Rarest cue of them all

[sunny3909]

French Marquetry cues had a very intricate and attractive inlaid pattern with ivory pieces.

[sunny3909]

the best of the maces was the one with the Gillow Stamp on the back made by John Thurston,it really is the rolls royce of maces.

[100-uper]

the best of the maces was the one with the Gillow Stamp on the back made by John Thurston,it really is the rolls royce of maces.

Are you sure you have written this correctly? Gillows (of Lancaster and London) were one of the best furniture manufacturers in England. John Thurston was apprentice to them prior to 1799 after which he went into partnership with others (Worhall and Fuller) eventually setting up on his own in 1814. Both firms where primarily involved with furniture manufacturer but would also have made billiard tables and general requisites like maces.

Anything stamped with the name of Thurston must be post-1814, a long time after he left Gillows. I am not aware of anything which is dual stamped by both Gillow and Thurston, nor can I imagine circumstances where such a thing could happen. Can you give me some more details of this mace you have seen?

[sunny3909]

John Thurston made this cue before he set up his own company,it was while he was working as a cabinet maker in Gillows.

[100-uper]

John Thurston made this cue before he set up his own company,it was while he was working as a cabinet maker in Gillows.

Well, if you have seen a mace, made by Gillows, and stamped in full by one of their apprentices (or tradesmen) I think we can safely say we have identified the rarest "cue" in existence.

[sunny3909]

Well, if you have seen a mace, made by Gillows, and stamped in full by one of their apprentices (or tradesmen) I think we can safely say we have identified the rarest "cue" in existence.

Here it is - it's the fourth from the left. Original softwood shaft with rosewood head and satinwood sightline made in 1790 by John Thurston when he was working for Gillows as a cabinet maker.

[Blondie]

Here it is - it's the fourth from the left. Original softwood shaft with rosewood head and satinwood sightline made in 1790 by John Thurston when he was working for Gillows as a cabinet maker.

Hi Sunny,

............thanks for sharing the picture, and must admit I've never seen 'billiard mace' cues before, but really impressed with the craftsmanship, and they're really stunning to look at. And for the rarest, [4th one], to have been made by John Thurston is an added bonus.

My perverse sense of humour really, but can you imagine the same styled 'mace' cue being made today with say a wood like ash, or maple, or one of the other frequently used woods. And I suppose you would be able to still use it, but interesting to see how a cue maker would approach this. I wonder what they may use to replace the rosewood head say, and satinwood sightline? The whole process I think would be an interesting challenge.

And wonder how much these style of cues retail at?, and still find it incredible that this is the rarest cue in existence, if it was mine I would put it in a beautiful glass display case, or mount it on the wall, although I wouldn't want to ruin any of the wood. Something definitely to be treasured though...

Lol..........xx

[100-uper]

............thanks for sharing the picture, and must admit I've never seen 'billiard mace' cues before, but really impressed with the craftsmanship, and they're really stunning to look at. And for the rarest, [4th one], to have been made by John Thurston is an added bonus.

Ah, the mystery of the Thurston/Gillows Mace has been solved! Thanks to a number of helpful PM's from sunny3909 it is revealed that the information was accurately quoted from an interview between Dominic Dale (who now owns the mace in question) and Ivan Hischowitz (who wrote the article).

I spoke with Dominic about this today and he says he was misquoted, having originally said that it could POSSIBLY have been made by John Thurston as he was working with the company at the time he thought the mace was made. As this covered a period of less than ten years, and Gillows were mainly operating in Lancaster with a much smaller workshop in London, this is a fairly bold statement in itself. Dominic readily admits that his estimate of the date of manufacture cannot be pinned down so precisely.

EarlyThurston history is probably of no interest to anyone other than myself, but I would offer the following anyway:

There exists an index to Gillows sketch books (Westminster City Archives) covering Gillows designs from 1784-1800 which lists over 350 "Workmen" involved in their manufacture. John Thurston is not amongst them. This is not really surprising when you consider that Thurston was born in 1777 and Gillows operated a seven year apprenticeship. This means that if he left the company immediately after completing his apprenticeship in 1799, he would have been 15 years old when he started with them. Actually, apprenticeships may have begun at an even earlier age in Georgian times, but it is clear that he spent very little time with Gillows as a tradesman.

This does not mean that he did not make maces, in fact, it would be just the sort of item I would expect them to give to an apprentice, and it may be where he acquired his taste for the billiard trade. But a mace made by John Thurston while employed by Gillow? If you can find one with a provenance, that would be worth a bob or two!

