Title: Living in Victorian London: The Clay Pipe Evidence
Author: Jacqui Pearce (Museum of London Specialist Services)
Date: 01/08/07
© Jacqui Pearce, 2007
This research forms part of an Arts and Humanities Research Council funded study
‘Living in Victorian London: Material Histories of Everyday Life in the NineteenthCentury Metropolis’ Award Number AH/E002285/1 led by Dr Alastair Owens in the
Department of Geography at Queen Mary, University of London.. This funding is
gratefully acknowledged. For further information see
www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/victorianlondon
1 Introduction and methodology
The clay tobacco pipes were recorded in accordance with current MoLAS practice and
entered onto the Oracle database. The English pipe bowls have been classified and dated
according to the Chronology of London Bowl Types (Atkinson and Oswald 1969), with
the dating of some of the early 19th-century pipes refined where appropriate by reference
to published material of this date from the Tower of London moat (Higgins 2004). Pipes
that correspond to Atkinson and Oswald’s typology have been given the appropriate
number with the prefix AO. A new code (AO27A) was created for pipes that are
intermediate between AO27 and AO28, and given the date range c 1800–40.
Quantification and recording follow guidelines set out by Higgins and Davey (1994;
Davey 1997). The number of pipe bowls, stem fragments and mouthpieces recorded for
each of the three sites in the project is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Clay pipes by site in number of bowls (B), stems (S) and mouthpieces (M)
Site
LHC93
NPY73
SYB92
Total
B
S
59
3
62
M
4
4
4
12
Total
2
2
63
4
9
76
2 The clay pipes
The clay pipes have been analysed by site, separating individual groups within the largest
assemblage, from LHC93, although the overall quantification for all three sites together is
given in Table 2. The assemblages from each site are considered separately below, with
an outline description followed by interpretative discussion as proposed in the project
design.
Table 2 Clay tobacco pipe quantification for all sites
Total no. of fragments
No. of bowl fragments
No. of stem fragments
No. of mouthpieces
Accessioned pipes
Marked pipes
Decorated pipes
Imported pipes
Complete pipes
Wasters
Kiln material fragments
76
62
12
2
61
59
21
0
0
0
0
2.1
Old Palace Yard, Westminster (MoL sitecode NPY73)
Four small fragments of clay pipe stem were found in context [5]. Despite attempts to
date pipes by their stem bore, this remains an inadequate system at best, and fragments of
this kind are almost impossible to date at all closely. Given the associated finds, it is
highly likely that they are contemporaneous, unless residual or intrusive. No further
discussion of these finds is included with that of the clay pipes from the other two sites in
the project.
2.2
Bell Green, Sydenham (MoL sitecode SYB92)
Three clay pipe bowls were recorded from context [27], all in the unclassified developed
form of type AO28 with a shorter, less pointed spur datable to the second quarter of the
19th century. All three have the maker’s initials JA moulded in relief on the sides of the
spur, standing for Joseph Andrews, recorded in Deptford 1823–28 (Oswald 1975, 130).
The same maker’s pipes were also found at Regent Street, Limehouse (see above). All the
pipes have moulded oak leaf seams at the front and back of the bowl, and one was
damaged slightly and repaired before firing: a small tear or dent on the side of the bowl
was smoothed over, rather clumsily, which may have affected the price of the pipe by
making it a ‘second’. In addition to the pipe bowls, four small stem fragments and two
mouthpieces were collected. One of the mouthpieces has traces of red wax still visible
around the tip. This would have been routinely applied in order to prevent the smoker’s
lips sticking to the clay and could easily be renewed when it wore thin. The other
mouthpiece has a diamond-shaped section, one of a variety of tip finishes common in the
19th century.
