Barraud Lund pocket watch with unusual caliber

[Alex Chronometry]

Hi, all,
Advised by Mr. McIntyre, I like to post a Barraud Lund pocket watch with unusual caliber here and look for discussion on the board.

I learnt from the book the English watches by Mr. Cuss for some history of the watch. I pasted the pic of the book here for a reference to read. He mentioned Jagger mentioned the movement too, which I will read by borrowing his book from NAWCC library soon.

Any of your opinion on the watch is welcome and appreciated

My friend commented that the balance wheel and fusee and chain were portioned as 1:1 and this is a nice design like some other fantastic and precise pocket chronometers (e.g. recently Christie's auctioned watch by Jacques-Frédéric Houriet made for Berthoud Frères, No. 96.)

Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Alex

 

[Alex Chronometry]

add one pic from book

 

[Tom McIntyre]

The information from Cammerer-Cuss is interesting, but that watch is rather later than yours and mine, I think.

It looks like the detent functions in the same way but it also has a different construction.

The highest number in the second series would have been 2/9999, so there are quite a few possible watches between 2/828 and 3/127. My example is 2/753 and is much more similar to yours that the 3rd series example. One of the interesting things about Barraud through the entire history is that items pop up out of sequence for when any rational model would have predicted they were made.

Unfortunately my watch has been re-cased, so there is no date information available from the case.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Tom,

Both the OP's watch and yours have the unusual feature of a screw seemingly securing the hairspring in the stud, but the one in the book doesn't.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Thanks, both! Let me go home and take pics on case hall marks etc for more clue.
So, the watch index number is like 1-/001-1/999 to 2/001-2/999, and then 3/001-3/999?
I wonder if here it should be 999, rather than 9999 in the reply. 9999 is a very large number..

BTW, thanks to Tom again for wonderful PDFs about different topics online, including one on Barraud family watchmaking history.
According to it, the company changed name to Barraud & lund from Barrauds & lund in 1850. Correct?
Best wishes

 

[Tom McIntyre]

The 9999 is correct. There are a nominal 10,000 numbers in each series. The first series has no fraction and nominally goes from 1 to 9999 (or 10000) as do the second and third from observations. They appear to have dropped the fractional system after series 3.

There were a number of name changes and addresses that can be used to estimate when examples were made. Barrraud, Barrauds (often engraved Barraud's in error), Barrauds & Lund and Barraud & Lund at the end.

The later detent appears to function in the same way but has incorporated a dovetail, I think.

I need to check if the earlier ones have reverse fusee. The later one clearly does not, but 2/828 looks like it could be reversed. Mine is in the bank, but I will try to fetch it and take a closer look.

Would the 1840's be early for a reverse fusee?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Tom,

Would the 1840's be early for a reverse fusee?

Fairly early; Charles Frodsham's 'AD Fmsz' calibers incorporated it from 1850, but I don't know if the company originated it.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Tom McIntyre]

The second series ends with some pretty interesting examples that seem to be mostly due to the work of R. A. Lund and a little later, his sons A. J. and J. A. Here are some pictures of my favorite watch from that period, 2/9993. The hidden key is J. A. Lund's patent which was mostly used on their less expensive Lund Brothers watches that were sold as their lower cost commercial line targeted at the railroads. The date letter has been rubbed out, but I believe the watch is 1874 or 1875.

 

[Jerry Freedman]

Graham: It would seem that Frodsham used AD Fmsz on very ordinary watches as well. My JR ArnoldChas Frodsham has the marking on the dial and
movement. The movement and case have the same serial number 17367. The case is hallmarked for London 1853. The dial does not have Arnold's
name. I am assuming the watch was bought in London. The buyer James Fraser did not return to the UK until 1868. Quite late for some old inventory. It seems that Frodsham used AD Fmsz as a way to sell an old watch that he dialed and cased from his inventory. You may remember we talked about this watch before. I can't see if a reverse fusee was used.

Jerry Freedman

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Dear all, I like to post more pictures on the case
if this is made in london and use hallmark list..I wonder the vague unfamiliar to me, letter is a J, f, S? Could anyone tell ?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Siyuan Gu,

. I wonder the vague unfamiliar to me, letter is a J, f, S? Could anyone tell ?

There isn't a 'J' in the London series, (or any other UK assay office that I'm aware of), and I think this is an 'I' for 1844. The sponsor's (maker's) mark of GH in an oval cartouche is for Gustavus Huguenin at 12 Ashby, Street, Clerkenwell, first registered on 30th September 1842.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hello Siyuan- I am no expert -though I think the HM is the letter G for 1862-case maker George John Hammon working from 1823 to 1863. In Priestley.

