion of the American eagle under an arc of state

stars are similar. However, the helmet mold from Towson’s pommel was used in

profile, and a new rounded grip was ornamented with delicate wreath and garland

motifs.

The gold mounts on the black leather scabbard resemble Towson’s, but depict a

naval battle off Tripoli in the center. Kennedy’s sword blade was etched with broad

leafy ornament around his name in the style depicted on the drawing for Worth’s blade.

These blades were a departure from the specific naval battle scenes created with much

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. labor by John Meer, Jr., and were faster to produee. Whether the new appearanee

resulted from ehange in taste or input from a new journeyman is unknown. By moving

the pictorial battle scene and the State of Maryland’s arms to gold mounts on the

scabbard, the blade was freed for this less costly and faster form of decoration.

Maryland’s long-standing tradition of patronizing Thomas Fletcher endured

through state politics and business woes. A letter from Culbreth in 1837 suggests a

sword for Captain Ramsey was produced under Thomas Fletcher’s direction, although

other records have not appeared in public documents.A final Maryland commission

arrived after Thomas Culbreth lost his position on the Governor’s Executive Council

and after Thomas Fletcher’s firm was declared insolvent. The sword for John A.

Webster now in the Maryland Flistorieal Society collection was delivered in 1843.^^

The inscription returned to Latin: “Filio Forti et Fideli ^ J. A. Webster - Maryland

dedit - 1842.” Scholar Elizabeth Wood noticed the very unusual inscription of “THOS.

FLETCFIER FECIT” on the sword and William Rose’s touchmark on the blade.'^^ It

would be rewarding to compare the first sword Fletcher and Gardiner produced for

Webster in 1816 to the one created over twenty years later.

This group of Maryland swords illustrates presentation sword designer and

decorators’ continual modification in the post-War of 1812 era. Fletcher and Gardiner

strove for artistic freshness, changed design often to incorporate the most current styles,

and always personalized each officer’s award. In the process, presentation swords shed

some functional weapon-like features and evolved even further into works of art for

display. By rearranging the hilt and counter-guard position and letting images replace

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lengthy inscriptions once covered by the scabbard, the presentation sword became a

more readable symbol and was tecbnically less complicated to produce.

Ceremonies and Presentations

Many cities and states rushed to commission presentation swords shortly after

the War of 1812 when Fletcher and Gardiner’s business was producing monumental

urns in silver. Nostalgic waves of patriotism during the 1820s and 1830s revived state

legislature awards of gold presentation swords to greying military heroes. A few

swords (like Kennedy’s) commemorated Tripolitan War service, but the majority went

to officers from the War of 1812. In fact, the Fletcher and Gardiner firm built

momentum for the cultural wave of bestowing belated honors. They received sword

commissions from at least eight states: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New

York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.

By rough count, at least twenty-four presentation swords were created by the

Fletcher and Gardiner firm between 1815 and 1843. Curiously, no further silver

presentation urns for officers that might have been produced by the firm in the 1820-30s

have surfaced. Gwinn Ftarris’s vase seems an exception. The higher number of swords

from the country’s leading silver firm suggests they were the preferred artistic form of

award for military heroes in that era. (The costs were equivalent.) Coincidentally,

awards of silver urns for civic leaders grew in number following the De Witt Clinton

vases in 1825 and might indicate a cultural shift in understanding of what was

appropriate for military or civilian presentations.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The award of a sword was publicly acknowledged in a state legislature’s

resolution and often announced in the press. A presentation ceremony was a political or

public celebration not only of the deserving veteran, but also of patriotic words and

symbols in this era of young nationalism. Swords awarded immediately after the war

sparked public occasions, later awards might occur in the state or a governor’s

chambers. For example, when Lieut. John Webster helped defend Baltimore at Fort

McHenry, be received a sword tfom Maryland in 1816 during a public ceremony.

Webster and Armistead were honored outside at Fort McHenry on Saturday noon by the

committee of citizens of Baltimore.

A description of Captain Ballard’s and Lieutenant Mayo’s ceremony in July

1829 was printed in the Niles ’ Weekly Register for broader distribution after it appeared

in the Maryland Republican. The item carefully detailed the event:

Yesterday bis excellency, Daniel Martin, governor of Maryland, in presence of the executive council, and a number of public officers, members of the court of appeals and chancery eoiuf, gentlemen of the bar, and other visitors to our city, as well as citizens, assembled in the Council Chamber within the few minutes that it was ascertained that the ceremony would be performed, delivered Captain Ballard and Lieut. Mayo, of the United States navy, the swords which bad been prepared according to the unanimous resolution of both branches of the legislature....

After the governor addressed him, Ballard replied: “I receive with sensations of

gratitude, which I have no words to express, the interesting token of approbation.. .1

accept and shall preserve it, as the most valued gift of my generous country men..

Both Ballard and Mayo gallantly vowed to draw their swords again in defense of the

country should need arise.

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In Annapolis two years later, John Contee was awarded a Fletcher and Gardiner

sword in a distinguished private ceremony. His response to the governor’s invitation in

August 1831 is preserved: “Sir—I this day had the Honor to receive your letter

notifying me that the sword voted me by the legislature of Maryland would be ready for

presentation on the third Tuesday of next month in the Council Chambers, on which day

I will, please God, attend with great pleasure.’’"^^ An item in theNiles ’ Weekly Register

from 1829 recounted the presentation of a sword (not by Fletcher and Gardiner) to

General Carroll in Nashville. His ceremony included prayers, music, a reading of the

Declaration of Independence, a performance of the Star Spangled Banner, and a military

escort.

Part of the panoply of patriotism, the public presentation of a valuable gold

sword to a venerated veteran was one of the tools political historians employ to explore

regional expressions of nationalism in the young republic. Thomas Fletcher’s papers at

the Athenaeum of Philadelphia include an undated newspaper clipping he preserved

from the mid-1830s:

In the annual message of Governor Thomas, to the Legislature of Maryland, he states that our very skilful ‘artist’ and worthy fellow citizen, Mr. Fletcher, has been employed to make the Swords directed by the General Assembly of that State, to be presented to Colonel Towson, now Paymaster General of the United States, and to Captain Gallagher of the Navy. ‘These swords,’ the Governor truly says, ‘are intended as testimonials of the admiration and gratitude of their native state, for the distinguished gallantry and highly valued services of these officers during the late war with Great Britain.’ Of the excellence of the workmanship, and the satisfactory manner in which these tributes to the distinguished officers for whom they are intended will be executed, no doubt can be entertained.'^'^

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fletcher preserved the clipping for obvious personal reasons, but the printed record of

the governor’s statement preserves what was heard by citizens and understood visually

by anyone viewing a presentation sword.

State governments capitalized on the spectacle of this type of presentation.

Manifestations in what scholars recognize as the short-lived “era of good feelings,” the

presentation reflected well upon a state’s and its citizen’s generosity. It bestowed

public honor on a man wearing his country’s military uniform and characterized as a

defender of the nation. An individual’s valor was linked to state and national symbols,

and the act of decorating his person with a sword visually reinforced the virtue of the

government by association. These displays were superceded only by public

observances of officers’ funerary processions. For example, when Isaac Hull passed

away in Philadelphia in 1843 the city and most merchants closed their doors during his

funeral tributes.'^^ In 1850 the same local paper reported of Jacob Jones’s re-interment

in Wilmington from Cecilton, Maryland in late October. The parade involved hundreds

of military men, three bands. Masonic rites, cannon firing, and speeches."^'’

Fletcher and Gardiner’s International Presence

The most prestigious and costly presentation sword undertaken by Thomas

Fletcher was begun before Towson’s sword and made for a Spanish official, Don

Cecilio Ayllon by 1833. (Present location is not known.) At the same time the firm

was producing silver presentation urns for Philadelphia business investors in various

canal ventures, Fletcher attracted an order from the merchants of Matanzas, Cuba. An

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. early letter from Calvin Durand in New York to Thomas Fletcher speculated whether he

would be able to meet the request of a committee of merchants who sought: “a superb

sword made in this country.. . & are desirous of giving the order to such a person as will

execute the same to their satisfaction, as well as do honor to the manufacturer. They are

willing to expend $1200..

At least eight letters between Thomas Fletcher and the gentleman responsible

for collecting the subscriptions from merchants in Matanzas, J. A. Grace of Newport,

are in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and Winterthur’s Down’s collections.

Dialogue about the design, instructions for the Spanish inscriptions, cautions to omit

any “republican” emblems, and the workshop’s challenges with the gold work were

preserved in these exchanges.

A detailed description of the project survived in one of Fletcher’s letters and

indicated exactly why jewelers and silversmiths handled sword commissions. The

design called for gemstones and elaborate chasing far surpassing the ornament of their

American sword hilts. Whether Fletcher adapted the design to suit his understanding of

Spanish tastes or whether it reflected his unbridled artistic imagination with a budget

twice as grand as that to which he was accustomed is unknown. Fletcher wrote to

Grace:

The hilt I intend to make of fine gold including the gripe [sic], richly chased the medallion enclosing the cipher, C.A. to be set with small rubies and topaz to correspond with the Spanish flag and the wreath to be chased in green gold. The collars around the neck of the grip may be set with turquoise on the outward guards, the arms of Matanzas in has relief, coloured gold - military emblems on the scabbard mountings - diamond eyes to the lion head, & c. The blade will be the most difficult part of the

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. business, and will probably cause the most delay - but I will use every exertion to have it done soon. The belt will probably cost about one hundred & fifty dollars but that will depend on the weight of the mountings as well as the work. The colour of the Morocco should be Red and the ornamenting gold - corresponding with the national colours.'**

The fame of this gold sword, produced for the former governor of Matanzas,

was good news for the firm in a year of difficult finances and debilitating illnesses.

Fletcher’s letter to Grace as the sword was completed in April of 1833 revealed his

understanding of the importance of this commission:

Iff had been less particular with the work, it might have been done a month sooner, but as it is to be seen and criticised in the great city of New York - and perhaps in Cadiz and Madrid - 1 could not consent to give you anything less than the best work that I could have done in my establishment... The sword hilt is now complete and the scabbard will be done tomorrow or the next day. The Belt I shall have completed in the course of a week - but I should like to keep for a day or two to allow my friends an opportunity of seeing it before it goes hence never to return.'*^

Fletcher’s sagacity in displaying the sword locally to augment his shop’s reputation was

couched in the last flattering sentence, written also to impress Mr. Grace. He was

careful to express his awareness that Grace was not untoward in anticipating that the

tribute for Don Ayllon would be worthy and hold up to international scrutiny.

In letters to the Maryland governor discussing Towson’s presentation sword,

Fletcher reminded him of a recent sword he completed for $1,200 with solid gold

mountings and a blue silk velvet-covered scabbard with gold trim all of a very high

quality workmanship. He was referring to the Matanzas sword and trying to persuade a

larger investment by the governor in Towson and Gallagher’s swords.^** Fletcher did

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not overlook the production of lavish and showy gold-hilted swords for national heroes

and international officers as a factor in the store’s fame or profit margin.

Surviving documents and physical evidence preserved by all of the swords

reveal the time and consideration invested by state legislatures, Thomas Fletcher, the

silver manufactory, the steel blade artists, and by the recipient of the award. Thomas

Fletcher’s ever-changing designs, as well as his correspondence, indicated that most of

the commissions suited the partners’ goals for the firm. They also give rare glimpses

into the web of collaborative projects undertaken by silver manufactories and other

craftsmen and show tensions involved in the joint production of artistic works. Letters

detailing terms of work, names of individuals involved, and time frame for construction

are valuable evidence of the interdependence of specialty crafts in Philadelphia - much

more research could be pursued on this subject. As demonstrated through their

presentation swords, the firm of Fletcher and Gardiner became the most prestigious

nexus between state governments and national heroes, and created influential works of

art in gold for thirty years.

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

' Recounting swords made for Captain Ballard and Lieutenants Mayo and Cross, the Niles ’ Weekly Register quoted the U.S. Gazette, “the swords are something smaller than those formerly worn, but are comfortable to the mode.” Niles ’ Weekly Register, April 25, 1829, p. 131.

The firm also retailed ornaments for military dress for a time. In 1815 they ran an ad in the center column of the front page ofPoulson’s American Daily Advertiser. “MILITARY FEATHERS. One trunk containing 13 doz. Military Plumes, assorted sizes and colours, for sale by Fletcher & Gardiner 126 Chesnut Street Who have on hand a general assortment of MILITARY GOODS.” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser 44, January 13, 1815.

^ Maryland State Archives, MSA SC 2085-B71-F22.