2.3
Cyril Jackson School, Limehouse Causeway (MoL sitecode LHC93)
This site yielded the largest collection of pipes in the project (see Table 1), with 59 of the
62 bowls marked and 18 decorated, two of which have no obvious maker’s mark. The
range of forms represented is very limited and all are typical of London manufacture in
the first half of the 19th century. There is one unstratified pipe datable to c 1780–1820,
but the great majority are of the intermediate form AO27A, which is broadly datable to c
1800–40. These are characterised by a slightly larger bowl and longer, narrower and
sometimes slightly tapering heel than the typical AO27 with its solid, square heel. They
all retain the mould lines under the heel, indicating a date after c 1800 when trimming of
the heel was discontinued as more decorative pipes became increasingly common
(Higgins 2004, 241). Five spurred pipes (AO28) typical of the period c 1820–40 were
identified and only three of the mid 19th-century heeled pipes with forward sloping, eggshaped bowl (AO29).
Fourteen pipe bowls were found in context [1], mostly AO27A, with three AO28 pipes
and one type AO29, an unmarked pipe with moulded wheatsheaf seams. There are also
two stem fragments. Eight pipes are marked with the moulded initials IF in relief on the
sides of the heel. This stands for John Ford of Stepney, who is recorded between 1805
and 1865 (Oswald 1975, 136). Three of these are undecorated and there are nine
decorated pipes in total, all with moulded foliage seams at the front and back of the bowl.
Six of these have moulded vertical fluting, five with alternate thick and thin ribs. At least
two of the decorated IF pipes were made in the same mould. Three sets of moulded
makers’ initials other than IF were recorded, all of them probably local. The initials JA
probably stand for Joseph Andrews of Deptford, 1823–8 (ibid, 130), JR for James
Russell, recorded in St George in East and Wapping in 1823–32 (ibid, 144), or possibly
for James Roscoe, Stratford 1809–11, and JB, which could be John Bromley in Shadwell
1831 or John Birch, Whitechapel 1823 (ibid, 131). These pipemakers’ recoded dates
rangebetween at least 1823 and 1832. The assemblage is, however, dominated by pipes
made at the one workshop, that of John Ford of Stepney, and several have the same kind
of decoration. The implications of this are discussed below.
There are 28 pipe bowls from context [3], the largest single group found on the site. They
are all marked with the pipemaker’s initials moulded in relief on the sides of the heel, but
only three examples are decorated. All are of type AO27A, apart from one type AO28.
Eighteen pipes have the initials IF for John Ford of Stepney (see above), with at least
three different moulds for the same shape of bowl identified, and eight have the initials
TC, which probably stands for Thomas Cook, recorded in Dockhead 1836–50 (Oswald
1975, 134). One other pipe is marked WH, possibly William Hurst of Clerkenwell, 1828–
46, or William Heardson, Tolley Street 1838 (ibid, 139). The three decorated pipes have
moulded foliage seams and alternately thick and thin vertical ribbing (flutes).
Context [5] yielded 10 pipe bowls, all with moulded makers’ initials in relief on the sides
of the heel. Most are of type AO27A, with one type AO28 and one pipe that is close to
type AO29, probably representing a form intermediate between this type with its
forward-sloping, egg-shaped bowl and the more upright AO27 and AO28. There is
greater variety in the makers’ marks, with four pipes made by John Ford of Stepney (IF).
One of these also has the incuse stamped mark FORD STEPNEY on the back of the
bowl, facing the smoker (cf Higgins 2004, fig A2.1, no 9). In addition, there is one pipe
marked TC and one marked JA (see above). A pipe with the moulded initials WC was
probably made by William Cluer, recorded in Limehouse, 1832–54 (Oswald 1975, 134),
while an indistinct mark that probably reads WO may have been made by William
Oakley, Liverpool Road 1820–60 (ibid). Four pipes are decorated, all with moulded
foliage seams, and one of them with vertical ribbing.
Five clay pipe bowls were found in context [25], and two long, curved stem fragments.
All are of type AO27A and three are marked IF for John Ford of Stepney, with one
marked TC, probably for Thomas Cook. One is decorated with alternately thick and thin
vertical ribbing. There is also a pipe decorated with moulded Prince of Wales feathers
and foliage down the front seam. The moulding is rather poor and the bowl slightly
misshapen during manufacture. The initials SS are moulded in relief on the sides of the
heel, but no maker can be identified for this period.
