A.Mathey Silver Pocket Watch - Help ID'ing date?

[Tiffers]

Hi Guys, I hope you dont mind me stopping by to pick your brains? I've just spent a lovely hour or so browsing this forum and its making my "collector urge" prickle!

I'd love to know a bit more about 2 pocket watches I own. I'll photograph and post the second one a bit later but for now will concentrate on my silver watch.

Here are the photos...











I'm really interested about the potential date of this watch. I think I've deduced that it might be swiss as Mathey is a fairly common name there and the bears?? are a swiss mark?

Any help is very much appreciated!!

Cheers!

 

[Tiffers]

OOps, I meant to add. Underneath the A.Mathey are a pair of crossed sabres with an "L" above and an "S" below. The serial number is 47842.

Is A.Mathey, Andre Mathey?

Cheers.

Tiffers

 

[MartyR]

Underneath the A.Mathey are a pair of crossed sabres with an "L" above and an "S" below. Is A.Mathey, Andre Mathey?

Yes it is The crossed sabres in a rectangle are a trademark for Andre Mathey, registered in 1884. He worked in La Ferriere. I don't know what the L/S stand for, unless the S is an F in which case it could stand for La Ferriere?

The movement is a very standard ebauche - we see very many of this movement pattern - generally described here as middle plus quality. I'm surprised that is has a solid balance if the date is after 1884, and I would also have guessed an earlier date from the dial (which appears to be of very high quality) and the case.

It is possible, of course, that Mathey used the crossed sabre mark for some time before he registered the mark in 1884.

Prtichard says nothing about Mathey beyond what I have given above, which surprises me since my observation of his watches at auction is that he was a good quality maker.

 

[Tiffers]

Ahh! I am glad I got one thing right (the maker) about this watch You say he registered the crossed sabres in a rectangle in 1884. The sabres on this watch are not in a rectangle so I wonder if this is an unregistered makers mark he used prior to finalising his design? That is a complete guess but that might then fit in with the solid balance and your thoughts about an earlier date based on the dial. I've checked the letters and its definately an L and an S so thats still a bit of a mystery.

It was the dial which attracted me to this watch to be honest. Its the only one like this that I've seen and its just a bit outside of the normal! Its the second Mathey watch I've owned and the first one had a fairly elaborate dial too but nowhere near as nice as this one. The benefit is that this one also works perfectly while my first one didnt!

Thanks very much for your help!

Tiffers

 

[Les harland]

The case has a Swiss Hallmark ,the bear, used for silver 0.875 and above used between 1882 and 1934

 

[MartyR]

... and I've just noticed the words "Fast" and "Slow" on the regulator, which means this watch was specifically made for the British or American market.

... and what is inscribed on the inside back cover? Any clues as to date there?

 

[Tiffers]

Ahh, so the swiss bear means it cant be before 1882. Thats narrowing it down slightly

There are a selection of scratched marks and also a watch paper. The watch paper is from a watch and clock maker, William Orr, Saltcoats (Scotland). On the reverse of the paper it says "Miss Montgomerie, Stevenston, 20.10.07 3/6'" I have assumed this means the watch was repaired/serviced on this date and it cost 3 shillings and sixpence.

The scratched marks on the inside of the outer case say "Bertha Robimtoon" and "5619/6". Inside the inner cover (is this the dust cover?) it says GG?/111?83

Is this any help?

Tiffers

 

[Tiffers]

Ok, so in summary, I have a swiss silver pocket watch by Andre Mathey. The bear marks suggest its no earlier than 1882 while the watch paper from William Orr suggests its not later than 1907 as this appears to be when it was serviced. The makers mark on the movement doesnt exactly match the registered one of AM which came into use around 1884.

So.....is it possible that the watch was made between 1882 and 1884?

Thanks for all your help guys!

Tiffers

 

[MartyR]

So.....is it possible that the watch was made between 1882 and 1884?

Tht's a fair presumption, and probably as good as you're likely to get

 

[Tiffers]

Tht's a fair presumption, and probably as good as you're likely to get

Wonderful stuff I'm very glad about that, you see, I spend a lot of time looking like I've stepped out of 1885 and I do like to get things right



Many thanks for all your help!

Tiffers

 

[seixas]

I also have a pocket watch by A.Mathey -fine silver engraved with key wind -numbered 35---An idea of date of manufacture?

Ahh, so the swiss bear means it cant be before 1882. Thats narrowing it down slightly

There are a selection of scratched marks and also a watch paper. The watch paper is from a watch and clock maker, William Orr, Saltcoats (Scotland). On the reverse of the paper it says "Miss Montgomerie, Stevenston, 20.10.07 3/6'" I have assumed this means the watch was repaired/serviced on this date and it cost 3 shillings and sixpence.

The scratched marks on the inside of the outer case say "Bertha Robimtoon" and "5619/6". Inside the inner cover (is this the dust cover?) it says GG?/111?83

Is this any help?

Tiffers

 

[MartyR]

I also have a pocket watch by A.Mathey -fine silver engraved with key wind -numbered 35---An idea of date of manufacture?

Well if you post some pictures we might be able to help.

 

[Helplessfanatic12]

Hi I have an andre mathey L/S movment with sabres inbetween the L & S
I'm also looking to identify/ date/ my pocket watches.. where one is an andre mathey the other is questionable.. as theres no Mark's to identify the manufacturer.. besides hallmarks etc..

I shall upload pi s of both the mathey and the unknown watches.. thanks.. any info most appreciated..

