Yet another weird Ebay frankenfusee / mod-60s hybrid watch...

[cogito]

I don't know who's producing these timepieces...obviously a jeweler of some skill, but lacking in taste:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2644153618&category=3940

One of a kind is right, but that's not necessarily a good thing. This movement deserves better.

Regards,
Jeff B.

[cogito]

I don't know who's producing these timepieces...obviously a jeweler of some skill, but lacking in taste:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2644153618&category=3940

One of a kind is right, but that's not necessarily a good thing. This movement deserves better.

Regards,
Jeff B.

[Jay Mottern]

Sheesh, that's prugly. (Kind of pretty and pretty ugly at the same time)

[Jeff Hess]

Weord.

And kind of cool in a macabre sort of way.

Couldit bo one of the Viennese later conversions?

Bet you Ollie knows.
Jeff

Wonder if the guy would made an addendum if he knew what it really was? And wonder if he could use some of the proceeds for a manicure.

JPH

[cogito]

Well, let's see...Atlam & Ashland actually sell fairly original timepieces with a high degree of "being un-fooled-around-with"; whereas, this monstrosity has clearly been taken apart, recased, redialed, and turned into something that would be best described as gaudy. There are so many decorative styles and techniques going on with this frankenfusee, that it makes my head swim.

Call me a snob, but I prefer to purchase, trade, and sell watches that are representative of their time period...not trumped up decorative watches constructed to attract and deceive the unfamiliar.

I seriously doubt that this seller is soooo unknowledgable about this watch and the modern age of the case and dial. This seller has already sold two other frankenfusee's of similiar ilk and design, so someone is producing these watches on a scale beyond "one of a kind" designation.

JB

[Lionel]

James,

Judging from your posts, you like to collect watches on the basis of whether they are aesthetically pleasing to you, and that is as valid a reason for collecting as any other, I suppose. So, I say go for the watch, if its appearance brings you joy.

But many (the majority) of collectors want watches that are as close to their original state as possible. That is what a lot of the chit-chat and argument on this site is about (e.g. look at the 'switching' thread!). All the collectors I know are also concerned about being able to (at least) break even if they sell watches from their collections...and again, this is where the original state of the watch becomes relevant because it will have a bearing on the re-sale price it achieves.

The watch that Cogito has brought to our attention would be hard to re-sell to the majority of collectors because it is not in its original state. The easiest way to discover this is to study some good books on watches, and go to trade shows, handle the merchandise chat to vendors, and make friends. If you do these things, you will soon get a feel for what is original and what is not. I'm a fairly new collector myself, and before I started reading on the subject and going to antiques fairs, I too would have thought that this watch is unusual and exciting. But now. like Cogito, I only see it as a curio that might have some allure for the horologically uninitiated.

I wish you all the best and good luck with your collecting.

Lionel

[cogito]

The watch is an obvious recase/redial job for many reasons...the foremost of which is the use of design and materials not commensurate with the era. Rarely, if ever, were broad jeweled dials used on early fusees. Most of the jeweling on the early movements were in the form of pastes around the bezel and diamonds affixed in a decorative pattern on the back and side.

To put it bluntly, the worksmanship of the case and dial is not of the quality typical of the early 19th century. It might be "up to snuff" for a modern Tiffany knockoff (doubtful), but it's patently obvious that this is one of the most obvious frankenfusee jobs of recent years.

If you're happy with the look of the watch, then by all means, bid upon it. But, don't expect to gain a return on your investment unless you can find another deep-pocketed watch novice to sucker.

If you are looking for collectibility and original condition pieces, you might want to stick with Atlam, Ashland, Smoothtrader, and Provectus Chrono (my business).

I apologize if I was too harsh in my earlier post...I just hate to see people get taken. It reflects poorly upon all of us who actually care to be more than thorough in our timepieces' conditions and descriptions.

You'll notice that this seller DOES NOT note for prospective buyers that the case and dial are not of the same period or make as the movement.

Regards,
Jeff B.

[Oliver Mundy]

I wonder if John Bradley was actually the maker. The presence of a date and the absence of a workplace (e.g. London) both suggest that the name here is that of an early owner - perhaps recording a gift to him. I have seen several instances where the barrel-bridge of an English movement has been used in this way. It would be pure coincidence that there was a maker of the same name at the same period.

