John Forrest of London Watch

[Douglas Romero]

A friend asked me to take a look at his watch, and provide him some information on it. Assuming it would be American and I'd surely be able to provide something, I agreed.

Well, he came up with an English watch (stuff I know little about)...It's John Forrest, London. In a sterling hallmarked case, made by WH (I believe William Holmes), in Birmingham approx. 1879.

I too some quick pix (none of the movement :confused:). He got a little 'edgy' when I was about to remove the 'cuvette', and I did not want to get into trouble with his only watch (given him by his son).

If any of you have more info (like it's likely an English lever or fusee??, or if no problem removing the cuvette, he'd appreciate it. Sure he wanted an estimate for insurance purposes. I said not to bother (probably a watch worth under $500). The only thing about Forrest on these threads I could find was "Forrest was a maker of good, but not outstanding quality, timepieces for the general commercial run of watches."

Front Bezel

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1056328943684_forrestbezel.jpg

Dial

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1059364237938_forrestdial1.jpg

Cuvette

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1057559517889_forrestcuvette.jpg

Hallmarks

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1059445383974_forresthm2.jpg

Appreciate it!

Doug Romero

[Douglas Romero]

A friend asked me to take a look at his watch, and provide him some information on it. Assuming it would be American and I'd surely be able to provide something, I agreed.

Well, he came up with an English watch (stuff I know little about)...It's John Forrest, London. In a sterling hallmarked case, made by WH (I believe William Holmes), in Birmingham approx. 1879.

I too some quick pix (none of the movement :confused:). He got a little 'edgy' when I was about to remove the 'cuvette', and I did not want to get into trouble with his only watch (given him by his son).

If any of you have more info (like it's likely an English lever or fusee??, or if no problem removing the cuvette, he'd appreciate it. Sure he wanted an estimate for insurance purposes. I said not to bother (probably a watch worth under $500). The only thing about Forrest on these threads I could find was "Forrest was a maker of good, but not outstanding quality, timepieces for the general commercial run of watches."

Front Bezel

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1056328943684_forrestbezel.jpg

Dial

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1059364237938_forrestdial1.jpg

Cuvette

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1057559517889_forrestcuvette.jpg

Hallmarks

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3880661/1059445383974_forresthm2.jpg

Appreciate it!

Doug Romero

[ged]

Hi. According to Britten, John Forrest died 1871,also the Birmingham hallmark looks like 1803,so if so, something is wrong here. No problems are usually encounted removing dust cover(cuvette) just slide spring retainer to one side this allows cover to be lifted off. I have a similar watch by a different maker and mine has a fusee movement. Good Luck .GED.

Learner

[Jerry Freedman]

I think that watch is a lot newer than 1803. Loomis shows John Forrest working 1857 to 1876. The hallmark could also be 1879. Without a look at the movement it is not possible to be sure.

[Richard Luchini]

Years ago I did a little research on John Forrest watches through the THE BRITISH HOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE
WEB SITE http://www.bhi.co.uk/ if you pay for a subscription you will find an intresting white paper on John Forrest pocket watches titled ...

"# Forest, John of London. A general history of this, one of the most forged names in Victorian watches. John Forrest watches were available from 1850 to about 1916, nearly 40 years after he died. This page shows some ways of telling if your watch is a fake and also shows two fake watches of his. (Updated 4 June 2002)"

Just quoting from memory Ol' John was never an Admiralty Maker however many of the watches by that name are marked Maker to the Admiralty. Apparently after his death there were several claims made to the John Forrest name and at least one instance were a family member sold the rights to the John Forrest name twice. Intresting subject! I think the white paper cost me $5.00.

Richard

[Oliver Mundy]

I think the hallmark is that of 1904. The position of the winding-hole, as seen on the dust-cover, suggests that this is not a fusee movement but a going-barrel, not very different from an American full-plate movement.

As Richard says, the name has a curious history. The original John Forrest was no more than a clever entrepreneur, but his cunning publicity methods not only inviegled the public but even tempted other people in the trade to wrangle over the use of his name, long after his own death, as if it had carried as much real weight as those of Dent or McCabe (to mention only a couple of genuinely distinguished firms of the same period). At least the watches themselves were usually British-made (as this probably is) rather than Swiss imports. Even a potentially destructive lawsuit in the early 1890s, which put an end to the baseless claims of an Admiralty contract, failed to halt the march of the Phantom Forrests.

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

[Douglas Romero]

Thanks guys for the information and the links to BHI. I'll pass it on to my friend who showed me this watch. Hope it will get him interested in research and maybe catch a little collecting fever :eek:

From the hallmarks from the BHI, with a lower case san serif e, I'd make out 3 dates for Birmingham of "1802(1)*, 1879(6)*, 1904(3)."

Oliver, with your knowledge on these, you are likely right on. Thanks again.

Doug Romero

[Kimo]

Oliver is correct that the hallmarks are for Birmingham in 1904 or 1905 (it was applied in both years).

The way you tell is not just the lower case "e" but more importantly the shape of the field into which the marks are hammered. These outlines are how to distinguish between those of 1802/3, 1879/80 and 1904/5. For example, if this were an 1802/3 mark the outline around the "e" would be shaped like a shield with a pointed bottom - like homeplate on a baseball field. If it were an 1879/80 mark the outline around the "e" would be an oval. The outline for 1904/5 is rather squarish with slightly rounded corners on the top and a { shaped bottom with the little point in the center as you see on the hallmark on this case.