3 Interpretation
This is considered under a number of themes identified in the project design. The
assemblage from LHC is the most fruitful for discussion because it is the largest. Some
comparison with the Sydenham pipes is possible, but the relative lack of finds from
Westminster makes discussion of this site almost impossible, except in terms of negative
evidence.
Chronology
The majority of the datable clay pipes from LHC93 are typical of the period c 1820–60
on the basis of bowl shape alone (cf Higgins 2004, fig A2.3, nos 29, 31; fig A2.4, nos 39–
40). As such, they represent a closely datable, homogeneous group. The dating can be
further refined by the makers’ marks, which again suggest a strictly limited period of
manufacture. Based on recorded dates at which the pipemakers identified were working
(see above and Appendix 1) and on bowl shape, the three main privy deposits and the
comparable finds from context [25] can be dated as follows:
Table 3 Clay pipe dating for LHC93
Site
LHC93
LHC93
LHC93
LHC93
Ctxt
1
3
5
25
TPQ
1840
1836
1832
1836
TAQ
1850
1850
1840
1850
This close dating suggests that the clay pipes from each of the three privy deposits were
bought, smoked and discarded over a very short period. Such a pattern is very much in
keeping with the built-in disposability and short life expectancy of the fragile clay pipe.
All the pipes have been well smoked, although it is difficult to say how many times or
over what period. A heavy smoker could probably produce the same effect with a day or
two’s use, although a good pipe was unlikely to be thrown away while it still gave a
reasonable smoke. Clay pipes are, however, very easily broken and heavy use would also
result in the stem bore becoming clogged up with tar quite quickly. It can therefore be
assumed that the average life of each pipe represented in the privy deposits was very
short, probably a few weeks at most and perhaps no more than a few days. The
pipemakers identified would all probably have been working relatively locally at the
same time, during the 1820s and ‘30s when most of these finds were manufactured. The
three clay pipe bowls from SYB92 were made within the same period and are all closely
similar in shape and produced at the same workshop, probably in Deptford, which also
supplied some of the pipes found in Limehouse.
Function and cost
The function of clay pipes is of course self-evident and all the Limehouse pipes have
been smoked, most of them quite heavily. Quality and cost are another matter. Very little
has been published on the pricing of clay pipes, although it is known that decorated
examples cost more than plain ones. It is also known that certain pipemakers or pipemaking families were known for the quality of their pipes, which were differentiated by
retailers from ‘common’ pipes and priced accordingly (Lewcun 1998, fig 9). Pipes were
priced by the gross, with length and type also factored into the cost. A good example of
this can be seen in a advertisement for clay pipes issued by a group of pipemakers from
Bristol in 1799, listing long tobacco pipes glazed at 5s, 3s 6d and 3s per gross,
presumably depending on length, and 4s 6d, 3s and 2s 6d unglazed (Jackson and Price
1974, fig 11). ‘Common long tobacco pipes’ were priced at 1s 8d per gross, and prices
were also set according to the market for which the pipes were destined (American, Irish
and Spanish, West Indian and African). There was also doubtless further grading
according to type and quality of decoration, although the differences in cost can be
reckoned in pennies. Decorated pipes became increasingly popular during the course of
the 19th century, with the simple moulded foliage seams on bowls and vertical fluting or
ribbing found at Limehouse very much standard designs, widely available from the time
of the Napoleonic War onwards. So, while more elaborate than undecorated pipes, these
simply decorated examples do not represent the pinnacle of the pipemaker’s art, and their
pricing would be measured accordingly. The pipe with the Prince of Wale feathers is
rather more decorative, although it is poorly moulded (either an old, worn mould or one
of inferior quality) and the maker cannot be identified from their initials. Armorial pipes
often have tavern associations and were most likely supplied with beer on the premises of
eponymous establishments.