Letter from J. Mayo, Annapolis to Thomas Fletcher, October 31, 1828. Box 3, Folder 19, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Lieutenant Mayo, June 25, 1829. Letterbook I, p. 73, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

^ Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Isaac Mayo, August 4, 1829. Letterbook I, p. 81, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Reporting in advance of the swords’ delivery, theNiles ’ Weekly Register armounced on April 25, 1829: “Mr. Fletcher, of Philadelphia, has just finished three elegant swords, which, by resolutions of the general assembly of Maryland, are to be presented to captain Ballard, and lieuts. Cross and Mayo.. .the whole reflect the highest credit upon the manufacturer.” N iles’ Weekly Register, April 25, 1829, p. 131.

® Box 3, Folder 27, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ The watercolor was painted by L. C. Young and presented to Mayo’s relative, Martin William John Mayo on the shipConstitution in September 1854, as recorded in Butterfield & Butterfield, “Historic American Swords,” auction catalogue, November 20, 1989, sale3I49X, lot 6149.

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Charles Fletcher, March 16, 1829. Folder 27, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia. John Meer, Jr. was active by 1819 in Philadelphia as an engraver and inlayer, following his father’s training. He often collaborated with the firm of William Rose and Sons to produce presentation sword blades. He displayed inlay and etching work at the Franklin Institution’s first annual exhibition in 1824. William E. Tucker (1801-1857) was an engraver in Philadelphia who studied under Francis Keamey.

" Niles’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, p. 185.

These sword hilts are pictured in E. Andrew Mowbray, The American Eagle-Pommel Sword. The Early Years - 1794-1830. (Second edition, Lincoln, Rhode Island: Mowbray Publishing, 1997), pp. 214-215.

Major Appling led U. S. Riflemen and Native American troops at the battle of Sandy Creek. Indian head pommels were produced for naval swords ca. 1825-1840 according to Robert Rankin, Small Arms o f the Sea Services, (New Milford: N. Flayderman & Company, Inc., 1972), p. 24.

Thomas Fletcher, undated list, reprinted in Donald Fennimore, “Elegant Patterns of Uncommon Good Taste: Domestic Silver by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner, ( master’s thesis. University of Delaware, 1972), p. 94. Governor Daniel D. Tompkins and the State of New York gave a sword to McDonough in 1817 at Hartford, reported in the Niles ’ Weekly Register, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 48. It was made by John Targee and is now on loan to the National Museum of American History. Andrew Jackson’s sword from Beale’s Rifle Company survives only in its blade, currently in the Hermitage collection, Tennessee. Hermitage chief curator Marsha Mullin kindly offered the information that the hilt melted in a house fire ca. 1865 and the jewels and gold may have been recovered by the Jackson family. Personal communication with the author, April 2, 2004.

Although Altmayer attributed the Winfield Scott sword to Fletcher and Gardiner, and by association the sword for Lewis Warrington now at the U. S. Naval Academy Museum, an article describing the sword and its presentation identifies Harvey Lewis, a silversmith in Philadelphia as the maker. Niles ’ Weekly Register, May 14, 1825, p. 163.

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jay P. Altmayer,American Presentation Swords, (Mobile: The Rankin Press, 1958), p. 18. Winfield Scott wrote directly to Thomas Fletcher on July 1, 1823 requesting his sword from New York State (made by John Targee) to be returned and presuming that Fletcher and Gardiner had already received the commission for his new sword from Virginia: “I understood that definitive orders would be immediately given to you on the subject.” Whether General Cadwalader took the commission to Harvey Lewis, or Thomas Fletcher steered him to Lewis because the Fletcher and Gardiner firm was too busy with the Clinton vases is unknown. Scotf s sword was not presented until 1825. Lewis made a nearly identical one for Commander Lewis Warrington also given by the State of Virginia in 1825.

1 n At least six Maryland State governors commissioned presentation works from Fletcher and Gardiner. See also: Edward T. Tubbs, A Memoir of Thomas Culbreth, (Denton: Union Publishing Co., 1901), pp. 36-38.

Letter from Thomas [George?] Culbreth to Thomas Fletcher, August 21, 1828. Box 3, Folder 19, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia. An account of Ballard’s and Mayo’s sword presentation by Governor Daniel Martin was printed in the. Niles’ Weekly Register, July 25, 1829, pp. 355-356.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Thomas Culbreth, July 26, 1831, reported the firm would go ahead with Captain Rodgers’s sword. Maryland Historical Society Library vertical file. See also: Letter from Mr. Ray, Annapolis, to Thomas Fletcher, January 23, 1832, regarding Captain Rodgers’s sword, which ultimately cost $425. Folder 47, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1969, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Stated in Mowbray, Ibid., p. 213

21 Mowbray, Ibid., p. 213. One not yet located sword from the same era was made for Lieutenant Beverly Kennon of the Constellation. Letter to Thomas Fletcher from Beverly Kennon, March 10, 1829. Box 2, Folder 4, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

22 Thomas Fletcher’s undated list reprinted in Fennimore, Ibid, pp. 93-95. This memo states Smoot’s sword was delivered in 1834, but Fletcher’s own letter to Thomas Culbreth on July 4, 1831 reports that all three were completed and ready for delivery.

Maryland Historical Society Library vertical file.

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter from Thomas Culbreth to Thomas Fletcher, December 13, 1833. Box 3, Folder 25, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Letter to Thomas Culbreth from Thomas Fletcher, December 18, 1833. Letterbook 1, p. 65, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

A design for the Towson sword is reprinted in Richard H. Randall, Jr., “Sword Designs by Thomas Fletcher,” The American Arms Collector 1, no. 4, (October 1957), Fig. l,p. 103.

“PRESENTED TO COL. NATHAN TOWSON BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND IN CONSIDERATION OF HIS GALLANT SERVICES DURING THE WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN.” Cited in Randall, Ibid., p. 103.

Randall, Ibid., p. 104.

Richard Randall reports in capital letters on the mount: “T. FLETCHER/ MAKER/ PHILADELPHIA.” Randall, Ibid., p. 105.

Letter to Thomas Culbreth from Thomas Fletcher, May 8, 1824. Box 1, Letterbook 2, p. 36, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter to Thomas Culbreth from Thomas Fletcher, December 16, 1834. Box 1, Letterbook 2, pp. 115-116, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter to Colonel Hayne from Thomas Fletcher, April 27, 1835. Letter to General Hamilton from Thomas Fletcher, October 10, 1835. Box 1, Letterbook 2, pp. 148, 179, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

A design for the Worth sword is reprinted in Randall, Ibid., Fig. 5, p. 107. Letters to Governor William L. Marcy, New York, from Thomas Fletcher, November 14, 1835; May 30, 1836; June 15, 1836; and June 30, 1836. Box 1, Letterbook 2, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library. Another sword (present location unknown) possibly like Towson’s was commissioned by the State of Pennsylvania for General Hugh Brady in 1838. It is probably even more magnificent, judging from Thomas H. Burrows’ letter from Harrisburg to Thomas Fletcher: “You are therefore at liberty to make it equal to that given by Maryland to Genl. Towson or even to go to $1000 if by this increase of expense an adequate degree of additional value or ornament can be imparted.” Letter March 5,1838, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter to Governor William L. Marcy, New York, from Thomas Fletcher, November 14, 1835. Box 1, Letterbook 2, p. 189,Thomas Fleteher Papers, Joseph Downs Colleetion, Winterthur Library.

36 Harold L. Peterson, The American Sword, 1775-1945, (Revised edition, Philadelphia: Ray Riling Arms Books Company, 1965), no. 162, p. 196.

Letters from Annapolis regarding Kennedy’s sword appear in the Philadelphia Athenaeum’s Thomas Fletcher collection. Thomas Culbreth wrote Fletcher on October 15, 1835 to order the sword. Frank Buchanan wrote to Fleteher on November 14, 1835 to give descriptions for the blade and other omament. Thomas Fleteher Colleetion, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Letter to Thomas Culbreth from Thomas Fletcher, March 7, 1837. Box 1, Letterbook 2, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

OQ Letters from John Le Grand in Annapolis to Thomas Fletcher now in the Philadelphia Athenaeum’s collection chronicle this sword’s production. See: May 26, 1842; June 3, 1843; and April 13, 1843.

This sword, Towson’s, and Kennedy’s are currently in the Maryland Historical Society collection and unavailable for examination. I rely entirely on Wood’s account. Elizabeth Wood, “Thomas Fletcher: A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio 3 (1967): 156-157.

Niles ’ Weekly Register, July 25, 1829, p. 355. The sword for Lieutenant Cross was presented in the Annapolis council chambers by Governor Carroll in February 1830. This event was reported in the following month’s Niles ’ Weekly Register, March 27, 1830, p. 93.

Letter to Thomas Culbreth from John Contee, August 29, 1831. Maryland Historical Society Library vertical files.

Niles’ Weekly Register, August 1, 1829, pp. 368-369.

Box 1, fold. 12, Thomas Fleteher Colleetion 1994, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Delaware County Republican, February 17, 1843.

46' Delaware County Republican, November 1, 1850.

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47Letter June 26, 1832. Folder 7, Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Letter to J. A. Grace from Thomas Fletcher, September 22, 1832. Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 336-337, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

49 Letter copied in Letterbook 1, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

50 Letterbook 1, p. 65, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4

MERCHANT-ARTISANS TO THE NATION

The national reach of the Fletcher and Gardiner firm’s presentation works both

nurtured and realized the ambitions the partners shared for the manufactory from the

very beginning. An idealistic vision of the firm as jewelers and silversmiths to the

nation only held true for certain years, but nevertheless remained a goal throughout their

history. To support their reputation as a leading retailer of refined, tasteful goods, the

firm sought a range of inventory from their household silver to imported luxury items.

Entrepreneurs capable of flexibility in artistry and in merchandising, Fletcher and

Gardiner pursued innovation for both sides of the business. The manufactory married

older craft methods to mechanical production and collaborated with other artisans when

commissions demanded it. The retail side adopted strategic advertising habits and

speculated in new businesses, whether by extension through family concerns or

investments in new industries. This chapter will consider Fletcher and Gardiner’s

business partnership in its setting in Philadelphia as well as decisions that carried their

business into the national market.

Their expanding national reputation effected the firm’s business shortly after

relocation to Philadelphia in 1811; however, a brief history of forces compelling the

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. move from Boston reveals the partners’ pre-occupation with achieving a large market

from the firm’s inception. A letter outlining the division of responsibility for the

original partnership in 1808 was recently added to the Fletcher papers in the Athenaeum

of Philadelphia collection and it hints to Fletcher’s initial grand vision for the business.

Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner approached family and friends for start-up capital

to launch their merchant-artisan partnership. Gardiner’s father, Boston hardware

merchant John Gardiner, viewed their initial proposals too risky and also wished to

settle Sidney’s younger brother Baldwin in the business before he would invest.

Thomas Fletcher’s written reply to John Gardiner on October 18, 1808

preserved the determination of his vision for the combined manufactory and fancy

hardware store as well as the resolution to limit the concern to two partners:

Taking all these things into consideration I have made a proposition to Sidney, distinct from either [earlier proposals] & for a smaller scale, viz: I am willing to consider the manufacturing branch of the business equal to my knowledge of trade, & to enter copartnership, on equal terms with him in profit & expense. Sidney to carry on the manufactory & I to transact the business of the selling shop. 1 also agree to purchase goods (& obtain an endorser which shall make our notes as good as Bank paper) to the amount of $3000. for this cr. [credit] I am willing to submit it to you to judge what sum should be put into the business by Sidney to place us on an equal footing, & for our half of this sum, I will pay ample interest during this time we have it in use. It is further proposed that Baldwin shall be with me a part of the time, (during which I shall use my exertions to make him acquainted with the mode of doing business) & the remainder of the time in the workshop. The tools to be still retained as Sidney’s property, but if any additional workmen are employed other tools to be purchased by the Firm.— To this proposal your Son has agreed, & accordingly we have hired a shop & bought goods sufficient to make a decent assortment. I have likewise been able to obtain military goods on commission and c& c... ^

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Boston’s consumers soon endorsed the Fletcher and Gardiner store, but

managing eash flow made for suspenseful early years. It was challenging for a young

firm without a strong reputation to establish intemational credit; with half the business

dependent upon imported goods, cross-Atlantic credit was essential. Letters indicate

they tried to open credit ehannels with English manufacturers while coneurrently

expanding their jewelry and silver markets beyond Boston. Reaching south, the firm

exchanged jewelry and silver with Thomas Fletcher’s older brother James Fletcher

(1785-1820), a merchant in New Orleans. James Fletcher returned pecans, cotton, and

other regional exports to the Boston firm.