 

[mosesgodfrey]

The case with number 84685 appears to have Birmingham assay marks for 1803 (if F).

 

[Helplessfanatic12]

Hi
yes it appears to be an (f) thanks..
Also what dose MS stand for?? Thabns

 

[mosesgodfrey]

Here’s a list for Birmingham date letters for perusal. You can link there to view possibles for MS, too.

English silver marks: marks and hallmarks of Birmingham sterling silver

Birmingham silver marks, marks and hallmarks of British silver, including date letters chart and symbols of Assay Offices of other towns as London, Sheffield, Dublin, Edinburgh, Chester, Glasgow: a widely illustrated directory of 3000 full sets of silver hallmarks of British makers with...

www.silvercollection.it

Caveat that hallmarks are not my forte, it appears my first read may be mistaken. I was not looking at the second set of marks, above MS. The lion (and what I think is a duty mark) is clearer there and matches that used starting 1875. The site also states that between 1875-1899, shield punches were also used for anchor town mark & date letters. So a better date is 1880 for the case, where in 1884 we also see trademarks filed by Andre Mathey.

 

[Helplessfanatic12]

Here’s a list for Birmingham date letters for perusal. You can link there to view possibles for MS, too.

English silver marks: marks and hallmarks of Birmingham sterling silver

Birmingham silver marks, marks and hallmarks of British silver, including date letters chart and symbols of Assay Offices of other towns as London, Sheffield, Dublin, Edinburgh, Chester, Glasgow: a widely illustrated directory of 3000 full sets of silver hallmarks of British makers with...

www.silvercollection.it

Caveat that hallmarks are not my forte, it appears my first read may be mistaken. I was not looking at the second set of marks, above MS. The lion (and what I think is a duty mark) is clearer there and matches that used starting 1875. The site also states that between 1875-1899, shield punches were also used for anchor town mark & date letters. So a better date is 1880 for the case, where in 1884 we also see trademarks filed by Andre Mathey.

Ok thanks

 

[gmorse]

Hi Helplessfanatic12,

Also what dose MS stand for?? Thabns

The style of the date letter is important, but all the hallmarks must be read as a group and also in context with the rest of the watch. In this instance the style of the case, dial and movement cannot possibly point to a date as early as 1803. The particular 'MS' stamp, which is the case maker's or sponsor's mark, isn't listed under any of the major assay offices in the standard reference book for the subject by Philip Priestley, or in the very detailed listings of Chester marks by Ridgeway & Priestley. It's unusual in having a hatched background in the cartouche; case makers with the same initials registered at the same time would have to be distinguishable by differences in the shape of the cartouche and/or the style of the font or even whether a full stop separated the letters.

Whilst it isn't unusual to find a partial set of English marks on some of the parts of a watch case, there should be a complete set of four, (of assay office, sterling silver, date and case maker), on at least one of them, and I can't see that in any of your pictures.

Duty marks in watch cases weren't used after 1798.

This leads me to suspect that the hallmarks may not be genuine, which is not unknown in Swiss cases.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

As I understand the trademark with the crossed swords dates from the latter part of the C19th, e.g.



So taken with the style of the watch 1803 is too early.

I disagree with Graham. I believe the hallmarks are probably genuine for Birmingham 1880 and the case maker's mark [MS] in a rectangular cartouche, probably that of Max Sheyerman of Vyse Street, Birmingham. He registered the mark in December 1877.

Comparison with known genuine set of marks on the right.



John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

Does Culme or Jackson show the mark with the hatching background?

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Hi Graham

I couldn't find anything in Jackson. Culme covers the London registered marks and SHEYERMANN is only listed as registering at the Birmingham Office. So I don't have any photographs of his marks to compare. I thought he was the only possibility as he was the only maker who registered the mark MS & M·S at the Birmingham Office. Also, he is listed in Priestley as a watch importer that fits with this being a Swiss watch.

If it had been a London mark then I would have suggested Max STEYERMAN, also a case maker and watch importer. I mention his name because he has the similar marks. There are photographs of these in Culme and although they are small, it does appear that the background inside the cartouche, varies. It may simply be the quality of the photograph and/or the condition of the individual marks, but it is not impossible that some of the backgrounds are textured. My point being that this is not noted in Priestley. From this I conclude that it is not impossible that the SHEYERMANN Birmingham mark had a textured background and this would not necessarily, have been recorded by Priestley.

So in the absence of additional information, I think probably SHEYERMANN is reasonable.

John

 

[mosesgodfrey]

In this instance the style of the case, dial and movement cannot possibly point to a date as early as 1803.

Yes, as my second message indicates, I believe it is 1880.

This site shows an "MS" mark registered for Birmingham in March 1877, on which you can see the hashing in the background. Also, confirmed sightings for it on 1880-87 cases. Max Steyerman, Holborn Viaduct, London & Vyse Street, Birmingham

Birmingham Makers Marks - MN-MZ

 

[John Matthews]

A little further research - thanks to Culme. It appears that Priestley's Max SHEYERMANN (sic) is in fact Max STEYERMANN who resided in Gower Street London in 1882. He was in business with Leon Sichel and they traded under Leon Sichel & Co. until 1890 when the partnership was dissolved. I had tried to find Steyermann in trade directories, with no success, but the company is listed both at 33 Holborn Viaduct and 18 Vyse Street, Birmingham.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

As it does seem likely that the mark belongs to Max STEYERMANN, for the sake of the owner of the watch I'm very happy to be proved wrong!

Regards,

Graham