PS: It could be the S for 1853-same case maker.

Regards,

Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Siyuan Gu,



There isn't a 'J' in the London series, (or any other UK assay office that I'm aware of), and I think this is an 'I' for 1844. The sponsor's (maker's) mark of GH in an oval cartouche is for Gustavus Huguenin at 12 Ashby, Street, Clerkenwell, first registered on 30th September 1842.

Regards,

Graham

Hi Graham- Sheffield used the J in 1876-a one off..

Regards,

Allan.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Allan,

Sheffield used the J in 1876-a one off..

So they did, thanks for reminding me, but Sheffield marked watch cases are like hen's teeth I think!

George John Hammon isn't recorded in Priestley as registering his mark in an oval cartouche like this one.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Thanks, guys! I did notice that there is No J but I in the hallmark list picture I posted now. Why they skip J?

I read Tom's PPT and understood they used 9999 for one series. I wonder at that time, how many years of work (say, 50 persons employed) can product 9999 watches?
Was English watch production more based on machines rather than hand crafting back in 1850s? Same in Swiss at 1850s?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Siyuan Gu,

Why they skip J?

Probably to avoid any confusion between the two letters, which are extremely alike in many fonts, particularly the script types. The makers' marks for many whose first name was John, James or Joseph used the letter 'I' instead of 'J'; it may also be in part because the Latin language alphabet does not contain 'J'.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Thanks, guys! I did notice that there is No J but I in the hallmark list picture I posted now. Why they skip J?

I read Tom's PPT and understood they used 9999 for one series. I wonder at that time, how many years of work (say, 50 persons employed) can product 9999 watches?
Was English watch production more based on machines rather than hand crafting back in 1850s? Same in Swiss at 1850s?

If all the numbers in all 3 series were used, there would be 30,000 watches from the firm. They used outside suppliers just like Frodsham, Dent and essentially every other English watchmaker. they were in business for about 120 years over that range of numbers there would be 250 watches a year. They likely set aside numbers for specific designs and may not have made all that they intended.

As to machine made watches, Waltham made 2,200 watches/week in 1876 and displayed a week's production at the Centennial Exposition. So, in 15 weeks, Waltham made more watches than Barraud did in their entire history. 1876 was not the peak of their production. In roughly the same length of time that Barraud was in business Waltham made 32 million watches and Elgin made about 50 million.

Going back in time rather than forward, George Graham may have made 3,000 watches in his lifetime. John Roger Arnold, 80 years later, made about 3,500 watches (1784 to 1840). Both of those shops likely had 5 hands producing watches.

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Hi, all. Thanks. I saw a few posts about reverse fusee. I do not see if my Barraud watch has much difference on winding unwinding compared to my ordinary liverpool fusse level watch.

I googled it but not really understand it:
The reaction of engagement of the great wheel with its pinion is transmitted to its pivot and, in the usual layout, the pull of the fusee line adds to this load. In the alternative layout, the chain unwinds from the opposite side of the fusee, and the mainspring's pull is in opposition to the load imposed by the great wheel's pivot reaction, thus reducing the pivot load.

Any resource with pics, demo graphs to understand why the tech is better? (Mr. Chamberlain said it is impressive when he repaired a kullberg chronometer..
THX!

 

[John Matthews]

The description in Jagger seems to have been somewhat overlooked. The watch is described and illustrated in the chronometer section of Jagger's supplement. It is described as 'highly untypical slim half-plate movement'. There are two photographs at the top of plate XXVII (a & b) - the caption for which begins.

'The plate attempts to illustrate, most tentatively, the possible development of the so-called "half chronometer" for which J.R.Lund is credited in his obituary. He joined the firm in 1837 and at a) and b) are shown front and back views of pocket chronometer no. 2/828, in the original gold case hall-marked 1844. This style lasted until 1858 cf. no 3/117 ...'​

John

 

[John Matthews]

This is the first time I have looked in detail at the chronometer listing in Jagger. Previously I had been through the listing of pocket watches looking for 2 pin levers. When I read through this thread earlier today a number of the comments appeared to conflict with my vague memories.

Having been through Jagger again, I am beginning to understand why. Although I did find one number that occurs in both of the lists, the lists essentially contain unique numbers. However, where dates are quoted for pocket chronometers they are invariably much earlier than their near neighbour numbered pocket watches. Chronometer 2/503 is dated as 1820, whereas pocket watch 2/826 is 1819 and 2/1059 is dated 1820, chronometer 2/828 is 1844 the equivalent pocket watch number for that date would be of the order of 2/4360. The names engraved on the pocket chronometers are consistent with the dates and not with the serial numbers, I take this as evidence in support of the dates quoted for the pocket chronometers, i.e. they are in original hallmarked cases.