In 1810 the store moved from No. 43 Marlboro Street to a vacant store front at

No. 59 Comhill Street in a building managed by Mrs. Vemon.^ This was a strategie

move in more ways than one; the Fletcher, Gardiner, and Vernon families would all be

united by marriage. Thomas Fletcher owned a three-story brick dwelling house on

M}^le Street and began styling himself a young gentleman. With their growing name

reeognition and some suecess, one wonders what forces compelled Fletcher and

Gardiner to reloeate to Philadelphia after only three years in Boston.

The first years of business in Boston included trips by Fletcher and Gardiner to

New York and Philadelphia to sell jewelry and silver, purchase loose gemstones, and to

beeome familiar with trade in other cities. They made arrangements to exehange goods

from Gardiner’s manufaetory with other merchants in Philadelphia and in 1810

Gardiner’s spring trip to New York and Philadelphia revealed that “plated goods” were

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rare in those markets. He wrote to Thomas from New York on April 4,1810: “

.. .plated goods ar not to be had. Messrs. Stolenwork & Brothers [the Stollenwercks sold watches and jewelry] say they will take every piece of ohlong candlesticks we have got & some other patterns, you had better have them put in order.. .1 have discharged all our debts bought som goods for cash & should bring som money home. I am verry glade that I went to philad. was in every place that looked like a jewellers shop..

Were the partners already considering relocation from Boston? They certainly were

conscious of the tightening of Atlantic trade and scarcity of fancy hardware goods to

import, thus expanding the silver manufactory arm of the business made good sense.

In the summer of 1810 Thomas Fletcher’s old master, mentor, and friend,

jeweler Joseph C. Dyer, wrote that due to much misfortune, he had failed to establish

credit in England or forward new goods to Boston for the young firm, something

Fletcher depended upon for the upcoming fall season. This disappointment was

tempered slightly by Dyer’s promise to send some goods on his personal account. His

fatherly advice to Thomas reveals recognition of the ambition and talent visible early in

the firm’s career:

.. .it gives me the highest satisfaction to leam that your blessing continues to increase and that your debts are so much reduced - the snug & safe manner in which you have heretofore conducted your business does you infinite credit & if it persists it will be sure to give you a handsome fortune in a few years; but you must not expect in the present state of that business to have wealth flow in, like a torrent, its best too when it approaches gently - you will be sure to do well, unless you are eager to do, too much - believe me Dear."^

As a result of debts still owed to him for their initial stock. Dyer’s former partner John

McFarlane became a third partner in the firm by 1811 Although not clear from

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. surviving letters, judging by their actions Fletcher and Gardiner were eager to discharge

financial entanglements with McFarlane and resume their co-partnership.

After a disappointing winter season in 1810-1811, Thomas Fletcher went to

New York in March to try to sell goods to pay their mounting debts. Credit, an

essential and mercurial element in early republic intemational business was difficult for

the firm to establish with war pending. Credit may also have become troubling for them

locally when the news of Thomas’s older brother James Fletcher’s business failure in

New Orleans reached Boston and unfortunately linked the Fletcher name to risky

investment.^ However, neither of these reasons was enough to compel a small growing

coneem to depart just as its patronage was increasing.

Whether due to Boston’s slow business or hope for better markets in

Philadelphia, the partners’ reasons for moving south are not entirely known. In the end,

their move was brilliant. By late summer in 1811 they decided to relocate the firm to

Philadelphia. Newly married Sidney Gardiner and his wife Mary Vernon tarried in

Boston to prepare the manufactory while Thomas launched their Philadelphia coneem

for the critical winter season in November at No. 24 South Second Street. By the time

the silver manufaetory relocated, the firm occupied another building on the southeast

comer of Chesnut and Fourth Streets in the heart of the city’s commercial area near the

Philadelphia Bank. In late 1815 Gardiner wrote to Fletcher (who was in England) from

this store just after the first new shipments were displayed; “1 can tell you that our store

nor any other in the United States looks so well as ours does at this time & the people

flock around our windows & in the store as if they had never seen anjhhing of the

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. kind—your good [name] is better known at present than it would have been for a long

time to come, if you had remained in Philad. A.”’

This brick building met their needs until Fletcher returned from Europe. In 1817

they decided to improve the manufactory’s mechanization; new rolling mills and more

workmen required extra space. Once again they shifted the entire concern, this time

across Fourth Street to No. 130 Chesnut Street. The new site would serve the firm until

1836 when the building was razed (and Fletcher moved to No. 194 Chesnut). When

Philadelphia artist John L. Krimmel painted the “Procession of Victuallers of

Philadelphia, on the 15*^ of March, 1821” his vantage was just east of Fletcher and

Gardiner’s comer. He depicted the view they had across Chesnut Street from

1817-1836. [Fig. 41] One decade later the store featured in a lithograph by M.E.D.

Brown, “The Gold & Silver Artificers of Phila. in Civic Procession, 22"‘* Feby. 1832.”*

The building they occupied in 1817 had large glass windows, a “front” room or

showroom for their stock, and a brick manufactory with newly imported rolling mills in

the rear.^ The front room probably had several handsome counters and showcases with

glass fronts, perhaps mirrored, to displaygoods.Business letters between Thomas

and his younger brother Charles indicate that the appearance of the front room was very

important and that the store of Fletcher and Gardiner was absolutely genteel and well-

organized. Gardiner’s silver manufactory probably followed the same order.

Philadelphia city directories list Thomas Fletcher as a resident upstairs at 130

Chesnut until he married Melina DeGrasse Yemon in 1818, then Sidney Gardiner and

his young family moved to the upstairs rooms. It was important not only to have one

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. partner on the site, but also another employee, often one of their younger brothers, to

sleep downstairs in the shop.'' Thefts occurred more than once and security from

within and without must have contributed to this arrangement.'^

The store’s location on a well-traveled fashionable street just a few doors away

from most of the city’s banks, several insurance companies, and two blocks from

Independence Hall meant that window advertising was invaluable. The city’s

commercial traffic and nearness political offices, which drew influential out of town

visitors, cannot be underestimated. As already mentioned, two prints of the city

depicted Fletcher and Gardiner’s nearest intersection during civic parades in the 1820s

and 1830s reflecting what scholar Deborah D. Waters characterized, “the city’s

fashionable promenade” on Chesnut Street.'^ Surviving letters indicate that Fletcher

relied upon their location to promote the manufactory’s recent productions, with regular

showings of presentation silver, swords, and tea services that drew hundreds (to

thousands) of viewers.'"' As late as 1830 Thomas Fletcher displayed presentation silver

to the public: “It [the service] has been completed sometime but was suffered to remain

for exhibition.. .to give an opportunity to the Citizens of Philad.a & the Members of

Congress passing through the City to call & see it.”’^

Many other Philadelphia silversmiths and fancy hardware merchants moved to

the area for probably the same reasons Fletcher and Gardiner chose Chesnut Street, but

also to benefit from the larger firm’s anchoring effect for the jewelry and silver craft.

Deborah Waters’s excellent doctoral research identified competing merchant-artisans

concentrated on Chesnut Street near Fletcher and Gardiner: Anthony Rasch moved to

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 Chesnut in 1817; Louisa M. Gravelle moved to 117 Chesnut in 1819 and 148

Chesnut in 1828; Harvey Lewis moved to 143 Chesnut in 1818; and Edward Lownes

moved to 123 Chesnut in 1821 until he bought out Lewis in 1828. New firms choosing

to open nearby included Joseph Bailey & Andrew Kitchen at 136 Chesnut in 1832 and

John Curry and William Preston at 103 Chesnut in the early 1830s. The proximity of

jewelry and silversmith shops to Fletcher and Gardiner underscores similarities of

milled borders, sculptural cast elements, and overall stylistic influences between their

silver and the work of others.

The firm’s challenges, like all merchants and craftsmen in the early decades of

the century, were to weather not only the devastating national financial panics, but also

to negotiate changing dynamics of the luxury market and costs of a skilled labor force.

From the beginning of their partnership, Fletcher and Gardiner’s store inventory

combined their own jewelry and domestic silver made to order with less expensive

imported Birmingham and Sheffield silverplated wares. These were bolstered by a

great variety of fancy hardware (luxury items) stocked to appeal to men and women of

the growing middle and existing upper income levels. English and French gold and

silver pocket watches complemented Gardiner’s popular gold settings for topaz and

camelian. English silverplated tea urns, cake baskets, and cruet sets accompanied the

solid silver tea and coffee forms their manufactory created. Prior to creating their own

sword hilts, the firm retailed weaponry including imported military swords and pistols.

After the War of 1812, French porcelain and watches, English cutlery and lamps, and

German silver expanded the mixture.

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Fletcher and Gardiner partnership survived as an equal and mutually-

dependent one until Sidney’s death in 1827. They were linked as financial partners,

yoked as artisans and entrepreneurs, and as brothers-in-law when each married sisters of

the same French-American family. Personal glimpses of the respect and trust each man

maintained for the other surfaces in their few letters to each other as well as their

actions. In the business records that survive, Sidney Gardiner’s early letters to Thomas

began formally with salutations of “Dear Sir,” but quickly evolved to “Dear Friend”

with humorous jibes conveying the democratic equality they felt with each other.

Their respect for each other’s talents was an aspect of their presentation silver

designs. They ambitiously sought patronage and projects worthy of their skill, and the

monumental public presentation objects designed by Thomas could be fabricated by

Sidney and his manufactory crew. The business became a closely-knit family concem

as trusted brothers and members of their in-law family joined the firm. Workshop

overseers and journeymen were added and let go with business fluctuations, but the

image of Fletcher and Gardiner as masters evolved into one of co-directors in a

nationally-oriented business.

Perhaps because surviving documents for the firm include only a few written by

Gardiner’s hand and rarely covered the manufactory, Sidney Gardiner is often

overlooked as an equal and vibrant half of the partnership’s success. In fact, Elizabeth

Wood’s close examination of Thomas Fletcher’s talent for attaining and designing

presentation silver commissions relied upon a single document to support her statement

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that . .Sidney Gardiner was a man of good intention but of almost pitiable ineptitude

in matters of business.”^^ She credited Fletcher with all of the firm’s business savvy.

Wood is correct that Fletcher’s personality and public activities brought much

attention to his role. However, she neglected to consider that Gardiner quickly grew to

be master of a complex manufactory with many workers, and that his sense of the

market and pursuit of new business brought opportunities to the firm. One should not

overlook the particular genius of Gardiner’s management of the nation’s largest silver

manufactory as well as his perspicacious incorporation of current English machinery

and techniques into his craft. His jewelry production brought steady interest for the

store’s traffic and a gold brooch for the Order of Guadalupe was responsible for

launching their speculation into Mexican markets.

It is telling that at the sudden and unexpected death of Sidney Gardiner the

obituary, probably written by Thomas Fletcher, characterized him as: “a skillful

mechanic, and an enterprising merchant; ardent and zealous in the pursuit of business,

he was among the first to engage in the Mexican trade, and had three times visited the

• 17 Capital of Mexico.” At the age of 40 (reported in the obituary) Sidney Gardiner was

not the public figure that Thomas Fletcher was, but his vigor and ambition were equal

behind the scenes. It is interesting that Fletcher (or the obituary writer) characterized

Gardiner as a “mechanic” and “merchant” rather than jeweler and silversmith. This

language reflected common parlance Fletcher used at the Franklin Institute, but also

indicated Gardiner’s status as a master and an energetic man of business — his

occupations in the 1820s after the manufactory was well-established and not absorbing

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as much of his time. A year after Sidney’s death, Thomas signed a letter to the clerk of

the Maryland Executive Council: “Your Obed. Servant, Thos. Fletcher surviving

partner of the late firm of Fletcher & Gardiner”’* Fletcher continued to use the firm’s

Fletcher & Gardiner name and touchmark for some time, perhaps partly from respeet as

well as for name-recognition purposes.

