In spite of recent views on guilds, their precise functioning still remains unclear.Especially for the early modern period, regulations on the number of apprentices per master, and the prohibition of the use of certain techniques,is seen in the perspective of “social corrections” – against the background of an upcoming “free market”.Yet, since putting-out and subcontracting were not prohibited,these regulations now appear as useless.In this article, a reconsideration of the normative sources of some Antwerp guilds clearly shows that the goal thereof was not some egalitarian and harmonious ideal of small and independent (family) businesses. The goal was an unequivocal circumscription of mastership. Rules about apprenticeship and the masterpiece served the goal of guarding the status of masters on the one hand and product quality on the other hand.Via the seal of approval – which only regular masters were allowed to use – competency was linked to the status of the product made under their supervision.This strategy made sense from an economic as well as from a social and cultural point of view until the 17th century at least, even for merchants who commanded and sold the products concerned. For the latter, however, it also meant that they could not control the actual manufacturing of products directly.