The cost of clay pipes also increased with length, and the so-called ‘aldermans’ of the
18th century would be more expensive than a shorter, more practical pipe that could be
smoked while working, because they were designed to allow the smoker to hold the bowl
while resting their hand on the arm of a chair, which obviously required leisure time. In
the 19th century, ‘churchwardens’ were even longer, and were very popular in coffee
houses, clubs and public houses. None of the Limehouse or Sydenham pipes is complete
or can be reconstructed, although two long stem fragments that very likely come from
long-stemmed pipes were found in context [25] at LHC93, and some of the bowls in
other groups from this site have a length of stem surviving that suggests similar overall
proportions. Unfortunately, since so few stem fragments were collected on the site, this
cannot be confirmed.
There is a degree of general uniformity in the clay pipe assemblage from Limehouse
(with a degree of variability between privy deposits, discussed below) that suggests that
some at least were purchased together and from the same source, whether a public house
or a retailer. This is indicated by similarities in bowl shape, decoration and the limited
number of local pipemakers represented. There would be little need for ‘making do’ with
clay pipes and no real scope for repair; once they had served their usefulness they would
simply be thrown away and replaced. The same applies to the Sydenham pipes, which
were also probably purchased from the same source, possibly at the same time, although
one was very likely sold as a ‘second’.
Social and domestic space
Clay pipes are more or less ubiquitous in 19th-century contexts from urban excavations,
reflecting the importance of smoking at every level of society. Unlike dining and teadrinking, for example, with their more restricted and specific social/domestic associations
and dedicated spaces, a pipe could be enjoyed almost anywhere, both inside and outside
the house, in private and in public. It is entirely unsurprising to find used, discarded clay
pipes in material recovered from the fill of a privy (as at Limehouse). They could have
been smoked several times and in as many different places before they were finally
thrown away.
Gender, individuality and sex
By the 19th century, smoking was seen to be primarily the preserve of the male, although
women and children were certainly not excluded from the mysteries and pleasures of
tobacco. In the polite society of Victorian England, these pleasures were generally
unacceptable for the fair sex, although small ladies’ pipes were made in materials such as
meerschaum, especially in the later part of the 19th century. Amongst the poor and
disadvantaged members of society, smoking offered affordable comfort to both men and
women, as shown by paintings and later photographs that depict women of a ‘low sort’
smoking clay pipes. Whether or not the female residents of Regent Street, Limehouse and
Bell Green, Sydenham indulged in this activity is, needless to say, impossible to tell from
the available evidence.
Condition of the material
The clay pipes from both sites under consideration had all been smoked before they were
thrown away, most of them quite heavily or frequently. Most of the bowls were intact,
with the only damage visible likely to have occurred after disposal. It is regrettable that
so few stem fragments were collected, their scarcity in the assemblage suggesting a
deliberate collection policy that has biased and compromised the evidence. The absence
of stem pieces at Limehouse and the small size of the Sydenham assemblage make it
impossible to attempt reconstructions and thereby to determine overall length, with
consequent implications for answering questions concerning quality and cost. It also
makes it impossible to address questions of fragmentation and the condition of the
material when it was thrown away.
Variability
Two assemblages of clay pipes are compared here, those from LHC93 and SYB92. The
larger group by far comes from Limehouse and analysis of the finds from the three privy
deposits (contexts [1], [3] and [5]) shows some minor but distinctive differences in the
makeup of each collection, which may in turn reflect on their original owners. The pipes
found in context [1] are dominated by the maker John Ford of Stepney and include
several examples with the same kind of decoration, suggesting that they were purchased
at the same time, perhaps in a box or over a short period from the same source (a local
tavern or public house?). Since decorative pipes are slightly more expensive (in relative
terms) than plain ones, the high proportion of decorated pipes found in this group (64%),
if it is an unbiased sample, represents at the very least a desire for a more ‘fancy-looking’
pipe, even if cost was not an issue. The rather more numerous pipes from context [3], by
way of contrast, include a far smaller number of decorated examples (11%), and are again
dominated by the one maker (John Ford), with several pipes also made by Thomas Cook
of Dockhead. The closely focused dating and lack of variety again suggests that they
were bought over a short space of time, if not as a single purchase. If these and the pipes
from context [1] were originally owned by different individuals, this shows that both
most probably had access to the same sources, but made slightly different choices from
what may have been a relatively limited range, with the context [3] pipes less ‘fancy’ in
their appearance.