As for the case: - We have to consider the possibility that this movement - like thousands of others - has spent half its life in a jeweller's drawer, with a cracked dial and no case at all. At least its survival is now assured. While the use of a compensated balance marks it out as a watch of decent quality in its day, there is no indication that it is a historically important piece that should have been preserved inviolate. I agree with the unfavourable aesthetic judgements, but I have to differ from the idea that the craftsmanship is unworthy of the movement. Victorian casemakers were not divinely-inspired saints who poured their souls into their work. True, English cases were usually of solid quality, with well-fitting backs and bezels, but I have seen many examples of slapdash detail - coarsely-engraved escutcheons, decoration around the winding-hole which is not properly centred, dials on which no two segments of the minute track are the same width. Face-lifting an old movement is not a new thing; I have just bought an English cylinder movement of 1780 which was re-cased in 1844, a process involving the fitting of a vastly oversize dial-plate to bring the movement up to the typical dimensions of the mid-19th-century watch that it now appears to be. The case is not gaudy, but to a collector of 1850 or 1900 it may well have looked just as incongruous and unnatural as this one does now. A hundred years from now this case may seem just as ugly, but the ‘sacrilege’ will have faded into the stream of time and will be seen as an example of something that has always happened.

I do agree with Cogito that the vendor, who is obviously not ignorant - he knew how to research the maker and he knows what a fusee is - should have recorded the difference in date between movement and case. I suspect that he knows a good deal about the origin of the case; how else could he give the carat-rating of the diamonds so precisely?

The Watch Cabinet (http://www.horologia.co.uk)

[Lionel]

I'm not persuaded by Oliver's analogy between an 1844
re-case of a 1780 English cylinder movement and the 2003 re-case of this 19th century fusee movement, for two reasons.

Firstly, pocketwatch manufacture was ongoing in 1844, and presumably the new case was consonant with the English style of case current at that time. So I would imagine that a collector of 1850 would regard the re-case rather in the way that a current collector would regard, say, a 19th century re-case of an early 18th century Windmills movement, as something less than perfect but not disgusting. The new case, while different in its features to some of those of the original, nevertheless belongs in its features to an established style of case-making. But the 2003 re-case brought to our attention by Cogito belongs to no clear style and to no period of established method of pocketwatch case manufacture. For these reasons I think it would be hard for any current or future collector to regard it as anything other than an historically valueless curio at best, or as a disgusting mess at worst.

Secondly, re-casing means different things at different times, so any straightfoward analogy is surely difficult. In 1844 re-casing was a common fact of life. It was done in order to prolong the useful life of watches that were still in active service, so to speak. Thus, re-casings from this time are currently interesting because they reflect this interesting fact about those who used to carry pocketwatches in their daily lives. But re-casing NOW has a very different significance. It is sometimes done to bring an old movement out of the drawer, but more often done in order to make some cash. That would seem to be the motive in the case (excuse the pun) of the Ebay frankenfusee. So I do not see, except in some very special circumstances, how we can be sympathetic towards current re-casing. I am aware that I'm walking where angels fear to tread with this - just look at the 'Is Switching good for horology' thread. But I should mention that I only mean the above remarks to apply to old English watches (I don't know anything about any other kind). Special circumstances apply to American watches that would make some of the points above invalid, I suppose.

[Oliver Mundy]

I have to acknowledge the justice of Lionel's first point. Undoubtedly my Ellicott cylinder was still a working tool in 1844 (and indeed long afterwards; the present case shows many years of wear and has several repairer's marks), so that the motive for carrying out the operation is likely to have been one of simple practicality. By contrast, nobody can call the eBay case practical, since it does not even provide for access to the winding-hole.

I still doubt, though, whether anybody would have gone to the length of destroying a salvageable case in order to replace it with this one. Why go so far, when a bare and dial-less movement in running order can be picked up for $20 or less? Most probably nothing has been violated except the rules of good taste, and the offence is aesthetic rather than moral. If on the other hand there was any reason to believe that original components were being scrapped - or perhaps sold separately at a considerable profit - to make way for fantasies such as this, that would be a much more objectionable matter and I would be entirely of Lionel's opinion.

The Watch Cabinet (http://www.horologia.co.uk)

[4thdimension]

The case shape wouldn't work well in my pocket but the enamel work looks pretty darn good.
The seller claims to not know about watches but he must know agood deal about gems to be able to give such accurate measurements of carat weight without removing the stones. I commend the seller's knowledge and attention to detail. :wink: I wish there was a better pic of the movement; the AD 1860 marking is pretty unusual I think.
-Cort
<(';')>
p.s. I just reread the post and saw that Oliver
caught the carat issue already. It is possible
to deduce stone weight in situ but small stones
in dials measured in the hundreths of a carat is very expert work indeed.-C

[This message was edited by 4thdimension on July 04, 2003 at 3:04.]