This large and varied series of pseudo antiquities
takes its name from the makers, William Smith and Charles Eaton. From
a workshop in Rosemary Lane / Royal Mint Street (exact location now
unknown), they produced, between 1857 and 1870, thousands of objects, in
lead and brass, intended to dupe a public eager to acquire examples of
the sorts of medieval antiquities being discovered in an ever growing
London.
The first group were sold to a small time antiques dealer William
Edwards who resold then to established dealer Thomas Eastwood (premises
in City Road). They came to the notice of antiquarians when
Eastwood offered them, as “a remarkably curious and unique collection of
leaden signs or badges of the time of Richard II”, to Thomas Bateman, a
wealthy Peak District archaeologist and collector. As knowledge of these
fabulous items spread, their authenticity was queried and adverse
comments made in learned journals. A court case ensued between one of
these journals and Thomas Eastwood which did not resolve the matter, so
leaving the principals to continue for so long that one contemporary
publication later described them as “those notorious scamps”.
They have been the subject of numerous articles over more than a century
and we reproduce below the most thoroughly researched,
as we do not think it can be improved upon.
What these publication lack, however, are details of the objects
themselves and remedying this will be the object of this web site.
Initially drawn from our own collection and supplemented by other
collections both public and private, we will attempt to show how wide
ranging are the manufactures of these illiterate (apparently) but
ingenious men. Criminals certainly, dismissed as mud larks or riverside
labourers often, they also possessed sufficient skills and imagination
to fool many highly educated men, and nowadays their fabrications
sometimes fetch more than “the genuine article”.
Click the following button to view a comprehensive article, 'The Billy
and Charley forgeries', written by Robert Halliday, published in
the Winter 1986 edition of 'the London Archaeologist'. Reproduced
here with the author's consent.
 |