The pipes from the context [5] deposit at LHC93 show further minor variations. A wider
range of pipemakers is represented and 40% of the pipes have simple decoration
(moulded foliage seams). This may indicate that the pipes were bought from a number of
different sources, although all the makers identified were relatively local. The assemblage
from Sydenham is really too small to allow any meaningful comparisons to be made with
the Limehouse pipes, although it is closely similar in date and appearance, down to the
shared products of the same pipemaker. The smaller size of the collection is no doubt
attributable to the different circumstances of disposal.
4 Further questions
It has been possible to identify the makers of the various marked clay pipes with
reasonable certainty, by reference to published lists of pipemakers in London (Oswald
1975). The names of these makers are listed in Appendix 1, the area in which they were
recorded and the dates covered by those records. Almost all were extracted from
directories and it should be possible to refine the identifications with further documentary
research in order to answer the following questions:
•
•
•
Is it possible to identify the addresses of the workshops belonging to the clay pipe
makers represented at LHC93 and SYB92?
Can family pipemaking businesses be recognised from the records, with
successive generations of the same family continuing to work in the trade,
perhaps at different locations?
Is it possible to refine the date range during which the named pipemakers were
working?
5 Bibliography
Atkinson, D R and Oswald, A, 1969 London clay tobacco pipes, J British Archaeol Assoc
32, 171–227
Davey, P 1997 Clay pipes from Bolsover church, unpub archive rep
Higgins, D A 2004, ‘Appendix 2: the clay tobacco pipes’ in G Keevill, The Tower of
London Moat: archaeological excavations 1995–9, Historic Royal Palaces Monograph 1,
241–70
Higgins, D A and Davey, P, 1994 Draft guidelines for using the clay tobacco pipe record
sheets, unpub rep
Jackson, R G and Price, R H 1974, Bristol clay pipes, a study of makers and their marks,
Bristol City Museum
Lewcun, M 1998, ‘An A–Z of documentary sources for finding pipemakers in the
historical records’, Soc Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 54, 20–00
Oswald, A, 1975 Clay pipes for the archaeologist, BAR 14, Oxford
6 Appendix 1: Catalogue of marked and decorated clay pipes
from the Victorian London project
The pipes are listed here by site, context and accession number (Acc), with an overall
TPQ and TAQ for each context based on the clay pipe data only. Forms are recorded as
AO types (Atkinson and Oswald 1969), with an additional type intermediate between
AO27 and AO28, recorded as AO27A. The dating for each pipe bowl (Bowl ED and LD)
is based on published parallels, while further refinement is offered by the identification of
individual pipemakers. A limited range of decoration is indicated by the following codes:
LB
LBF
WB
RIBV
RIBV2
OAKS
POW
Moulded leaf seams at the front and back of the bowl
Moulded leaf seams at the front of the bowl only
Moulded wheatsheaf seams at the front and back of the bowl
Moulded vertical ribbing (flutes)
Moulded vertical ribbing alternate thick and thin
Moulded oak leaf and acorn seams front and back
Prince of Wales feathers
The type of mark is indicated by the letters R for relief and I for incuse, and the method
of application by the letters M for moulded and S for stamped. Mark position is shown by
the code SH for sides of the heel and BF for the back of the bowl (facing the smoker). All
examples have been smoked.
7 Appendix 2:
Site
TPQ
TAQ
Acc
Form
Bowl ED
Bowl LD
Type
Meth
Pos
Comments
LHC93
Ctxt
0
0
0
122
AO29
1840
1880
Decoration
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
0
0
0
123
AO27
1780
1820
IR
R
M
SH
LHC93
1
1840
1850
21
AO27A
1820
1840
LB/RIBV2
IB
R
M
SH
LHC93
1
1840
1850
24
AO28
1820
1860
LB
IF
R
M
SH
James Roscoe, Stratford 1809-11 or James Russell,
St George in East 1823-32
John Bromley, Shadwell 1831 or John Birch,
Whitechapel 1823
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
23
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
22
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
20
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65, same mould as <19>
LB/RIBV2
Marks
LHC93
1
1840
1850
19
AO27A
1820
1840
LB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65, same mould as <20>
LHC93
1
1840
1850
18
AO27A
1820
1840
LB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
13
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
16
AO28
1810
1840
WB
IF?
