18th century - Nichols

[pocket2100]

Picked this watch up recently from an auction. It seems like a decent little watch that is running well. The hour hand was hitting the minute hand, so I had to bend that just a bit so it would clear it, and after that it's running great.

The watch seems like it was well traveled as it has a bit of damage to the outer case. Someone used duct tape on the inside to help give it a silvery look through the holes. The bow appears to be replaced as it's very loose. The hour hand seems to be too plain - I'm guessing either it snapped off or is a very cheap replacement, but it does appear to be old. There's also some damage on the balance cock that looks like it may be a notch for a screw or pin, but I don't see how based on the position of it at the very end of the cock. It has character though.

Personally I like the little snake (or serpent) on the side of the movement. It looks like there may be a jewel of some sort under the balance.

I cannot tell what the actual name is on the movement, if it's "Nichol", or "Nichols", or "S. Nichols". Could use some help reading it to be sure as the "s" at the end could just be a decorative mark.

Also number is a bit difficult to make out. Looks like it is 1257. After looking at the serial, I see another pin hole next to the large one that is being used near the serial. I'm starting to wonder if this may be some sort of Frankenstein watch.

My amateur guess on the age would place it around 1780-1790. Please let me know how well I did on that.

 

[gmorse]

Hi pocket2100,

This watch is an interesting mix of styles and dates; the dial is late 18th or early 19th century and may be a later replacement, (the hands are later, so disregard them). However there are other features which suggest a date in the first half of the 18th, especially the engraving style on the top plate, the design of the balance cock with wings and a pierced foot, the decorative cock screw, the case bolt in one piece with its spring and the decorative spring end, the mainspring setup with a tangent screw under the barrel and the external fusee ratchet and click.

There are a great many 'Nichols' (including some spelling variations), in Loomes, so there's little help there.

There are also what seem to be anomalous features though; the plain round pillars are usually seen much later than the style of the top plate would suggest, the upper balance endstone setting with its three screws is very odd, (although it may be a later replacement). Three screws on endstone settings are unusual in English watches purporting to be as early as this, and English steel settings look nothing like this.

Although the marks inside the case are quite rubbed, I can't find any plausible matches in Priestley for an 'IJ' over other initials, and there don't appear to be any other marks, which there should be in an English case after about 1720; it wasn't usual for hallmarks to be struck on the inside of repoussé cases.

The small hole near the serial number is inexplicable, as is the notch and solder on the balance cock rim. There are also the heads of several pins visible in unusual places. The pillar top next to the serial is a poor replacement.

Like you, I suspect that with the odd mix of features, this may not have been made in London as the signature proclaims.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

The small hole near the serial number is inexplicable, as is the notch and solder on the balance cock rim. There are also the heads of several pins visible in unusual places. The pillar top next to the serial is a poor replacement.

Like Graham, I am sceptical that the movement was made in London.

I believe originally the cock table had four similar chased portions and the one has been lost with just the stub remaining by the solder. I suspect the latter may have been applied to provide support when the damage to the table occurred. There is a second hole diametrically opposite the one that Graham identified. The style of the back plate I would date in the 1740s. The square bases to the round pillars are a little unusual, they are most commonly round. They might represent a transitional design. The earliest round pillars I have captured is 1772 on a verge by signed Debaufre, they didn't become common until the late 1880s The Debaufre pillars are also unusual in that they are slightly tapered. In the 1770s square baluster pillars were all the rage.

Cannot help with the case marks.

John

 

[SKennedy]

I think the balance cock may have originally had a glass mounted to the top, set in to the slightly sunken centre. This might have retained whatever 'cap jewel' setting it may have had in the middle without needing those three screws. The glass would have been retained by a screw in the filled hole towards where the table meets foot, and a second one where the notch/solder is. This is my best guess anyhow.
As John says, there's likely a decorative piece missing from the cock althrough there's not enough space for it to be as wide as the other three.
The hole in the plate between signature and number is matched by one opposite by the regulator. I suspect there was a cap and its retaining pins went in these holes.
The pillars are quite unusual, round as Graham says but with square ends, like Roman columns so not quite the same as later ordinary round pillars.
I think a mid 18thC date is likely, say 1760ish but whether the movement is English is certainly up for debate considering that the case appears not to be.

 

[gmorse]

Hi pocket2100,

I agree with John and Seth on their assessments.



The four red plugged holes probably were for the retaining clips for a glazed insert, and the present endstone setting is more recent. The two green holes couldn't really be for anything other than cap posts, although they are extremely close to the edge of the plate. I don't believe that there's anything missing from the blue area.

What is apparent is that the engraving theme in the foot is very different from that on the table.

If the initial before 'Nichols' is a 'J', that would be unusual, since this would normally be written as an 'I' at this time.