Thomas Fletcher’s correspondence and documents from the time they relocated

to Philadelphia recorded some of the firm’s actions to diversify not only their inventory,

but their interests. Fletcher wrote prophetically to his older brother James on October 5,

1814: “Should peace take place during the ensuing autumn or winter, I shall no doubt

leave here for Europe early in the Spring, where by the aid of certain funds to be there

placed at my disposal I shall make purchases as will give us a decided superiority in

point of business to any in our line.. .My head is so full of vast projects & I shall never

rest until I have put them in execution.. Fletcher’s visions extended well beyond the

silver manufactory and store and involved trusted family connections. After his future

brother-in-law Lewis Veron tried to catch Fletcher in London and Birmingham in 1815

to propose a fancy hardware business with Baldwin Gardiner, Thomas and Sidney

helped establish Gardiner & Veron in Philadelphia at No. 98 Chesnut Street.^*^ Baldwin

trained Thomas’s brother Henry in the trade for a few years. Young Timothy Veron, a

brother to both partners’ wives and Lewis Veron, traveled with Sidney Gardiner to

Mexico and with Thomas Fletcher to Europe in the mid-1820s before acquiring a

partnership in Gardiner & Veron in 1826.^’

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Related family businesses spun-off down Chesnut Street. They carried slightly

different inventories, but built upon the importation comiections established by Thomas

Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner’s jewelry contacts. Thomas’s younger brothers and

employees, Charles Fletcher and George Fletcher, managed wholesale jewelry stores

they began and ended in several different locations on Chesnut between 1818 and

1825. Following contacts through Joseph Dyer in England, the firm may have

invested in calico engraving equipment and George Fletcher began an engraving

business nearby in the early 1830s.^^ Moving west with the flow of migration and land

speculation, Henry Fletcher established fancy hardware businesses first in Lexington

(1818-1829) and then Louisville (1830-1866), Kentucky, where he retailed Fletcher and

Gardiner silver as well as New York manufactured goods and imports.^"*

Prompted by the merchant and manufacturing business woes in the late 1820s

Charles Fletcher returned to Fletcher and Gardiner as a travelling salesman. His

experience as the store’s chief clerk and status as Thomas’s trusted right hand were

especially needed after Sidney Gardiner’s death when Thomas managed both sides of

the partnership. Charles carried wares to seek patrons and establish trade with other

businesses from Norfolk to Washington. Eventually he married and became

independent of Fletcher and Gardiner in 1831.

In addition to family business concerns, other investment opportunities pursued

by Fletcher and Gardiner brought mixed results. While in England for the first time in

1815-16, Thomas Fletcher witnessed extensive mechanized production not only in the

silver industry, but other manufacturing areas.An item in Niles ’ Weekly Register

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from April 1817 quotes a Philadelphia paper: “Mr. Dow, from Boston, has now in this

city a machine invented and constructed by himself and Mr. Treadwell, for cutting and

finishing wood screws.”^*’ The prospect of a screw-making machine was something

Fletcher and Gardiner explored as a local manufacturing investment to supplant

imported wood screws (iron wire screws for wood). They invested in machinery and a

Schuylkill River mill in 1818, petitioned Congress for protection from imported English

screws in 1819, and then nearly bankrupted the entire firm when one of their investment

partners, John Stoddart died deeply in debt in 1820. This business risk was prompted

by their desire for investment diversification and to build independent American

manufacturing concerns, but international tariffs and debt laws were stacked against

their plans.

Fletcher’s advisor Jacob Gates in Boston applauded the investment in 1819, but

after Stoddart’s death and the national cash shortages he wrote to Thomas: “as regards

your own house.. .my confidence in you has never been shaken; but when connected

with Stoddart, whose whole composition is made up of adventure & project, I may be

allowed to insinuate there was broad ground for a suspicion to arise that you would not

easily extricate yourselves.. With so many business failures between 1819-1821,

Fletcher and Gardiner could little afford to risk the reputation of their own financial

stability. In 1820 much of their stock was auctioned from the store to help settle their

■i • • • 98 liability for Stoddart’s debts. The near failure after several heady years of national

successes in presentation silver and store patronage renewed the firm’s efforts toward

further family business expansion. Fletcher and Gardiner, however, maintained

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interests in American manufacturing as well as internal drive to keep their silver

manufactory in a leadership position through the 1820s.

In late 1822 Sidney Gardiner received high praise from Alvarado, Mexico, for a

gold presentation brooch made to order for a Spanish count. The design was the “Order

of Guadalupe” and it promised to lead to more of the same, according to his contact in

Philadelphia, Mr. Cortes. Gardiner wrote to Fletcher, “Cortes sent for me this moming

and read to me in presence of Capts. Dallas and Allen, the account of the badge we

made, and I can ashure you, it was very flattering to find my first attempt should have

proved so successful - it appears that the jewellers of Mexico cannot make the Orders

for the Dons...” He also mentioned that their contact in Mexico, Colonel Bradbum,

sent an order for furniture and jewelry and Gardiner concluded: “with energy on our

part, I think we shall make money in the trade with the Mexicans.Less than two

months later Sidney Gardiner landed in Alvarado in 1823, intoxicated with the idea of

establishing a silver and gold manufactory in Mexico for enormous profit, and

investigating markets for their imported and Philadelphia-made goods in exchange for

silver specie. Ultimately, they found that high end and lower goods sold for

considerable profit, but dealing with port fees, shipping insurance, dangerous road

robberies, and civil war were difficulties beyond their imagination.

Gardiner returned to Philadelphia in time to contribute to the DeWitt Clinton

vases. After his second voyage to Mexico, Thomas Fletcher optimistically noted on an

inquiry from his friend Jacob Gates: “Gardiner’s last voyage more advantageous than

the former & laid the foundation for more business than 1 had anticipated.”^® Timothy

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Veron sailed to assist Gardiner from Alvarado, but both were back by summer 1825

when Thomas Fletcher was in Europe investing their Mexican profits in French

porcelain and English cutlery. The firm established relationships for shipping goods

and credit management with factors, Taylor & Si card in Vera Cruz and Parrot &

Willson. By 1826 Spanish and Mexican relations made exports very difficult and

Sidney Gardiner traveled again to investigate missing remittances and to manage their

unsold goods. Thomas Fletcher was still attempting to recover thousands of dollars

from the Mexican government through Parrot & Willson two years after Gardiner died

m Vera Cruz. T1 Fletcher and Gardiner’s efforts were well intentioned, but sabotaged by

lawlessness and unsophisticated international credit arrangements. The firm’s

reputation; however, expanded in new channels and may have led to the presentation

sword commission in 1832 for the former governor of Matanzas, Cuba.

At the same time Sidney Gardiner first represented the firm in Vera Cruz and

Mexico City, Thomas Fletcher helped found the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and

strengthened the firm’s local business networks. Their manufactory was still the largest

in the country and by participating in public organizations Fletcher and Gardiner hoped

to effect protections from foreign competition as well as promote domestic industries.

In 1828 Fletcher’s fiiend T. G. Ralston wrote to Fletcher about the Franklin Institute.

He said he was happy to hear it “surpassed your anticipations, and I hope that you will

still continue to give your fostering care to this Institution which I look upon as one of

the most valuable ones in our city.. Fletcher became an officer and Gardiner a

general member in 1824. The firm benefited from contact with other Philadelphia

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. artisans, from annual exhibitions, and from the lectures and resources the Institute

sponsored. The annual exhibitions provided another public forum for display of the

firm’s silver and one Fletcher employed to keep their name in public circulation.

In 1825 at the annual American Manufacturers Exhibition hosted by the

Franklin Institute a list of “articles of jewellery, plate, &c.” includes silver pitchers and

silver cake baskets made by Fletcher and Gardiner and by Harvey Lewis. Adopting

what would become standard tenor for official remarks, the report stated: “All of the

above articles were considered to be of excellent workmanship, and very credible to

their makers, whose reputation is well established.” Thomas Fletcher rotated on and

off the exhibition committee, which sometime excepted the firm’s display from

premiums, but did not stop them from exhibiting. In 1831 silver from Fletcher’s firm,

Edward Lownes, Curry and Preston, and R. & W. Wilson stymied the award judges:

“The Institution is under great obligations to these gentlemen for a really splendid

display of the choicest silver urns, tea and coffee pots, canns, wine coolers, castors,

cake baskets, goblets, pencil cases, & c.,” thus no medals were awarded at all.^"^

In 1836 Fletcher exhibited again in the silver category and the report reveals that

he must have been motivated by the opportunity for visual spectacle and advertising

rather than any premium: “There was an extensive assortment of this beautiful ware,

from the manufactory of Fletcher and Bennett, which contributed much to enhance the

splendor of the exhibition, but as Mr. Fletcher is an officer of the Institute, he is

precluded from competition.”^^ The firm exhibited one last time in 1838, but again

Fletcher was on the exhibition committee.

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thomas Fletcher, the first treasurer and long-time vice president of the Franklin

Institute, strongly supported the mission and their promotion of mechanie arts in

Philadelphia.^^ Fletcher’s passion for the Institute was captured by the minutes from a

meeting of officers shortly after his death. They resolved: “That we shall ever cherish

in our grateful remembrance, his services as Treasurer and Vice-President, and the

hearty zeal which, during his active membership, he manifested for every measure that

would promote the usefulness and prosperity of the Institute.. ..we sympathize with his

family in their bereavement, we feel assured, that as he had filled the charaeters of

parent, friend, and citizen, for a period rarely allotted to a man, in a way honorable to

himself, their grief will be solaced by the many memories of his work.”^^ Fletcher’s

passionate support of American domestic industries was a life-long pursuit, whether

through Fletcher and Gardiner, speculative investment, or by promoting others through

the Franklin Institute.

Presentation commissions occasionally required collaboration with other

artisans. Fletcher and Gardiner worked with several who also joined the Franklin

Institute, which must have solidified networks between manufactories. For example,

presentation sword etched steel blades required specialist journeymen and assistance

from steel casting manufactories. Fletcher and Gardiner could not have kept

journeymen consistently on the payroll, but required their skills intermittently for

special projects and drew on the best craftsmen they could find. Bladesmith William

Rose and his sons were steady collaborators for the finn’s swords in the 1820-1830s,

hut their names do not appear in Franklin Institute membership lists. As mentioned in

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the previous chapter, several of Rose’s presentation sword blades for Fletcher and

Gardiner bear the name of John Meer, Jr. (active 1819-1829). Meer displayed wood

inlay and sword blade decoration in the Franklin Institute exhibition’s “Chemicals”

category in 1824. Frances Keamy, well-known engraver in Philadelphia and member of

the Franklin Institute taught his craft to William E. Tucker (1801-1857) who also may

have decorated some Fletcher and Gardiner presentation sword blades.

The earlier sword blades produced by Fletcher and Gardiner, like War of 1812

urns, included pictorial depictions of naval battles as part of the decoration. Engravings

the firm used for sources were probably generated by the local Philadelphia print

industry. For example, a single page holding multiple images like William Strickland’s

engravings of nine battles, “Sprigs of Laurel,” could be purchased for three dollars and

sent to the steel sword blade etcher or to the journeyman chasing urn tablets.^* [Fig. 42]

The printed designs were already scaled down from an original painting or drawing and

more suited to miniature depictions on sword blades. The publishers, William

Strickland and William Kneass, were early members of the Franklin Institute.

When the firm collaborated occasionally with painters, they followed practices

also employed by England’s leading gold and silver firm Rundell, Bridge & Rundell

who engaged painter John Flaxman for Paul Storr’s designs for the Prince Regent and

other aristocratic patrons. The Bridport brothers, George (d.l819) and Hugh (1794-c.

1868), were English academically-trained painters who emigrated to Philadelphia

following the War of 1812 and both were associates of Thomas Fletcher. George

sometimes worked as a decorator for architect Benjamin Latrobe, and his familiarity

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with neoclassical architecture and monument iconography as well as his design library

were probably tapped as sources for Fletcher and Gardiner’s silver and gold work.

Whether Bridport or Latrobe owned a copy of Charles Percier and Pierre-Fran9ois-

Leonard Fontaine’s Recueil des decorations interieures (1812) is probable, but

speculative. This important resource; however, contained imperial designs for

Napoleon’s and other French aristocratic rooms which are connected to Fletcher and

Gardiner’s first monumental work, the Hull um. As discussed in the first chapter,

George Bridport’s major public work in Philadelphia may well have been designing the

“bomb” punch bowl Fletcher and Gardiner produced for George Armistead in 1816.

Hugh Bridport followed his older brother George to Philadelphia in 1816 in the

company of architect John Haviland. George and Hugh Bridport taught drawing at a

small academy from 1816-1817 when Hugh joined John Haviland to teach in an

academy on Chesnut and Seventh streets from 1818-1822."^° Hugh’s career includes

intermittent employment as a painter, teacher, and illustrator. He produced a watercolor

image of one of the De Witt Clinton vases while they were still in Philadelphia.

If not an associate of Fletcher and Gardiner through his brother George, Hugh

certainly would have known them both through his later work at the Franklin Institute.