[Blondie]

Hi 100-upper,

..........and what a wonderful ending, kind of , and thanks for the further update, really interesting. And no real surprise, to an extent, that Dominic owns this, and if I knew him well, I'd ask if I could go and look at it, it's so full of history and heritage, and that's gotta be good. [I wonder as well if he keeps it in a glass display case, or mounted on the wall?]

And by the sounds of it, as you say, this one may not have been made by John Thurston himself, but whichever one of the "workmen" did make it, they should have been commended at the time. Such a beautifully crafted cue, an art in itself.

And here's to finding a mace cue made by John Thurston, whilst he was with Gillow, with provenance, how exciting!

And thanks again 100-upper.........

Lol.....xx

[100-uper]

Now another disappointment I'm afraid. When speaking with Dominic he gave me a description of the name stamp on this mace. I have just checked it out and it could not possibly have been made at the time of John Thurston. It was made no earlier than 1840, and possibly as late as 1880, long after the great man had left the company.

[trevs1]

I've seen this mace Dom has, it's quite interesting.

I must admit though, I found the case it came in more interesting. That was pretty cleverly made. As for the mace, it really is the most delicate little thing. It's done well to withstand the test of time.

[Blondie]

Now another disappointment I'm afraid. When speaking with Dominic he gave me a description of the name stamp on this mace. I have just checked it out and it could not possibly have been made at the time of John Thurston. It was made no earlier than 1840, and possibly as late as 1880, long after the great man had left the company.

Hi 100-upper,

..........and thanks for the further update, and sorry not to come back to you sooner, I've been watching Wimbledon. And at least we know for definite now, although it would have been great if it had been a Thurston.

And you're right, it is disappointing, would have been such a great find, but I never say never, so here's to finding one, and the excitement that would bring.

And thanks again for the further update, greatly appreciated........

Lol..........xx

[sunny3909]

well this goes to show u can't depend on anything thats printed bcoz its not just dominic dale but even david smith of cues n views who claims this mace to be made during the 1790s.But anybody in place of me would have believed this info at first sight as both of them are very reliable and respectable sources.

[100-uper]

I would just like to make it clear that I do not claim to be an expert on cues (or maces) and as two eminent authorities on this subject have declared this mace to be from the 1790s, I will explain further why I have said it is much later:

The stamp on this mace is confirmed as "GILLOW." Now, although Gillows left huge archives, tracking down reliable information is nevertheless a nightmare and new discoveries are regularly being made. At the present time the collective wisdom tells us that Gillows began marking their goods with a "GILLOWS LANCASTER" stamp between 1780 and 1790, so this is the stamp I would expect to see on a mace from this period.

The stamp was changed to "GILLOW" in the mid-1800s (hence my earliest date of 1840 which includes a margin of error) and changed again to "GILLOW & Co" towards the end of that century. Dating is imprecise because it relates to furniture designs which can be traced back to the occasional dated order which might come to the surface. Different authorities will give different dates, but they all fall broadly into these timescales.

I would also point out that if this mace does contain Rosewood, this would fit more comfortably with the Regency period, at the earliest, which is when this wood started to become fashionable. I would personally have expected to see Oak or mahogany used in the construction of a mace from the late Georgian period, although I certainly wouldn't date on this evidence alone.

[Blondie]

I would just like to make it clear that I do not claim to be an expert on cues (or maces) and as two eminent authorities on this subject have declared this mace to be from the 1790s, I will explain further why I have said it is much later:

The stamp on this mace is confirmed as "GILLOW." Now, although Gillows left huge archives, tracking down reliable information is nevertheless a nightmare and new discoveries are regularly being made. At the present time the collective wisdom tells us that Gillows began marking their goods with a "GILLOWS LANCASTER" stamp between 1780 and 1790, so this is the stamp I would expect to see on a mace from this period.

The stamp was changed to "GILLOW" in the mid-1800s (hence my earliest date of 1840 which includes a margin of error) and changed again to "GILLOW & Co" towards the end of that century. Dating is imprecise because it relates to furniture designs which can be traced back to the occasional dated order which might come to the surface. Different authorities will give different dates, but they all fall broadly into these timescales.

I would also point out that if this mace does contain Rosewood, this would fit more comfortably with the Regency period, at the earliest, which is when this wood started to become fashionable. I would personally have expected to see Oak or mahogany used in the construction of a mace from the late Georgian period, although I certainly wouldn't date on this evidence alone.

Hi 100-upper,

..........and only just had a chance to log back in again, and just read your update, it's intriguing, many thanks. And so good to have all this extra info in case any of us are lucky enough to find one.

Lol......xx