Regards,

Graham

 

[aucaj]

I like your watch. I think it has some attractive features regardless of whether it was truly produced in London. I see a lot of Dutch market watches that were produced with 'retro' styles that were popular decades prior. In my opinion, I doubt it is a Frankenstein watch made from multiple watches. I would expect it to have obvious misalignment issues with pivots etc.

 

[Bernhard J.]

'retro' styles that were popular decades prior

For this reason I would tend to date it rather around 1880.

Cheers, Bernhard

 

[aucaj]

For this reason I would tend to date it rather around 1880.

Cheers, Bernhard

Hi Bernhard,
I respectively disagree. This is watch is mid 18th century. I believe you might be thinking of the George Prior watches for the Turkish market. That particular market preferred watches of a design from centuries past.

I typically see Dutch market watches with tulip pillars produced in the 1740s and 1750s.

 

[John Matthews]

The earliest round pillars I have captured is 1772 on a verge by signed Debaufre, they didn't become common until the late 1880s

Apology 1780s!

John

 

[pocket2100]

Thanks for the great feedback and details on this watch. I had not thought of the glass cover over the balance cock, so that does make sense.

I'll look a little closer at the pillars and the open area on the cock to see if I can find any damage or sign of changes. Would be good to know for sure.

Otherwise it sounds like this may be a large range of dates without any real certainty. Somewhere around 1760 to 1790 is what I'm seeing here. Wish the watch owners wouldn't polish their silver cases so much, I think I see other marks, but they are almost completely gone.

 

[Bernhard J.]

Hi Bernhard,
I respectively disagree. This is watch is mid 18th century. I believe you might be thinking of the George Prior watches for the Turkish market. That particular market preferred watches of a design from centuries past.

I typically see Dutch market watches with tulip pillars produced in the 1740s and 1750s.

Hi,

And how do you explain the round pillars, becoming common in the 1780s only? "Old style" plate decorations and cocks were quite often seen on later Swiss/Dutch/Whatever forgeries of the end of the 18th century.

Cheers, Bernhard

 

[aucaj]

Hi,

And how do you explain the round pillars, becoming common in the 1780s only? "Old style" plate decorations and cocks were quite often seen on later Swiss/Dutch/Whatever forgeries of the end of the 18th century.

Cheers, Bernhard

Both you and John had written “1880”. It seems that you intended “1780”?

These aren’t traditionally cylinder pillars. The bottom is squared. I believe continental watches adopted cylindrical pillars earlier than English. I agree with in regards to English makers.

 

[Bernhard J.]

It seems that you intended “1780”?

Rats, indeed, of course

You should - in view of my typo - not "disagreed respectfully", but rather said "rubbish"

 

[SKennedy]

The four red plugged holes probably were for the retaining clips for a glazed insert,

I wondered if those at the sides related to some modification regarding the banking, though obviously the glass insert in the cock would have been less stable with only two screws holding it in place.

 

[pocket2100]

Now that I'm back home from the office, I can clearly see that edge where the glass likely was placed and the 4 pin positions where it was holding it in. Very good catch on that! You guys are a true wealth of information here!

Three of those squarish/round pillars appear to be original from looking at it, but one does look out of place. Here's the pillars side-by-side...


I tend to agree with Graham as well on the missing piece from the balance cock - I don't think anything is missing. I don't know why they chose to go with that larger gap with the styling, but there's a little leaf/flower/something in that space to show it's not totally empty, and there's a perfectly smooth finish around those areas to indicate it hasn't broken off.

Put some light on the jewel and getting an orange-like/brownish color out of it. I'm not sure if it's a ruby or a dirty diamond, but it's some sort of jewel of unknown size.

 

[gmorse]

Hi pocket2100,

Three of those squarish/round pillars appear to be original from looking at it, but one does look out of place. Here's the pillars side-by-side...

Yes, the second one is certainly different, but it's not possible to say for sure that it's a later replacement without looking under the dial at the pillar plate for signs of new riveting. It's also clear that there are pins missing from the last two. It may just have been what was in the pillar bin when it was made. Sometimes you do find mismatched sets of pillars but this is usually in repeaters or other watches where space between the plates is limited.

Put some light on the jewel and getting an orange-like/brownish color out of it. I'm not sure if it's a ruby or a dirty diamond, but it's some sort of jewel of unknown size.

It should be a faceted diamond really, but since the setting and screws are most probably later additions, it could be ruby, garnet, or even glass.

Regards,

Graham

 

[pocket2100]

It should be a faceted diamond really, but since the setting and screws are most probably later additions, it could be ruby, garnet, or even glass.

I have a cheap diamond tester in the drawer here (got it to prove to my wife her ring was real)

I'll give it test tomorrow when I have the watch back out again.

 

[gmorse]

Hi pocket2100,

I'll give it test tomorrow when I have the watch back out again.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that it isn't a diamond!

Regards,

Graham