Hugh Bridport was a charter member and exhibitor in the first exhibition of the Franklin

Institute in 1824. Driven by the tenet that skilled drawing underlies all successful

industry, Franklin Institute members sponsored a popular drawing school designed for

young mechanics and artisans “of all classes” by the end of 1824. John Haviland

directed the school and Hugh Bridport assisted by teaching approximately 50 pupils two

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. evenings a week."*' The evening school ran by subscription under Haviland until 1827

when William Strickland’s brother George assumed the directorship and joined Hugh

Bridport.'*^ John Haviland became the architect for the Franklin Institute’s new building

in 1825.

Franklin Institute treasurer Thomas Fletcher submitted the announcement about

the school to the institute’s quarterly report in 1825 and probably agreed one hundred

percent with the sentences that followed it:

The Board recommend strongly to the members these evening schools, as of very great importance to the rising generation, connected as they are with the privilege of attendance on the lectures. An opportunity is thus offered of acquiring useful knowledge, at a much cheaper rate than it can be obtained in any other manner, and at the same time of keeping the youths who attend, away from the haunts of idleness, immorality and vice, and nourishing in them, at an early period of life, a taste for the solid pleasures which the studies of the arts and sciences must always afford.'*^

The apprentice system was dissolving; night schools were one answer to the problem of

educating a labor force.

Other artist-members of the Franklin Institute collaborated with Fletcher and

Gardiner for presentation commissions. William Kneass (1780-1840) was probably a

friend as well a colleague. Kneass worked as an engraver and publisher, with

compositions ranging from William Strickland’s architecture to religious subjects. He

is recorded as the artist of the “writing” on the presentation um for Jacob Jones

produced by Chaudron’s workshop and may have contributed to Fletcher and

Gardiner’s silver ums.‘^‘* In early 1824 Kneass was appointed to the United States Mint

in Philadelphia as an engraver and die sinker and he worked there until 1840. His

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. appointment at the Mint probably contributed to bis role as creator of the silver medal

premiums awarded at Franklin Institute exhibitions.

The Fletcher and Gardiner finn’s reputation benefited by association with the

Franklin Institute, which was reciprocated by Thomas Fletcher’s energetic support for

its broad mission in Philadelphia. A steady presence in their annual public exhibitions

was more reliable advertising than the sporadic display of presentation silver in the

Chesnut Street store window and provided a different forum for endorsement of the

manufactory’s work. When Philadelphia’s bored wealthy bachelor Sidney G. Fisher

attended the 1838 exhibition, the only item that he recorded in his diary was a silver

inkstand presented to Julius R. Friedlander the principal at the city’s Institution for the

Instruction of the Blind. Fisher wrote that it was designed by “Fisher” and the inkstand,

“which is very beautiful, displaying excellent taste, which Fisher indeed possesses in

such matters.”"^^ Whether Sidney Fisher slipped and wrote “Fisher” when he meant

“Fletcher” is almost less notable than the fact that he commented on the silver display

above all other exhibitions.

The word “taste” frequently appeared in public references to Fletcher and

Gardiner presentation silver. Whether leading their patrons’ taste or answering it with

the goods they retailed, the firm’s name and Thomas Fletcher’s designs were

synonymous with good taste. Repeat customers for the store, including many who

received a presentation award from their workshop, endorsed their reputation as leaders

of taste. A letter written by Fletcher’s brother Charles from Washington City in 1829

mentioned that when he called on Major Lewis; “I took the occasion to say that you

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ‘had been long engaged in the business, had several times visited Europe & was

acquainted with the first Artists there and from your connections in England & France,

you would he able to import the articles of the best quality & at the lowest prices..

Charles, and probably all the store’s clerks, perpetuated the impression of close

relationships to European sources and styles and used Thomas Fletcher’s personal

experience as a trump card.

Five days prior to Charles’s letter, Lieutenant Beverly Kennon, who owned a

presentation sword made by Fletcher and Gardiner, requested a large order of silver,

japanned wares, china, and other household items. He asked for a tea service “of the

best silver used for such purposes, to be made in the best maimer, but entirely plain and

of medium size & weight.” He understood Fletcher would know exactly what “the

best” meant and qualified the request by saying he could get everything in Norfolk, “but

should prefer getting them from you.”^^

While household silver and jewelry were the manufactory’s major business,

presentation silver and gold were the firm’s agency for speedy national renown.

Fletcher and Gardiner’s practice of engraving their names visibly on the exteriors of

some presentation silver indicated not only their “authorship” of an artistic work, but

also self-consciousness of the opportunity to cultivate a reputation in more distant

markets. Of the War of 1812 commissions, their names featured on the bases of Hull’s,

Armistead’s, Jackson’s urns. These urns were sent out from Philadelphia, which might

explain the use of signatures. Press coverage, acknowledgement of the firm by name.

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and a permanent record on the um itself, associated Fletcher and Gardiner with splendid

monumental silver.

The unusual practice of signing a presentation work evolved in American silver

with Fletcher and Gardiner’s lead. They were not the first American silversmiths to

adopt French and English firms’ signature habits, but their presentation masterworks

endorsed the practice. For example, they engraved the Hull um in Latin:

“FLETCHER & GARDINER FECER.T PHILAD.A” on the base. (The abbreviated

signature, “F. & G. Fecit,” was added to the engraving of the um on a later version of

the firm’s trade card.) By the time the Clinton vases were produced, the partners’

names migrated to the same location on the bases as the govemor’s and the donors’

names. The firm’s signature altemated between English or Latin, illustrating not only

their literacy, but their identity as learned purveyors of tasteful goods.

The manufactory’s silver production was constrained in the early 1830s by

Fletcher’s difficulty finding and affording talented workmen and by the city’s fever

epidemics.''^ Perhaps to hide the work slowdowns, Thomas Fletcher wrote to an

impatient tea service patron in Boston, “My workmen are diligent, but it will not do to

hurry the work so as to spoil the beauty of it.”^° Understandably the recipient, Ben

Gorham, chafed eight months later that his silver service was still not completed: “I

must entreat you to let me have it done before the very fashion of the article has gone

by— He waited willingly for some time, perhaps in deference to their reputation, but

Fletcher needed to argue more than artistic license or an engraver’s slowness to explain

the delay. The firm’s production of presentation swords also experienced production

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lags in the early 1830s. Many of Fletcher’s surviving letters from this era concentrated

on a complex interchange of goods and credit stretching from suppliers in England to

Baldwin Gardiner in New York and to Henry Fletcher in Kentucky. The manufactory’s

elegant silver services stayed in demand by patrons in Boston, New Orleans,

Charleston, Baltimore, and Mobile, perpetuating the awareness of the firm in distant

markets.

Ironically, awareness of the firm increased demand for household silver

services with multiple elements and heavy flatware during a decade of national financial

difficulties and shortages of refined silver. Thomas Fletcher’s letters in the 1830s

convey the realities of an expensive, intermittent labor supply, difficulty collecting

remittances, national currency shortages, and in 1836, the forced removal from his

established store when the new bank was begun on Chesnut Street. In a letter to his

contact in New Orleans, John Linton, Fletcher privately remarked that General Jackson

“nearly destroyed the industry of the country,’’ and ruined many businesses. He

admitted that he had “to discharge the greater part of my hands last winter for want of

the material [silver] for them to work upon and funds to pay wages.

Although Fletcher had recently (in 1835) partnered with his nephew Calvin

Bennett, who trained with the firm as a jeweler and clerk, their abilities to meet demand

and sustain the manufactory were nearly exhausted by 1837. At least three presentation

sword commissions and the enormous Nicholas Biddle silver dinner and coffee service

given by the Second Bank of the U.S. (valued $15,000) arrived after the store’s

relocation to No. 194 Chesnut Street, but other manufactories in Philadelphia picked up

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. most new business. Fletcher and Bennett’s final exhibition of silver at the Franklin

Institute in 1838 must have had a sense of bravado in the face of mounting business

challenges.

When the firm’s inventory was liquidated to settle their debts in 1842 the

auctions were announced in the North American and Daily Advertiser and scheduled for

three separate days. Fletcher kept his hand as a designer and identified himself as

“silversmith” through the 1840s in McElroy’s Philadelphia Directory, but the firm’s

days as taste-makers, innovators, and merchants to the nation were concluded.

Thomas Fletcher remained active in city institutions, his church (First

Congregational Society of Unitarians), and by retailing watches and jewelry from the

front of the Morris Temperance House he owned at No. 188 Chesnut Street. Two boxes

of watch papers engraved with the Morris House address and “THOMAS FLETCHER

JEWELLER” as well as a tinned sheet iron sign survive in a private collection to tell of

his role as a middleman in the jewelry and repair business. After Fletcher retired from

the merchant business in the 1850s he served as a prothonotary for the district court

until he moved the family across the Delaware River to Delanco, New Jersey.

Fletcher’s daughter Martha’s diary preserved in the back of a ledger book reveals that

“Pa” went into the eity regularly in the last years of his life, probably to maintain

professional contacts.

The firm’s legacy in presentation silver survives in public and private

collections as well as through document records. Perhaps because the Fletcher and

Gardiner firm did not last into the next generation, despite the partners’ best intent,

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. modem scholarship has not fully recognized the firm’s key role in bringing European

styles and manufacturing practices into the heart of Philadelphia’s silver craft. Fletcher

and Gardiner’s influence through temporary workmen engaged in their shop, new

manufacturing techniques, monumental works of art inspiring emulation, and steady

leadership in empire era silver services are only part of their story. Diverse investments

from screw machines to calico printers were intended to produce quick, reliable income

for securing a larger volume of imported goods and talented labor for the silver

manufactory. The model of a multi-branched merchant-artisan business stretching from

Baldwin Gardiner in New York to Henry Fletcher in Louisville, with Lewis Veron in

Europe and the attempt to establish Timothy Veron in Vera Cmz revealed the tme

complexity of the partners’ ambitions.

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

* Folder 1806-1812, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ Mrs. Melanie Vernon, sometimes spelled “Veron,” was mother to Sidney’s wife Mary Holland Ver(n)on and Thomas’s wife Melina DeGrasse Ver(n)on. Other children included Lewis Veron (1793-1853), Timothy Vernon, and Louise-Leroy Ver(n)on who married Sidney’s younger brother Baldwin Gardiner in 1815.

^ Folder 1806-1812, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Folder 1806-1812, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

^ Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Timothy Fletcher, February 4, 1811. Folder 1806- 1812, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

® Letter from James Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher, May 20, 1811, describes his (James’s) name now probably associated in Boston with debt. It sounds like he expected Thomas to help find capital for him, but did not appreciate that the Fletcher name needed to stay pristine for Thomas’s fledgling credit negotiations in Boston too. Folder 1806-1812, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Letter from Sidney Gardiner to Thomas Fletcher, December 15, 1815. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

* M.E.D. Brown, “The Gold & Silver Artificers of Phila. in Civic Procession, 22"^* Feby. 1832.” This image was reprinted from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania collection in Elizabeth Wood, “Thomas Fletcher: A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio (1967), 3 Fig. 14, p. 159.

^ Deborah Waters gives helpful workshop details, in Waters, “The Workmanship of an American Artist: Philadelphia’s Precious Metals Trades and Craftsmen, 1778-1832,” (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Delaware, 1981), p. 116. Fletcher’s letters indicate he purchased Darwin designed rolling mills in Sheffield in 1816, later had replacement rollers made in Philadelphia, and purchased steel ones in 1830 through Goddard & Bibby. Letterbooks 1-2, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When Anthony Rasch auctioned his neighboring silversmith manufactory in 1819- 1820, his shop inventory included mahogany counters with three glass cases on each and mirrored shelves with glass doors. Source: Waters,/h/J., p. 102. A slightly earlier account record by cabinet maker John Hewitt for the silver firm of Marquand and Harriman in New York mentions “2 showcases to have 2 doors to each 3 pain glass in each door (sketch) inclear the glass front of the case to be 6 Inches deep and to have glass in front - 7 Inches Deep the back and to be the Lock Side, and to be fixed for Looking Glass Inside.” Marilynn A. Johnson, “John Hewitt, Cabinetmaker,” in the Winterthur Portfolio 4, (1968) p. 198. My thanks to classmate Matthew Thurlow for sharing this reference.

