Wm Robinson

[PapaLouies]

I thought it might be in the second of his articles. I only had the first article, and I haven't yet had a chance to print the second which I just got from the Library.

Marty, The William Robinson watch mentioned in Britten's may well be at the National via NY. Univ.,James Arthur collection, Smitsonian loan, Margaret Chamberlian purchase!! PL

[DaveyG]

Sorry PL but I seem to have missed a link somewhere! Where is the original reference to a Robinson watch mentioned in Britten?

[PapaLouies]

Sorry PL but I seem to have missed a link somewhere! Where is the original reference to a Robinson watch mentioned in Britten?

DAVEY, the Ninth Edition page 585; Robinson, William, 1795-1824; Liverpool; lever watch (Chamb Coll.); watch (NY Univ.)( Coll.).
See my post #28! I wrote the Univ. requesting information and a photo of same. Responce 7/21/12, they do not have the Paul M.
Chamberlain collection. They did have the James Authur Watch and Clock collection, In 1963 the timepieces were placed on loan
to the Smithsonian. In 1985 the Smithsonian transferred the timepieces to the NAWCC. IN 2006 six of the timepieces were sold at
auction; A 1948 statement of the contents of the collection does indicate that in 1944 and 1945 watches were purchased from
Margaret Chamberlain for the sum of $1200; however, all the watches are described as American in orgin, PL

[DaveyG]

Thanks PL, it was the link to your #28 that was the missing one for me. The entry for William Robinson (same dates) in my 7th Edition copy of Britten has only one reference entry which says 'watch New York University'. I can also add that there is no reference to a William Robinson, Liverpool in the 1901, 2nd Edition of Britten.

[PapaLouies]

Thanks PL, it was the link to your #28 that was the missing one for me. The entry for William Robinson (same dates) in my 7th Edition copy of Britten has only one reference entry which says 'watch New York University'. I can also add that there is no reference to a William Robinson, Liverpool in the 1901, 2nd Edition of Britten.

Davey, The Robinson referenced in Britten may be at the Art Institute of Chicago! Many years ago I contacted the curator by
phone regarding an R.F.Cowderoy and he described the watch in detail. Phone (312) 443-3600.

[Squite]

Just in case all you old-timers thought your research doesn't go unnoticed...I just wanted to say thank you for this thread. I know very little regarding Liverpool watches, but I find this entire line of research and deduction fascinating.

If I could add my two cents I happen to agree with DaveyG and the others who are leaning towards the theory that Tobias, Robinson and Edwards were all real watchmakers working together in some form of business arrangement. Why compete when you can all take home a piece of the pie? If you think about it from a marketing standpoint, the watches in question aren't competing for the same clientele, thus keeping everyone both busy and happy.

[DaveyG]

Thank you Sqite, it is rewarding to know that the debate is being followed by a wider audience than just us 'old geezers'.

Just to keep up to date with where I am in trying to gain access to the Liverpool Museum collection: I have contacted the Minister of State for Culture (Media & Sport) and have, as yet, received no response. I guess he hasn't been reading this thread! I also guess that he is too much involved in this dumb Olympic thing to bother with me at the moment.

When I get time I intend to visit Liverpool and go to the main library there, where I propose to trawl thru' the old City directories and whatever local newspapers that I can find on microfiche. They also have some reference works that maybe, possibly, perhaps will be relevant.

[Squite]

Thank you Sqite, it is rewarding to know that the debate is being followed by a wider audience than just us 'old geezers'.

I actually meant 'old-timers' as a reference in terms of tenure on the forums, but whatever coils your hairspring

[DaveyG]

I say - 'if the cap fits - wear it'

[John Pavlik]

So is this a differnet signature for a Robinson

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...vip=true&rt=nc

[DaveyG]

Interesting new direction John and a type of name marking not often seen on Liverpool watches. The watch has all of the Liverpool influences evident, I have to say, apart from the balance cock which has the look of Coventry about it to me. The Liverpool cock you would expect to see with the rosette around the cap jewel, without the hatching just below the step and more deeply embossed. From what can be seen this doesn't look much like a 2nd grade watch either! Without hallmarking evidence I suppose that it is hard to define the period but lack of marking on the balance cock would lead me to believe that the escapement is simple table roller - does that give us a clue to period?

