Hester Needham was born in late 1708.  On the 20th of May, 1732 she married chain-maker and wire-drawer John Bateman at St Botolph's in the City.  His trade was not a particularly illustrious one, but it was steady work in the 18thC.  They had five children: two girls followed by three boys.  In 1760, John Bateman died and left everything to his 'loving wife'. In the Spring of the following year, Hester attended Goldsmiths' Hall to sign the appropriate registers to take over her husband's business and register her own mark, a pretty HB in script.  She signs with a small, thick H.B., plainly pressing too hard on the quill.  Her early output consisted mainly of domestic spoons and forks, of no particular merit, but marking a significant departure from her husband's chains and wire.

Many who argue Hester was physically responsible for the things that bear her name cite the fact that her husband left her his bench tools.  True, but they were bench tools for chain-making and finishing wire, not dies for spoons and forks and so this leaves two options: either Hester's silversmith sons Peter and Jonathan were making the new goods with new equipment purchased specifically for said, or they were buying them in from elsewhere and having them marked as Hester's.  Either way, she wasn't sitting at the bench.  

Soon, Hester graduates onto large items such as tea and coffee pots, known as holloware, indicating her client base was growing and wanting more from her.  Her production of these pieces coincided with the new manufactories producing early silver-plated wares in Sheffield and Birmingham, and there is definitely a large element of machine-production in her later work.  This is not necessarily a criticism, as the bulk of the work was still done by hand, but many of the borders and decorative motifs on her pieces are the work of machines, not men.  It is an interesting parallel that Hester's husband John would have used heavy machinery in producing his wires, so she was already familiar with the concept of machine manufacture.

There is a pretty, feminine quality to much of Bateman's work.  The proportions are good, and she was working within the styles of the day.  Bang on trend, as those fashion people say.  Coupled with the cheap and cheerful tea-ware were important commissions for larger and more valuable pieces.  I have no doubt that she was a persuasive saleswoman and a dominant character.  My feeling, after almost a decade of contact with her work, is that her son Peter was probably instrumental in the design and manufacture of all her output.  Peter appears to have been the driving force behind the business and upon Hester's retirement in 1790, he registered a mark with his brother Jonathan.  

The Peter and Jonathan Bateman hallmark is one of the rarest and most sought after, for the simple fact that it lasted only four months in 1791.  Jonathan was already sick with what is now believed to be leukaemia and he died only weeks into their partnership.  If Jonathan did indeed die of leukaemia, it is likely he would have been weakened for a long time, making it impossible to sit at a bench and work resistant metals, so his role in the business was probably more to do with paperwork or marketing.  Peter took on Jonathan's widow, Ann as his partner and the business continued successfully, again pointing to Peter's ability.

Hester died in their house at 107 Bunhill Row in 1794, her lasting fame assured. Quite how she managed to go from chain-maker's wife to the producer of solid gold teapots, and even judaica for an important synagogue is a mystery.  It is highly unlikely that the great and the good were making their way to Clerkenwell to commission items from the widow of a low-grade workman, so her links within the retailing world must have been strong.  In time, more details of Hester Bateman's life will emerge, and her trading links will become apparent.  Until then, her work and life must be assessed with an eye to the practical rather than the whimsical, an attitude Hester herself would no doubt have taken.