In 1815 Henry arrived from Boston and he slept in the store, keeping it secure per Charles’s letter to Thomas Fletcher, October 24, 1815. Loose letters, Thomas Fletcher collection. Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

In 1813 somehow they narrowly escaped losses judging from a letter in response to this news from Fletcher’s friend in Boston, Dr. Jacob Gates. Gates wrote that he heard of their “good fortune of saving your wares from the hands of robers.[sic] It appears that they have methodized their business in the wisest manner.” Letter from Gates to Thomas Fletcher March 12, 1813. A handbill surviving in the Library of Congress collection advertised a reward and itemized French and English watch losses the shop experienced in 1822. As it was later proven, the manufactory foreman, Daniel H. Dodge betrayed them by stealing inventory and attempting to pawn it. This explains the itemized list of on the handbill, as well as the steady vigilance in the shop. Waters, Ibid., p. 142.

John L. Krimmel, “Procession of the Victuallers of Philadelphia on the 15* of March, 1821.” Philadelphia: Joseph Yeager, 1821-22, aquatint by Joseph Woodward. M.E.D. Brown, “The Gold & Silver Artificers of Phila. in Civic Procession, 22"‘* Feby. 1832.” Lithograph, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. In Waters,Ibid., p. 118.

There are numerous written examples of urns, presentation services, and some swords being displayed in the store for the local audience before being shipped; display was a common practice for Fletcher and Gardiner. Deborah Waters also mentions displays of local awards, for example the Schulykill Navigation Company vases received press coverage between 1830-1832 and a tea service given to Allen Amistrong, the retiring president for the Mechanics Bank located only a few blocks away was displayed. Waters, Ibid., pp. 91-92.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to John Linton, June 18, 1830. Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 154, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Wood,Ibid., p. 158.

17 In the West Chester Village Record, June 20, 1827: “Obituary. At Vera Cruz, on the 11* of May last, Mr. SIDNEY GARDINER, of the House of Fletcher and Gardiner, of this city, aged 40. He was a skillful mechanic, and an enterprising merchant; ardent and zealous in the pursuit of business, he was among the first to engage in the Mexican trade, and had three times visited the Capital of Mexico, but when on the eve of embarking for his native land, he fell a victim to the fatal disease of Vera Cruz. He was greatly beloved, and his loss will be long felt and deeply lamented by all who knew him.” (See: Item #2060, Accessible Archives on-line). References to Gardiner’s date of birth usually cite 1785, but this obituary suggests he was bom in 1787.

1 8 Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Thomas Culbreth in Annapolis, August 28, 1828. Maryland Historical Society Library vertical files.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to James Fletcher, October 5, 1814. Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

9 0 Letter from Sidney Gardiner to Thomas Fletcher in England, August 9, 1815. “Your proposition to establish a new concem I think will do well if it is managed wright. After I resd. your proposition 1 proposed the same to B[aldwin] he was somewhat surprised at first, he did not give me answer untill the next day, he then said if he could have half the proffits he would quit his business and enter into the new one.. .if the business proposed takes plase we shall give them a hand try in Market St. - for my part I like the plan I am well pleased with it. it will open a way to imploy more of your family to our advantage as well as theirs. I have no doubt but henry will like the hard ware business it will perhaps suit him better than the crockery ware business I proposed to you...” Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

21 Deborah Waters reports that Baldwin Gardiner sold out to George W. South and Timothy Veron on September 1, 1826 when he moved to New York City. Waters, Ibid., p. 84. Timothy Veron had been in Fletcher and Gardiner’s store just after he finished his schooling in 1815 according to Charles Fletcher. Letter from Charles Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher in Liverpool, July 8, 1815. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeiun of Philadelphia.

22 Waters, Ibid., p. 86. Waters lists several locations for concems run by Charles Fletcher and George Fletcher.

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In 1829 Thomas Fletcher wrote to Joseph Dyer: “The business of engraving cylinders is likely to do well in this country; cotton goods having become so very low, & the printing of them having been so generally introduced, that in a short time a large portion of the printed goods consumed will be manufactured & finished here.” Letter from Thomas Fletcher November 20, 1829. Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 113, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library. Fletcher made continual efforts to get patent office approval for Dyer in the 1830s.

Presentation business resulting from this connection includes a silver pitcher awarded to the governor of Kentucky (private collection).

Letters containing news that his mentor Joseph Dyer was working on a “machinery project” in London 1810 and was rumored by 1812 to be “making a fortune” might have spurred Fletcher’s interests See; Joseph Dyer letter to Thomas Fletcher July 28, 1810; and Jacob Gates letter to Thomas Fletcher September 29, 1812. Box 1, Thomas Fletcher Collection, 1992.14, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

26 Niles’ Weekly Register, April 5, 1817, p. 96.

Letter from Jacob Gates to Thomas Fletcher, September 14, 1821. Folder 28, Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Gazette, August 28, 1820.

Letter from Sidney Gardiner to Thomas Fletcher in New York City, November 26, 1822. Folder 28, Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Handwntten note on envelope verso of letter from Jacob Gates to Thomas Fletcher on October 14, 1825. This is probably a cribbed note from Fletcher to himself regarding his reply to Gates. Box 2, Folder 14, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

■j 1 Thomas Fletcher wrote to Baldwin Gardiner on July 7, 1829: “I have received a letter from Parrott which gives me no hope of a remittance for some time to come. He says Willson took with him all the available funds of the House and he has written to him to send me $3,000 which I have no expectation of his doing. I fear the Mexican concem will prove rather worse than I have anticipated.” Box 1, Letterbook 1, p. 74, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter from T. G. Ralston in Paris to Thomas Fletcher in Philadelphia, December 12, 1828. Box 3, Folder 19, Thomas Fletcher Collection, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Franklin Institute, Annual Report o f the Exhibition, (1825), Section VI, p. 19.

Franklin Institute, Annual Report o f the Exhibition, (1831), p. 7.

Franklin Institute, Annual Report of the Exhibition, (1836), p. 321.

Thomas Fletcher found a place for his youngest brother Levi as a mathematics teacher at the Institute. Bruce Sinclair, Philadelphia’s Philosopher Mechanics: A History o f the Franklin Institute 1824-1865, (Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), pp. 122-124.

37 Journal o f the Franklin Institute 53, no. 1. January 1867, p. 69.

William Strickland, “Sprigs of Laurel,” engraving (Philadelphia: William Kneass). Henry Francis du Pont Winterthr Museum, #1957.811. This image is reprinted in E. McSherry Fowble, Two Centuries o f Prints in America, 1680-1880: A Selective Catalogue o f the Winterthur Museum Collection, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987), p. 443.

TO Research by Beatrice Garvan indicates that George’s library included folio volumes of Sir William Hamilton’s vases as well as other English publications of classical elements. Beatrice Gavan, Federal Philadelphia 1785-1825, The Athens o f the Western World, (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987), p. 67.

Jeffrey A. Cohen, “Building a Discipline: Early Institutional Settings for Architectural Education in Philadelphia, 1804-1890,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 53, no. 2 (June 1994), p. 145.

Franklin Institute, Fourth Quarterly Report, January 20, 1825, p. 52.

The Register o f Pennsylvania (1828-1821)-, Oct. 31, 1829. Bridport resigned in 1831. Cohen, Ibid., Tp. 148.

Franklin Institute’s Quarterly Report reprinted in October 1829 in The Register o f Pennsylvania (1828-1831), October 31, 1829, pp. 284-285.

Kneass’s name is inscribed on the bottom of Chaudron’s presentation um for Jacob Jones. Donald Fennimore kindly shared this information.

Sidney G. Fisher,A Philadelphia Perspective: The Diary of Sidney George Fisher Covering the Years 1834-1871, Edited by Nicholas B. Wainwright, (Philadelphia: The Historical Society o f Pennsylvania, 1967), p. 62.

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Letter from Charles Fletcher to Thomas Fletcher, March 15, 1829. Box 2, Folder 4, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter from Beverly Kennon to Thomas Fletcher, March 10, 1829. Box 2, Folder 4, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

One example is the “S. Richard Fecit” on the base and lid of an um made by Stephen Richard in New York, ca. 1812, depicted in: Stuart Feld, Neo-Classicism in America: Inspiration and Innovation 1810-1840, (New York: Flirschl & Adler Galleries, Inc., 1991), Fig. 2, p. 20. See also: cake basket by Stephen Richard in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, #1961.956.

Deborah Waters’s research summarizes the Finn’s fluctuations in sales, number of employees, and pace of business after 1812 and until the 1830s. After the scarcity of silver in the late 1820s, general workshop production picked up (likewise presentation vases and swords), but the cholera epidemics and temporary absences of talented workmen for militia service dramatically effected the firm’s ability to fulfill orders. Waters, Ibid., pp. 83-93. By 1834 Thomas Fletcher wrote to his brother Henry, “.. .the workshop back of 130 Chest. St. is almost deserted. Conrad [Bard] & his two boys in one apartment and Jacob Wm. Shoupe [?] & a small boy in the other with an occasional visit from J. McPherson & E. Langton [?] comprise the principal if not all the inmates of that once busy hive.” Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Henry Fletcher, May 6, 1834. Box 1, Letterbook 2, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to Hon. Ben Gorham, October 26, 1830. Letterbook 1, p. 184, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

Letter from Ben Gorham to Thomas Fletcher, June 7, 1831. Folder 31, Thomas Fletcher Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Letter from Thomas Fletcher to John Linton, May 24, 1834. Letterbook 2, p. 42, Thomas Fletcher Papers, Joseph Downs Collection, Winterthur Library.

53 The North American and Daily Advertiser, May 31, June 7, and June 15, 1842.

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONCLUSION

Presentation silver, by the nature of its purpose as a gift, is layered with many

meanings and interpretations. This study only tapped the surface of documents, private

letters, and historic evidence to link specific interpretations to public presentation works

made by the Fletcher and Gardiner firm. Other scholars and the 1987 exhibition Marks o f

Achievement: Four Centuries o f American Presentation have Silver examined broader

cultural expressions and nuances in American presentation practices. The founding of

regional historical societies, development of Mount Auburn and other cemeteries, and

public manifestations of remembrance in monuments and works of art give context to the

production of presentation silver. While it is accurate to read public presentation silver

and gold in the early nineteenth century as expressions of nationalism, patriotic identity,

and artistic achievement, personal meaning and the life of the object through time are

also parts of the story.

Silver urns, vases, and swords designed specifically for presentation and distinctly

ceremonial function, were at the same time both impractical and exceedingly potent.

However; the counterpart of functional domestic plate for dining was presented to heroes

at exactly the same time and also produced by Fletcher and Gardiner. The services

indicated a growing practice of not only displaying presentation silver, but of living with

valuable, useful presentation forms.

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Imbedded in the word presentation is a gift, a present. The word present also

carries a temporal meaning, the here and now. Silver and gold produced for presentation

by Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm was indeed a gift and marker of a contemporary time,

and the intersection of one person’s life with his country’s history. The pictorial and

sculptural elements on Fletcher and Gardiner’s urns and swords, selected for their

symbolic meaning (such as Neptune, indicating rulers of the seas) and chronological truth

(a decisive battle scene), imbued presentation awards with validity as visible cultural

cbronicles.

The modem designation of “presentation silver” focuses attention on the silver

object ratber than the cultural practice of groups of citizens uniting their funds, their

gratitude, and their sense of history. Whether through subscription lists or other

organized networks individuals could, by extension, purchase fantastically rich, oversized

silver otherwise well outside their consumer habits. Shopkeepers in Philadelphia, ladies

around Charleston, and others often not enfranchised in the luxury market took the

opportunity to contribute toward an artwork of value to convey their appreciation of a

living hero who gave something immeasurable to them. The gift of a permanent object

fashioned from precious metals and personalized with an individual’s name as well as the

donors’ dedication created physical evidence to outlast human memory.

The availability of an heroic vocabulary circulating in printed form during this era

contributed to stylized formality in dedications. The language inscribed on Fletcher and

Gardiner’s presentation silver is not markedly different from British awards reported in

the London Times in the first decades of the nineteenth century. Writers followed

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. established patterns with a rigor almost matching the universal principles of architecture

taught during the neoclassical era. The shift from military to civic awards resulted in

only a stronger focus on an individual’s personal service toward the public good, rather

than bravery in battle.

Historians identify a strong self-making or self-imaging current within American

culture of the young republic, not just economic, but in a character of independence. The

Franklin Institute founders expressed this in a democratic manner by aspiring to educate

and elevate the individual mechanic. In the national arena, celebrated war heroes were

declared virtuous and able to “influence in exciting others to imitate their example”

during presentation ceremonies.’ Elite circles reinforced self-fashioning with peers

joining to endorse a man’s virtues and service with a presentation vase. The James

Biddle um was an early example, and the Hugh Maxwell vase illustrated a later political

use that capitalized on cultural meaning already established in the public gift of a silver

vase.

