On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:52:28 +0100 (BST), Chris Dickinson <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote: >Cheryl wrote: >  >> On the West coast of the pond, back in the 18th and 19th >> centuries, people's "marks" are frequently registered in a >> deed book where they live. > >> Is that true on the East Coast of the pond?  IOW -- I have a >> signature mark of a man in Maryland in the 1750s; I'd like >> to confirm/refute that he's the same person as a man of the >> same name in England earlier for whom I can find no >> signature.  Is there some way to find the "mark" of the 2nd man? >  >  >  >I'm happy to be corrected, but I would think that nineteenth-century marks were largely 'x'. >  >However, early marks (at least in the area that I study) were highly individual in earlier centuries - often the initial letter of forename or surname, and sometimes quite elaborate. I'm not aware of any book that lists such marks, but I have wondered on this list before whether individuals used marks based on the smit marks on their farms. The latter are recorded after 1817 - and I imagine could go back centuries. >  >http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/thelakes/html/topics/smitfram.htm >  >I wasn't aware that books of marks were kept across the Pond. That's very intriguing - and could be a key to some new gateways. Maryland especially - as many Cumbrians settled there, and Cumbrians certainly used distinctive marks. Much of my colonial record searching has been in Maryland, and when there is a mark it nearly always seems to be an "x", though I did see one this morning that looked as though some other mark had been covered with a heavier "x", but I couldn't distinguish what the underlying mark[s] might have been. This was from about 1775. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

Don Kirkman wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:52:28 +0100 (BST), Chris Dickinson > <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote: > >> Cheryl wrote: >> >>> On the West coast of the pond, back in the 18th and 19th >>> centuries, people's "marks" are frequently registered in a >>> deed book where they live. >> >>> Is that true on the East Coast of the pond? IOW -- I have a >>> signature mark of a man in Maryland in the 1750s; I'd like >>> to confirm/refute that he's the same person as a man of the >>> same name in England earlier for whom I can find no >>> signature. Is there some way to find the "mark" of the 2nd man? >> >> >> >> I'm happy to be corrected, but I would think that nineteenth-century marks were largely 'x'. >> >> However, early marks (at least in the area that I study) were highly individual in earlier centuries - often the initial letter of forename or surname, and sometimes quite elaborate. I'm not aware of any book that lists such marks, but I have wondered on this list before whether individuals used marks based on the smit marks on their farms. The latter are recorded after 1817 - and I imagine could go back centuries. >> >> http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/thelakes/html/topics/smitfram.htm >> >> I wasn't aware that books of marks were kept across the Pond. That's very intriguing - and could be a key to some new gateways. Maryland especially - as many Cumbrians settled there, and Cumbrians certainly used distinctive marks. > > Much of my colonial record searching has been in Maryland, and when > there is a mark it nearly always seems to be an "x", though I did see > one this morning that looked as though some other mark had been > covered with a heavier "x", but I couldn't distinguish what the > underlying mark[s] might have been. This was from about 1775. I just saw another: 1701, Maryland, Baltimore county, deed: the "mark" was a German W. The man's given name was William, and used the same style W. Cheryl

Don Kirkman wrote in reply to me:     > Much of my colonial record searching has been in Maryland, and when > there is a mark it nearly always seems to be an "x", though I did see > one this morning that looked as though some other mark had been > covered with a heavier "x", but I couldn't distinguish what the > underlying mark[s] might have been.  This was from about 1775.     I suspect that would also be the case in Cumberland (England) at that time. I don't research that late, however, to make a judgement.   My gut feeling is that the use of elaborate marks came when people were vaguely between literacy and non-literacy in the seventeenth century. By the next century, you either could sign or you couldn't - and, if the latter, you were probably more willing to be told to sign with an 'x'.   I wonder if some of the non-x marks could come from literate people who simply were unable physically to manage a whole signature - but had the pride to do an initial letter?     Chris