I think that we in the UK (well Marty and me anyway) are of the opinion that the Robinson family were involved in watchmaking over a fairly extended period and they do seem to have passed the name William on down the line. Possibly a watch made without the Tobias influence?

[John Pavlik]

For your viewing pleasure are 2 more Wm Robinson movement signatures.. the smaller is numbered 9897.. Only signed on the Barrel bridge which would make me believe it may have been made by another and only signed on the barrel because it was easy.. the first movement photo appears as a very similiar one that I has earlier in this thread #1910 and it had a Massey III roller, this one # 5310 a simple roller & table..

[MartyR]

Just to update everyone, I have been badly distracted these last two weeks, and next week I'm travelling to the USA, but I will get back to the task of researching William Robinson and John Edwards as soon as I return to the UK. The plan is to make a new contact at the Liverpool Museum to try to get access to their primary sources and to get photos of their (alleged) Robinsons, then to follow the path through census and Records Office and church records, then to locate trade and street directories, and finally to local newspapers. I'll keep a log running on this thread as I turn information up.

If nothing is heard of me by the end of September, could someone please notify my family?

[PapaLouies]

I think I might agree with PapaLouies. The movement shown in the first post does not look like a genuine Liverpool style movement to me and the engraving does not look like I would expect. Here is what I believe to be a genuine Robinson movement.

By the way, the moderator may wish to move this revived thread to the European section.

Jerry, Thanks for the response to my private message. Yes, please Post your last two messages to the thread!
I think we should gather all the information we can on ROBINSONS that have all the features of your #11378 and exclude
others until we find how many ROBINSONS may be consistent with the Standard. PL

[Jerry Treiman]

Sorry this has taken me a while to get to. PL asked me, privately, to see if the museum had any examples of Wm Robinson movements posted in our on-line museum catalog. (The ability to view these museum items is another benefit of membership). I looked on line and found that the NWAWCC museum collection appears to have five "Wm. Robinson" movements catalogued, one identified as a possible fake and one other that looks fake to me. My brief observations are:

#3553 has table roller escapement and looks fake to me
#5662 has table roller escapement and script signature; looks like a fake to me
#6298 has Massey III escapement; Liverpool characteristics
#11568 has Massey III escapement; Liverpool characteristics
#16360 has table roller escapement; Liverpool characteristics

PL further observed "Jerry, Your ROBINSON #11378 at Post #9 is genuine and should be used as the standard for these discussions. I have ROBINSON #1138 with Massey III that, except for less jeweling, is virtually identical to your #11378. Would you say that ROBINSON'S #6298 & #11568 at the National have all the characteristics of your #11378 Regards PL"

Looking again at our museum watches I observed that:
#6298 is similar to mine. It appears to be the same ebauche. It is jeweled through the train but not the fusee. The Liverpool signature is very similar to mine, as is the Robinson signature. It is not marked Patent, but is marked Detached on the foot of the cock; the cock is otherwise engraved in a very similar style. It has a solid 3-arm balance wheel that appears to be gold and it has some timing screws in the rim. It also has the hack lever.
#11568 is also similar. It appears to be the same ebauche, but has only seven jewels (only the diamond endstone is visible). The Liverpool signature is very similar to mine, as is the Robinson signature. It is marked Patent on the foot of the cock, but is not marked Detached; the cock is otherwise engraved in a very similar style. It has a solid 3-arm blued steel balance wheel with gold or brass rim, like I have seen on several Tobias watches. It does not have a hack lever.
Both have the same style regulator as mine, also.

At this point in the off-line discussion I suggested that this line of thought should be posted to this thread so that others might share in the information.

By the way, I note that gold dials became a point of interest in another thread. Here is the dial on my Robinson #11378.