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
1
1840
1850
26
AO27A
1810
1850
LB/RIBV
JA
R
M
SH
James Andrews, Deptford 1823-28?
LHC93
1
1840
1850
17
AO27A
1810
1840
JR
R
M
SH
James Roscoe, Stratford 1809-11 or James Russell,
St George in East 1823-32
LHC93
1
1840
1850
AO27A
1810
1840
LHC93
1
1840
1850
15
AO28
1820
1840
WB/RIBV2
LHC93
1
1840
1850
14
AO29
1840
1880
WB
LHC93
3
1836
1850
67
AO27A
1820
1850
WB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
3
1836
1850
66
AO27A
1820
1850
WB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
3
1836
1850
65
AO27A
1820
1850
WB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
3
1836
1850
62
AO27A
1810
1850
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type c
LHC93
3
1836
1850
54
AO27A
1810
1850
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type c
LHC93
3
1836
1850
59
AO27A
1810
1850
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type c
LHC93
3
1836
1850
60
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type b
LHC93
3
1836
1850
56
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
47
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
49
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
64
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
Possibly marked but v unclear
LHC93
3
1836
1850
45
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
50
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
55
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
46
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
53
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
44
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
43
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65 bowl type a
LHC93
3
1836
1850
68
AO28
1820
1850
STARS
R
M
SH
LHC93
3
1836
1850
58
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
57
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
86
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
63
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
52
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
69
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
48
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
51
AO27A
1810
1850
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
LHC93
3
1836
1850
61
AO27A
1810
1840
WH
R
M
SH
Poss Wm Hurst, Clerkenwell 1828-46 or Wm
Heardson, Tolley St 1838
LHC93
5
1832
1840
42
AO27A
1810
1840
?W
R
M
SH
LHC93
5
1832
1840
40
AO27A
1805
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
5
1832
1840
37
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
LHC93
5
1832
1840
34
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
LHC93
5
1832
1840
33
AO28
1820
1840
IF/FORD STEPNEY
LHC93
5
1832
1840
36
AO29
1840
1880
LHC93
5
1832
1840
41
AO27A
1810
1840
LHC93
5
1832
1840
38
AO27A
1820
1840
LHC93
5
1832
1840
39
AO27A
1810
LHC93
5
1832
1840
35
AO27A
LHC93
25
1836
1850
32
LHC93
25
1836
1850
28
LHC93
25
1836
1850
LHC93
25
1836
LHC93
25
1836
SYB92
27
SYB92
27
WB
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
I/R
S/M
BFSH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
JA
R
M
SH
WBF
ROWELLS
R
M
SH
Poss James Andrews, Deptford 1823-28
TC
R
M
SH
1840
LB/RIBV
WC
R
M
SH
Prob Wm Cluer, Limehouse 1832-54
1820
1860
LB
WO?
R
M
SH
Poss Wm Oakley, Liverpool Rd 1820-60
AO27A
1820
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
AO27A
1800
1840
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
29
AO27A
1800
1840
WB/RIBV2
IF
R
M
SH
John Ford, Stepney 1805-65
1850
31
AO27A
1820
1840
LBF/POW
1850
30
AO27A
1820
1840
1820
1860
3
AO28
1820
1860
LB
JA
R
1820
1860
2
AO28
1820
1860
OAKS
JA
R
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
SS
R
M
SH
No makers identified
TC
R
M
SH
Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead 1836-50
M
SS
James Andrews, Deptford 1823-28?
M
SS
James Andrews, Deptford 1823-28? Repaired bowl
SYB92
27
1820
1860
1
AO28
1820
1860
OAKS
JA
R
M
SS
James Andrews, Deptford 1823-28?