It is challenging today to appreciate the newsworthiness of not only a presentation

ceremony, but a description of every last vegetable dish in the same way nineteenth-

century publishers considered them. Fletcher and Gardiner’s silver and gold often made

headlines. The vehicle for achieving this was always the award recipient; however, the

public received physical descriptions of the silver, and sometimes a sword. Regional and

national press coverage reinforced perceived appropriateness of silver urns, vases, and

swords as presentation gifts. Headlines in newspaper announcements advertised the

occasions as “Reward of Merit” and “Tribute” to catch the reader’s eye. The Fletcher

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Gardiner firm’s renown benefited by association with heroic figures as well as by the

printed testimonies of the firm’s taste and skill.

This study of the deliberately artistic and very public presentation forms produeed

by Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm examined their stylistic sources and manufacturing

techniques during dynamic years in American silver. The filter of Thomas Fletcher’s

acquisitive eye for design and taste, and the adaptive practices of Sidney Gardiner’s

workshop to bridge handcrafted and machine-aided production were talents the partners

employed to maintain their lead in business. Both men were determined that Ameriean

manufaeturing could match or best imported goods, and sought means to support national

industry, particularly where they would benefit. To that end, they parlayed presentation

works and institutional patronage to expand their manufactory’s national reputation and

to secure credit arrangements.

The resulting works in presentation silver and gold, including those fashioned

after Gardiner’s death, were a significant body of personalized American trophies that

preserved war time and commercial triumphs with a distinct icongraphical style.

Comparisons to other silversmith’s work from the same era were outside the scope of this

study, but the firm’s influences extended well beyond Philadelphia to workshops in

Boston, Albany, New York, Baltimore, Charleston, Louisville - in fact, almost

everywhere their silver was ordered. Their domestic silver, in particular, with heavy

solid silver bodies and elegant ornament set the standard for American silver services for

the post-war era and the 1820s. Fletcher and Gardiner not only contributed to a national

style for American presentation silver by codifying appropriate classical emblems, but

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they also produced a sophisticated range of household forms that enriched dining

environments and embellished empire-era interiors. For a time, they truly were

silversmiths to the nation.

NOTES

' Award committee’s statement to Lieutenant Colonel George Armistead, Niles ’ Weekly Register, May 18, 1816, p. 185.

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IM— m I I

Figure 1 Pencil sketch, Thomas Fletcher, ca. 1815-1816. Courtesy, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I

Figure 2 Pencil sketch, Thomas Fletcher, ca. 1815-1816. Courtesy, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 172

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4 Isaac Hull um. Top: base detail; bottom: bowl detail. Author’s photograph.

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 174

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jt T^.se iromFiraJiesi.

Figure 6 Henry Moses, “A Vase from Piranesi,” engraving. Collection o f Antique Vases (London, 1814). Courtesy, The Winterthur Library, Printed Book Collection.

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 7 “Pot-a-Oille,” Charles Percier and Pierre-Franfois-Leonard Fontaine, Recueil de decorations interieures, (Paris: Chez les Anteurs au Louvre, 1812), plate 46. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library, Printed Book Collection.

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii

V, -'.-i-^d-xklk^y^'-

i B

I. fikt I §118 !l;M ^^gl^» # « ^^g g i:i ■! ' . - :. ■ ^ fm § c fell :**!'«§§;

Figure 8 Charles Percier and Pierre-Fran 9ois-Leonard Fontaine, Recueil de decorations interieures, (Paris : Chez les Anteurs au Louvre, 1812), plate 72. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library, Printed Book Collection.

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 9 Isaac Hull um, finial detail. Author’s photograph.

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. --r- 'XiekBSbisiih

. M miH^aefH Jvrx t>/' SIf.VRK Pl.A T Ii /c .IKM'KLJLEWY. and frnporters vf ('Uh'Ux \Vrtlrln's iC Kanov li(i«nl'» 9

Figure 10 Fletcher and Gardiner trade card, engraved, ca. 1820, (Philadelphia: James Young and George Delleker), ca. 1822. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library, Downs Collection, 187.

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^WMnn

fti«sP”JJSB5r» “” • *

Figure 11 Oliver Perry um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1813-1814, (15 ‘A” h. x 14 Ya ' w.). U. s. Naval Academy Museum collection. Author’s photograph.

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 12 Oliver Perry um, finial detail. Author’s photograph.

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. uAiMiiuDtiE c a > %

Figure 13 William Bainbridge um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1814. Sketched in Benson Lessing, A Pictorial-Field Guide o f the War o f 1812, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1869), p. 462. Courtesy, The Winterthur Library, Printed Book Collection.

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 14 James Biddle um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1813, (15 h. x 111 1/16” w.). Courtesy, U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. /a ^ ■ i

Figure 15 James Biddle um, handle detail. Author’s photograph.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V •ef|64 a?***!!®

I -Ir ■• r- «f . I

iSSk \> 5

Figure 16 James Biddle um, verso. Courtesy, U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection. Author’s photograph.

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. y , J w w,

Figure 17 Jacob Jones um, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1814, (16” h. x 13 Vi ” w. X 8 Vi' diameter). Courtesy, Delaware Historical Society collection. Photo source: The Delaware Historical Society.

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 18 George Armistead punch bowl, beakers, ladle, and tray, Fletcher and Gardiner with Andrew E. Warner, 1816, (bowl: 15 3/16” b. x 12 Vi’’ diameter). Courtesy, National Museum of American History collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 188

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i J F

(/. "4r .*• .« *ife^^ta§^

« v

Figure 20 John Rodgers dinner service, tureen, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1816-1817. Courtesy, National Museum of American History collection, Smithsonian Institution. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 21 Andrew Jackson urn, Fletcher and Gardiner, 1817, (18” h. x 16” w. X 9 ‘A” diameter). Courtesy, South Carolina State Museum collection. Photo Source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ yii^=.yJS

Figure 22 Andrew Jackson urn, verso. Courtesy, South Carolina State Museum collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -i t ^ r-fe'siv ' V

•S" .V' V ' '^la-.^iir :r4vV™-ffC^J!«>;r‘"'.li

Figure 23 Frederick Graff vase, by Harvey Lewis, ca. 1822. Courtesy, Atwater- Kent Museum collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 193-196

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. \

Figure 28 James Fisher vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1830, (21” high). Courtesy, Atwater-Kent Museum collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 198

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 30 James Fisher vase, detail, bottom of Figure 28. Atwater-Kent Museum collection. Author’s photograph.

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mmMsm

Figure 31 Cadwalader Evans vase, Thomas Fletcher, 1830, (21 %” high). Courtesy, Atwater-Kent Museum collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 32 Cadwalader Evans vase, finial details. Left: front; right: back. Atwater-Kent Museum collection. Author’s photographs.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 202-203

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 35 Henry C. Ballard sword and scabbard, Thomas Fletcher, William Rose, and John Meer, Jr., 1829, gold, steel, and leather, (32 Vi” long). Private collection. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I■

Figure 36 Henry C. Ballard sword, detail. Photo source: Winterthur Museum Decorative Arts Photographic Collection.

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 37 Joseph Cross sword, scabbard, and case, Thomas Fletcher, William Rose, and John Meer, Jr., 1829, gold, steel, leather, and felt. Courtesy, Maryland State Archives collection. Author’s photograph.

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mm IH

Figure 38 Joseph Cross sword, hilt detail. Courtesy, Maryland State Archives collection. Author’s photograph.

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 39 David Geisinger sword and scabbard, Thomas Fletcher and William Rose, 1837, gold, steel, leather. Courtesy, U. S. Naval Academy Museum collection. Left: overall; right: hilt detail. Author’s photographs.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been scanned at the request of the author. They are available for consultation in the author's university library.

pg 209

This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 41 John L. Krimmel, “Procession of the Victuallers of Philadelphia, on the 15* of March, 1821,” aquatint by Joseph Woodward, (Philadelphia: Joseph Yeager, ca. 1821-1822). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum, 1988.56.

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 42 William Strickland, “Sprigs of Laurel,” engraving, ca. 1815, (Philadelphia: William Kneass). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum, 1957.811.

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A

GOLD-HILTED PRESENTATION SWORDS

PRODUCED BY THE FLETCHER AND GARDINER FIRM

Year Recipient Donor Value Location, if known 1814 William B. Shubrick Citizens of SC $325 1815 Andrew Jackson MS Territory $500 The Hermitage, TN 1815 Thomas McDonough State of GA 1816 Daniel Appling State of GA $500 Private collection 1816 James McIntosh State of GA $280 Private collection 1816 Gen. Hindy State of MS $450 1816 John A. Webster State of MD 1816 Henry S. Newcomb State of MD 1825 David Conner State of PA $400 1829 Joseph Cross State of MD $300 MD State Archives 1829 Henry C. Ballard State of MD $500 Private collection 1829 Isaac Mayo State of MD $400 Private collection c. 1820s Beverly Kennon (unclear, VA?) 1831 David Geisinger State of MD $400 U.S. Naval Acad. 1831 Joseph Smoot State of MD $400 NY Hist. Society 1831 John Contee State of MD $400 1832 George W. Rodgers State of MD $425 Private collection 1833 Don Cecilio Ayllon Matanzas, Cuba $1,200 1834 Nathan Towson State of MD $5-800 MD Hist. Society 1834 John Gallagher State of MD $5-600 1837 Edmund P. Kennedy State of MD $500 MD Hist. Society 1836 William J. Worth State of NY $700 1838 Hugh Brady State of PA $1,100 1843 John A. Webster State of MD MD Hist. Society

Potential Fletcher & Gardiner presentation swords mentioned in documents 1815 Thomas McDonough (unclear, DE?) c. 1828 Capt. Dallas (unclear) 1835 Col. Hayne/Hamilton State of SC $600 1837 Capt. Ramsey (unclear, MD?)

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B

TOUCHMARKS AND SIGNATURES ON PRESENTATION

SILVER AND SWORDS

Fletcher and Gardiner’s firm used a variety of touchmarks over time from no

mark at all, to simple initials, the partners’ last names, and pictorial hallmarks. (See:

photographs in Donald Fennimore’s master’s thesis, Appendix 11.) The list below

records touchmarks and signatures of known presentation silver and swords, where

possible.

Urns and Services (alphabetical, by recipient)

Armistead Punch Bowl, etc.: “FLETCHER & GARDINER FECERUNT / PHILADELPHIA” with “A. E. WARNER”on the bowl’s base; “FLETCHER & GARDINER” inside a circle with a separate rectangle “PHILA” in the center on the underside of the bowl base. On the beakers: Baltimore assay marks. On the ladle: “A.E.W.” and Baltimore assay marks. On the tray: no visible marks.

Bainbridge Bread Basket: “F.& G.” and “PHILAD.A” in separate rectangles on the underside of the base.

Biddle Um: no touchmarks visible.

Clinton Vases: “FLETCHER & GARDINER MAKERS” and “PHILAD.A DECEMBER 1824” on the front lower comers of the base beneath the dedication; “FLETCHER & GARDINER MAKERS” and “PHILAD.A FEBRUARY 1825” on the front lower comers of the base beneath the dedication. On the underside of the base each um has the following marks: “FLETCHER & GARDINER” in a circle with “PHILA.” in a rectangle in the center; “FLETCHER & / GARDINER” in a double baimer over “PHILA” in a separate rectangle.

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Evans Um; Five individual hallmark style touchmarks in a line from left to right: a left-faeing profile head in a eircle, “T” in a shield, “F” in a shield, a standing eagle in a circle, and “P” in a shield; all are repeated four times on the underside of the base.

Firth Um: “T. FLETCHER” and “PHILAD” in a rectangle on the underside of the base, (according to the 19^^ Century America: Furniture and Other Decorative Arts).

Fisher Um (U. S. Bank): “FLETCHER & GARDINER.” in a circle once on the underside of the base. Five individual hallmark style touchmarks in a line from left to right: a left-facing profile head in a circle, “T” in a shield, “F” in a shield, a standing eagle in a circle, and “P” in a shield; all are repeated four times on the underside of the base.

Fisher Um (C&D Canal): “FLETCHER & GARDINER.” in a circle with “PHILA.” in a rectangle on the underside of the base. Five individual hallmark style touchmarks in a line from left to right: a left-facing profile head in a circle, “T” in a shield, “F” in a shield, a standing eagle in a circle, and “P” in a shield once on the underside of the base.

Harris Vase: “FLETCHER & GARDINER” in a circle with “PHILA.” in a rectangle in the center on the underside of the base.

