A Liverpool Anomaly

Allan C. Purcell

NAWCC Member
Feb 9, 2013
2,815
1,104
113
Germany
Country
Region
If you have a watch by Litherland or have seen one at auction, or even by friends and want to know more about Peter Litherland and his invention and patent, it is quite normal to turn to Brian Loomes book "Watchmaker & Clockmakers of the world", for information. Below is what you will find on Peter Litherland.

Litherland, Peter, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool (Lancs) 1790-d1805- patented a rack-lever escapement in 1792, a beating second, and keyless winding work (Would like to know more about that Keyless winding work by Litherland, I have never seen one)

Litherland, Whitside & Co, Liverpool (Lancs) 1809-16 Succ. by Litherland, Davies & Co.

Litherland, Davies & Co. (&son) Brownhill Hill, Liverpool (Lancs) 1816, Church Street, Liverpool 1816-34. Bold Street, Liverpool 1834-77. And also imported clocks signed as Paris.


I think many of us have taken that for granted. I too, till last night.

nn-18.jpg This document was framed over thirty years ago and hangs in the office of a good friend, who on finding out my interest in Liverpool in general sent me a copy of "Gore´s Liverpool General Advertiser for the year 1797.

nn-17.jpg This tells a different story. Of notice, below there is a price list, and their best watch cost 63 Pounds and 15 shillings.

Enjoy,

Allan.
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,725
2,774
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
It is interesting to see the 3-wheel and 4-wheel trains offered at the same time, and the price difference.
 

Allan C. Purcell

NAWCC Member
Feb 9, 2013
2,815
1,104
113
Germany
Country
Region
Thanks for that Andy, I would think if he made a watch with that attachment, he would have found out it was quicker to wind with a key. There is little difference when you pushing that lever up and down, plus it's not at all attractive. It was though a move in the right direction. No pun intended.

Allan.
 

Andrew Wilde

NAWCC Member
Feb 18, 2020
187
156
43
Berkshire, UK
Country
Hi Allan,
Going back to your original post, I assume the discrepancy you're referring to is the date of the ad being 1897 and being for Litherland, Whiteside & Banning, while Loomes has an 1809 date for Litherland, Whiteside & Co ?
If so, there is an article on David Penney's site, here , which refers to these ads in Gore's Liverpool General Advertiser as being placed by Litherland and his backers (Whiteside and Banning) from 1793 - suggesting Whiteside, and Bannings, were financial backers of Litherland rather than in joint ownership of a company with him.

Andy
 

John Matthews

NAWCC Member
Sep 22, 2015
2,862
1,297
113
France
Country
Region
Andy,

The original partnership was between Peter Litherland, Thomas Whiteside, Thomas Banning and Charles Harford. This was dissolved on May 9, 1793, and the Patent Watch Manufactory was then continued by Litherland, Whiteside and Banning. In 1794 Whiteside is listed at 21 Mount Pleasant, while Litherland was at 20 Mount Pleasant, both as watch makers. Whiteside is listed as such in 1777. Although he might have provided some finance, I believe his main contribution was as an established watch maker and possibly provided watch making premises. Banning and Harford I believe provided the financial backing. It has been suggested that Banning was a post master, but I believe he was a brewer, who eventually is listed as a gentleman - this being a more likely background to be able to provide finance. I have not as yet found any further information regarding Harford - I suspect he was an out-of-town financier.

here is a clearer copy of the advert ...

1618592974407.png

John
 

Allan C. Purcell

NAWCC Member
Feb 9, 2013
2,815
1,104
113
Germany
Country
Region
I must have read that over the last two years, two or three times, and each time that bit about the "Gores Liverpool General Advertiser" did not stick. I think it was May 2020 in the AHS Journal, a talk to the Northern Section. Though thanks for putting it on here Andy. Banning was indeed an investor and had his fingers in many pies in Liverpool, but as far as I know, Whiteside was a watchmaker. It could well be that they were not a company, but they worked very close together, and I feel that their advertisement is rare on its own. If they became a Registered company in 1809 has Loomes says it was after Peter Litherland's death in 1805. There is also in Loomes "Litherland & Co, Liverpool (Lancs) 1799-1807". It says nothing else and I left it out because I thought that could be Litherland, Whiteside & Banning, but was not sure. Though now we are talking about my anomaly and at the moment it looks like they were not registered, but were a company.

Allan.
 

Allan C. Purcell

NAWCC Member
Feb 9, 2013
2,815
1,104
113
Germany
Country
Region
Some nice research there, by John Matthews. The claim for Thomas Banning being a post Master must come from the 1796 Gores Liverpool Directory, where it gives Banning Thomas, a clerk in the post office, 52 Ranelagh Street -in fact, he is the only Banning given at that date, later the post Master was William Banning (1832) and it could be that the Bannings had a lot to say in the post office world at that time.

From "Memorials of Liverpool" by Picton we have on page 162 (book 2) In 1800 the Post Office was removed from Lord Street to Post-Office-Place.
Mr Thomas Banning was appointed postmaster, in whose family the office remained down to 1875.

That tells me the family had an influence in Liverpool at that time, and where there is an influence there's money, and if they knew Peter Litherland, and there is little doubt about that, they would have invested in his work. As we have seen in the thread on Permoli & Hausburg The Old Post Office Building, was on the corner of Church Street.

Allan.
 

Allan C. Purcell

NAWCC Member
Feb 9, 2013
2,815
1,104
113
Germany
Country
Region
To add to the information on Thomas Banning, I took a look at the British Heritage site about the post office. This huge blog is in the main about the modern post office, but it does mention points of interest about the larger cities of England in the early 19th. century.



© ENGLISH HERITAGE29 - 2008 15 purposes of this scoping document, but a reasonable estimate, based on the data for 1864 given earlier, suggests that numbers of English Head Post Offices in the period 1854-1913 varied between c.500 and c.750. During this period, the method of appointment of postmasters changed, and so did the manner in which their buildings were provided. In the early-to-mid-19th century, the onus was on the postmaster to supply his own new or enlarged premises, with the cost met by an addition to his allowance that was authorised by the regional Surveyor. As the power of political patronage diminished and the cost of providing larger offices for a widening range of services mounted, it became increasingly common for the cost to be met by the Post Office which provided, and owned, Crown Offices. To begin with, the Post Office employed local architects and builders to design these Crown Offices (excepting the main offices in London, Edinburgh and Dublin), but in 1858 it was ruled that all future building should be the responsibility of the Office of Works.

Page five is also worth a look. For those who would like to read more, the document is below.





file:///C:/Users/ALLANP~1/AppData/Local/Temp/PurposeBuiltPostOffices%20ARapidAssessmentandSuggestionsforFutureWork.pdf
 

Forum statistics

Threads
165,571
Messages
1,441,439
Members
86,319
Latest member
Grandma Becker
Encyclopedia Pages
1,101
Total wiki contributions
2,878
Last edit
Bushing Using Hand Tools by Tom McIntyre