Help with Alex Guillaume Pocket Watch

[sbex55]

Hello. I have another European pocket watch which I cannot find information for. The movement markings include "No. 8403 Alex Guillaume 24 Spencer Street Northampton Square London". The dial has "A. Guillaume London AD. G. maz 8403". I not sure of the "AD. G. maz" due to the scrolling. Thanks for the help!



Regards,

Scott

[Dr. Jon]

You have a very fine watch recased in a decent carry case.

The watch is a keyless fusee. These are very high grade and rare. I suspect the AD. G. maz is a kind of caode for a date. The most famous is Charles Frodsham's AD Fmsz which is believed to stand for 1850 and it designates higher grade items.

Your watch probably had an 18K case.

Recasing is a contentious issue, I think it sis better than leaving the movement basre.

One possible problem you may have is the watch not running well in the pocket. The problem is that a keyless fusee has needs a special clutch to disengage the winding crown when not being wound. Keyless fusees need this because the normal arrangement results in the crown turning as thet watch winds down. Sometimes the crown can catch a thread abnsd wind on it and stop the watch.

This is unlikely, but this mechanismis very difficult to re-install in an American watch case. IT has probably been lost in teh recaing.

Nevertheless a keyless fusee with updaown indicator is pretty near the top of the heap watch wise.

The movement is very likely English.

The "notch" near the screw in the balance cock is a wear mark from the waatch movement that was in the case before this one.

[RON in PA]

Why the provision for winding and time setting using a key? Note the two key lugs.

[Dr. Jon]

They just did that. The English did not really trust stem winding until well into the 20 th century, at least for top grade watcehs. George Daniels made key wind watches in the 1970's.

Key less fusee watches almost always have male key tabs.

Yuo can see similar but smaller key provisions in a lot of American and Swiss watches too but only the set it up for hand settings too.

Lack of this is far more a concern than its presence.

[Dr. Jon]

Louis alexander Guillaum is listed in Chronometer Makers of the World by Tony Mercer. He was at 84 Spencer St from 1833 to 1874. This watch is closer to 1874 than 1833, by a lot. The entry suggests he was possible the largest watch manufacturer of the mid 19th century. Name changed Guillaume and More in 1877 so your watch is before that.

[sbex55]

Dr. Jon - thank you very much for your help and knowledge! You are awesome!

Scott.

[MartyR]

Louis Alexander Guillaume was born in Neuchatel in Switzerland in 1814, and went to London in 1835. He worked there until 1869 and died in 1873.

In 1877 the fim became Guillaume & Moore.

According to Tony Mercer Guillaume was "perhaps the largest watch manufacturer of the mid 19th century".

The "AD Gmsz" is a form of code which was very popular in the mid 19th century - at least two other makers to my knowledge used it, including the famous Charles Frodsham. I don't know what Guillaume's code refers to, but maybe someone else here does

Sadly your watch has been recased from it's original case (almost certainly 18 carat solid gold) into a much cheaper Waltham gold-filled case. That was probably done to melt the original case for its gold value, and will have very seriously devalued the watch as a whoel

ETA: Sorry, I hadn't seen DrJ's post - sorry to have repeated a lot of it!

[sbex55]

Hello again. I recently put this watch up for sale. Someone online has told me this watch is 'not a chronometer but a lever movement'. Could someone explain to me the difference between a chronometer and a level movement? Also, how can I determine which type of movement this watch has?

Thank you.

Scott.

[MartyR]

I can't think why you described it as a chronometer

In common horological parlance a chronometer has a number of features in the escapement such as helical hairspring, detent, high grade adjustable balance screws and so on which improve the accuracy of the movement. Yours doesn't have any of these as far as I know, so it should not be described as a chronometer.

[Dr. Jon]

I am probably the cause of that by stating the maker was listed as a chronometer maker in the book I cited.

It is a very complex topic but the description as a chronometer was only half wrong. The watch could be described and may have been a "Half chronometer" This was an unregulated term but chronometer makers calling their better lever watches "half chronometers" was not uncommon.

[sbex55]

I am probably the cause of that by stating the maker was listed as a chronometer maker in the book I cited.

It is a very complex topic but the description as a chronometer was only half wrong. The watch could be described and may have been a "Half chronometer" This was an unregulated term but chronometer makers calling their better lever watches "half chronometers" was not uncommon.

Dr. Jon - No worries. I did not advertise the item as a chronometer. I used 'recognized chronometer maker'. I was more interested in learning the differences for my own education. Thank you for the help!

Scott.