Hull Um: “FLETCHER & GARDINER FECER.T PHILAD.A” on front of the base.

Jackson Um: “Fletcher & Gardiner fecerunt. Philadelphia” engraved on the base front. “FLETCHER & GARDINER” and “PHILAD.” in rectangular stamps on the underside of the base.

Jones Um: no touchmarks visible.

Lippencott Vase: “T. FLETCHER / PHILAD.A” around an oval band with pellets underside of the base.

Maxwell Um: “B. GARDINER” and “NEW. YORK” semicircular scalloped edge stamps on imderside of base.

Perry Um: FLETCHER & GARDINER PHILADELPHIA” on the base; “Keamy DEL.T and “Hooker SC.” on naval battle panel; “F.& G.” and “PHILAD.A” in rectangular stamps in two comers of the underside of the base.

Rodgers Service: “FLETCHER & GARDINER” in an circle stamp on the underside of the bases.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bread Basket and Tureen: “FLETCHER & GARDINER” in a circle with “PHILA.” in a separate rectangle in the center on the underside of the base.

United Bowmans’ Bowl: “T. FLETCHER” and “PHILA.” in rectangle stamps with a faint repeat of the “T. FLETCHER” underneath the first, repeated four times on the underside of base.

Swords

Geisinger: Hilt: “FLETCHER” on ricasso.

Towson: Hilt: “T.FLETCHER / MAKER / PHILADELPHIA” engraved in script in an oval on the hilt.

Webster (1843): “THOS. FLETCHER FECIT’

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, Thomas Fletcher Collection

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Thomas Fletcher Collection

Library of Congress, American Memory Ephemera Collection

Maryland Historical Society

Maryland State Archives

The Winterthur Library, Joseph Downs Collection, Thomas Fletcher Papers, #278

NEWSPAPERS

Ariel: A Semi-Monthly Library and Miscellaneous Gazette (Philadelphia)

Delaware County Republican

Village Record (West Chester, Pennsylvania)

Niles ’ Weekly Register, edited by Hezikiah Niles (Baltimore)

Philadelphia Gazette

Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia)

The Register of Pennsylvania (1828-1831)

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BOOKS AND ARTICLES

19‘^-Centiiry America: Furniture and Other Decorative Arts. Exhib. cat. Intro, by Berry B. Tracy. New York: New York Graphic Society, for The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970.

Ackermann, Rudolph. Selection of Ornaments. London; R. Ackermann, 1817-1819.

A List o f Streets, Roads, Lanes, Alleys, Avenues, Courts, Wharves,...on the plan o f Philadelphia and its environs. Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and 1. Lea, 1824.

American Naval Prints: From the Beverley R. Robinson Collection U.S. Naval Academy Museum, Annapolis, Maryland. Exhib. cat. Intro, by Roger B. Stein, Richmond: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1976.

Anderson, Leslie J. “Isaac Hull Memorabilia at the USS Constitution Museum,” Antiques 125, no. 7 (July 1984): 119-123.

Beckman, Thomas. “Neoclassical Silver by Wilmington Silversmiths in the Historical Society of Delaware,” 137, no. 4 (April 1990): 928-939.

Bowen, Abel. The Naval Monument. Boston: Abel Bowen, 1816.

Childs, Cephas C. Views in Philadelphia and its Environs. Philadelphia: C. C. Childs, for the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1827.

Classical Maryland, 1815-1845: Fine and Decorative Arts from the Golden Age. Exhib. cat. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993.

Cohen, Jeffrey A. “Building a Discipline: Early Institutional Settings for Architeetural Education in Philadelphia, 1804-1890,” in The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 53, no. 2 (June 1994): 139-183.

Cooper, Wendy A. Classical Taste in America 1800-1840. Exhib. cat. New York: Abbeville Press and the Baltimore Museum of Art, 1993.

Dangerfield, George. The Awakening o f American Nationalism, 1815-1828. (1965) Reprint, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 1994.

Deak, Gloria Cilda. Picturing America, 1497-1899. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Failor, Kenneth M. and Eleonora Hayden. Medals of the United States Mint. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fales, Martha Gandy. Jewelry in America, 1600-1900. Suffolk; Antique Collectors’ Club Ltd., 1995. Early American Silver. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973. “Obadiah Rich, Boston Silversmith,” (October 1968): 565-569.

Fennimore, Donald L. “Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner: The Stylistic Development of their Domestic Silver,” Antiques (October 1972): 642-649. “Elegant Patterns of Uncommon Good Taste: Domestic Silver by Thomas Fletcher and Sidney Gardiner,” (master’s thesis. University of Delaware, 1972).

Fielding, Mantle. American Engravers upon Copper and Philadelphia, Steel. [s.n.] 1917.

Fisher, Sidney G.A Philadelphia Perspective: The Diary of Sidney George Fisher Covering the Years 1834-1871. Edited by Nicholas B. Wainwright. Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1967.

Fowble, E. McSherry. Two Centuries of Prints in America, 1680-1880: A Selective Catalogue o f the Winterthur Museum Collection. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987.

Franklin Institute (Philadelphia). First Annual Report o f the Proceedings o f the Franklin Institute. Philadelphia: J. Harding, 1825. Journal o f the Franklin Institute 4, no. 96 (October 1829). Journal o f the Franklin Institute 4, no. 96 (October 1831). Journal o f the Franklin Institute (March 1836). Journal o f the Franklin Institute 53, no. 1 (January 1867).

Garvan, Beatrice B. Federal Philadelphia, 1785-1825: The Athens of the Western World. Exhib. cat. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987.

Goldsborough, Jennifer F. “Silver in Maryland,” Antiques, 125, no. 1 (January 1984): 258-267.

Hamilton, Sir William. Sir William Hamilton’s Vases. Second edition. London: T. McLean, 1814.

Haviland, John. The Builder’s Assistant, Containing the Five Orders o f Architecture, 1. Philadelphia: JohnBioren, 1818.

Hone, Philip. The Diary o f Philip Hone, vol. 1. Edited by Bayard Tuckerman. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., ca. 1889.

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hope, Thomas. Household Furniture and Interior Decoration (1807). Reprint, London: Alec Tiranti, 1970.

Johnson, Marilynn A. “John Hewitt, Cabinetmaker,” Winterthur Portfolio 4 (1968): 185-205.

Lane, Christopher W. and Donald H. Cresswell. Prints of Philadelphia at the Philadelphia Print Shop, Featuring the Wohl Collection. Sharon Hill: Archway Press, 1990.

Le Corbeiller, Clare, “The Construction of Some Empire Silver,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 16 ( m 2 ) 195-198. :

Livingood, James Weston. The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade Rivalry, 1780-1860. Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1947.

Lossing, Benson. Pictorial Field-Guide o f the War of 1812. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1869.

Marks, Richard and Brian J. R. Blench, The Warwick Vase. The Burrell Collection. Glasgow: Glasgow Museums and Art Galleries, 1979.

McClinton, Katharine Morrison. Collecting American 19‘'^ Century Silver. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.

Moses, Henry. Selection o f Ornamental Sculptures, Consisting o f Vases, Altars, Candelabra, and Tripods from the Museum of the Louvre, at London:Paris. W .B. Cooke, 1828. A Collection o f Antique Vases. London, 1814. A Collection o f Vases, Altars, Paterae, Tripods, Candelabra,Sarcophagi... London: J. Taylor, 1814.

Newark Museum. Classical America, 1815-1845. Exhib. cat. Newark: The Newark Museum Association, 1963.

New York Chamber of Commerce, Proceedings o f the Chamber o f Commerce. Fifty-First Annual Report, Part I, May 7, 1908.

North America Print Conference 1977: New Bedford, Mass. American Maritime Prints. Edited by Elton W. Hall. New Bedford: Published at the Whaling Museum by the Old Dartmouth Historical Society, 1985.

Palmetto Silver. Riches o f the South. Exhib. cat. Columbia: University of South Carolina, for the McKissick Museum, 2003.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Oberholtzer, Ellis. Philadelphia: A History of the City audits People, vol. 2. Philadelphia, Chicago, & St. Louis: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., ca. 1898.

Penzer, Norman M. “Copies of the Warwick Vase,” Part 3, Apollo (March 1956): 71-75. Paul Storr: The Last o f the Goldsmiths. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1954.

Percier, Charles and Pierre-Fran9ois-Leonard Fontaine. Recueil de decorations interieures. Paris: Chez les Anteurs au Louvre, 1812.

Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia and the China Trade 1784-1844. Exhib. cat. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984.

Phillips, Anthony and Jeaime Sloane. Antiquity Revisited: English and French Silver-Gilt from the Collection o f Audrey Love. London: Christie’s Inc., 1997.

Piranesi, Giovarmi-Battista. Diverse maniere d ’adornare i cammini ed ogni altra parte degli edifizi...e toscana. Rome: Salomoni, 1769.

Richmond, Helen. Isaac Hull A Forgotten American Hero. Charleston (Mass.): USS Constitution yiuseam, 1983.

Rigal, Laura. The American Manufactory: Art, Labor, and the World o f Things in the Early Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Scott, Jonathan. Piranesi. London: Academy Editions; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975.

Shaping a National Culture: The Philadelphia Experience, 1750-1800. Edited by Catherine E. Hutchins. Winterthur: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1994.

Sinclair, Bruce. Philadelphia’s Philosopher Mechanics: A History o f the Franklin Institute, 1824-1865. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

Smith, George. A Collection o f Ornamental Designs after the Manner of the Antique. London: J. Taylor, [n.d.]

Stampfle, Felice. Giovanni Battista Piranesi. New York: Dover Publication, Inc. in Association with The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1978.

Tatham, Charles Heathcote. Designs for Ornamental Plate, Many o f which have been executed in Silver, from original drawings. London: Printed for Thomas Gardiner bookseller by John Barfield, 1806.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tracy, Berry. “Late Classical Styles in American Silver,”Antiques 86, no. 6 (December 1964): 702-706.

Tubbs, Edward T. A Memoir of Thomas Culbreth (1786-1843). Denton (MD): Union Publishing Co., 1901.

Voorsanger, Catherine Hoover and John K. Howat. Art and the Empire City New York, 1825-1861. Exhib. cat. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Vulliamy, Lewis. Examples o f Ornamental Sculpture in Architecture. London: Lewis Vulliamy and Henry Moses, 1824.

Waldstreicher, David. In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes, The Making o f American Nationalism, 1776-1820. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Ward, Barbara M. and Gerald W. R. Ward, ed. Silver in American Life. Exhib. cat. New York: The American Federation of Arts, 1979.

Warren, David. B. “Four Centuries of American Presentation Silver and Gold,” Antiques, 133, no. 1 (January 1988): 266-281.

Warren, David B., Katherine S. Howe, and Michael K. Brown. Marks o f Achievement: Four Centuries of American Presentation Silver. Exhib. cat. Edited by Barbara M. Ward and Gerald W. R. Ward. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1987.

Waters, Deborah D. “The Workmanship of an American Artist: Philadelphia’s Precious Metals Trades and Craftsmen, 1788-1832,” (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Delaware, 1981).

Wild, John Caspar. Panorama and Views o f Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Lithograph of Wild & Chevalier, 1838.

Wood, Elizabeth I. “Thomas Fletcher: A Philadelphia Entrepreneur of Presentation Silver,” Winterthur Portfolio (1967): 3 136-171.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SWORDS

Altmayer, Jay P. American Presentation Swords. Mobile: The Rankin Press, 1958.

Bazelon, Bruce, ed. Swords from Public Collections in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Lincoln, Rhode Island: Andrew Mowbray Inc. [n.d.]

Belote, Theodore. “American & European Swords in the Historical Collections of the United States National Museum,” United States National Museum Bulletin, no. 163 (1932), Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Bezdek, Richard H. American Sword and Sword Makers. Boulder: Paladin Press, 1994.

Mowbray, E. Andrew. The American Eagle-Pommel Sword. The Early Years — 1794-1830. Second edition, Lincoln (Rhode Island): Mowbray Publishing, 1997.

Peterson, Harold L. The American Sword 1775-1945. Revised edition, Philadelphia: Ray Riling Arms Books Company, 1965.

Randall, Richard H., Jr. “Sword Designs by Thomas Fletcher,” The American Arms Collector 1, no. 4 (October 1957), 103-108.

Rankin, Robert H. Small Arms o f the Sea Services. New Milford: N. Flayderman & Company, Inc., 1972.

Southwick, Leslie. London Silver-hilted Swords. Leeds, UK: Royal Armouries, 2001.

Swords and Hilt Weapons. Produced by Multimedia Books Ltd., London. NY: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1989.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.