To me it seems probable that there were separate work books for the chronometers and pocket watches. Care was taken to avoid duplicate numbers, despite there often being a significant period of time between the allocation of the numbers in the chronometer work book and when they were used. I cannot think of an alternative explanation.

Perhaps, this has been discussed in another chronometer thread, if so apologies

John

EDIT - on p. 206 of Jagger supplement - just for a very lucky owner ...

"The most interesting discovery of this past decade, so far as the second series is concerned, is the sudden appearance of an entirely new design, wholly unlike anything the firm had done previously, and having a hint of Breguet's style about it. This is based upon a very opened-up half plate framework, with Earnshaw's escapement and a modern looking compensation balance. The only complete example of this style so far recorded is 2/828 ...."​

 

[John Matthews]

Having read further .... in the main volume Jagger hypothesises that the firm deliberately reserved 1-999 for pocket chronometers and commenced the pocket watch numbers from 1000, this being proposed for both the simple and the fractional numbered series. Having checked the subsequently published supplement, the hypothesis appears to be generally true - there being only 4 recorded chronometers with numbers greater than 1000, and only 7 pocket watches with numbers less than 1000.

John

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I had not seen that note. The chronometer was from the estate of Bradley Ross. Perhaps I should have bid a bit higher. I stopped competing because I already had the example with the lower serial number that John Huber had bought in London while studying with Martin Matthews quite a few years ago.

John, you sneaked a post in on me while I was checking some other information. This reply refers to the other two posts above.

I guess I need to go back and do a much more careful read of Jagger. The idea of setting aside the first 1,000 of each series for chronometers might make good sense. In marine chronometers, my small Barraud 8 day is 2/747 and my Barraud with the Lund corrector is 1720 but my expert friends seem to think it was reworked and renumbered when the corrector was added.

I do not think any duplicate numbers between pocket pieces and marine chronometers have been reported.

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Hi, John, thanks for the information. I am borrowing the Jagger books from NAWCC library.
Meanwhile, 1. Dr. Crott auction just sold lot 598 ---a 2/630 Barraud pocket which they dated at 1813. See their catalog online.
2. Thanks to the author, we have a great summary about Barraud history that can be found on internet : Barraud Chronometers.
3. You mentioned in the book "having a hint of Breguet's style". Well, my friend works in watchmaking at Breguet SA highly agreed, (he mistook for the first 5-10 sec when he saw it )

Hi, Tom
I am very honored to own this watch and know about its history, as a beginner collector in the 30s'. I tried to stay on the bidding as I like the movement aesthetically.
LOL, I wished I had bidded more on the Arnold spring detent escapement BY David Morice when I read his name in Vaudrey Mercer's book.

I was awarded my first pocket watch after winning a mechanical experiments competition in middle school (it was unusual even it was in China).
After getting my Physics degrees and work in Silicon Valley, I started to collect some European (quite some English) pocket watches.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I wished I had bidded more on the Arnold spring detent escapement BY David Morice when I read his name in Vaudrey Mercer's book.

The Morice is a very nice movement as were several others. Because of the way collector's minds work, the pieces with their original cases are worth much more than movements. Those with custom and replacement cases are often nor worth more than the movement plus about half the value of the case.

I managed to purchase a few other wonderful movements in the sale also.

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Because of the way collector's minds work, the pieces with their original cases are worth much more than movements.

I understand your point here. Complete watch is surely worth a lot lot more.

I also bought special Berthoud detent escapement watch and a Robin escapement movement there. I plan to establish more discuss threads on the other 2.
Also hope you might write 1-2 interesting pieces and introduce why they are collectible
Many thanks to all.

 

[Nigel Harrison]

Some great watches posted on this thread, I agree with Jagger, they are very Breguet style or lets say French/Swiss style.

Has anyone come across specific 'one off' experimental pieces from Barraud that have this half plate or a unique plate design? I don't have Jaggers books but would be great to know about more unique pieces. I did see an inking timer listed in a Sothebys sale along with one of the half plate watches above. Hard to find good info on these - except on NAWCC Forums

Tom is your unique half plate Barraud made to be a 'thin' watch do you think? compared to traditional chronometer fusee pieces as it does look thin with the modern thinner balance and what looks like less high helical hairspring. I assume trying for a thinner style like the Swiss and French were creating at the time to see if these watches would be accepted in the UK I assume.

 

[Alex Chronometry]

Hi, Nigel. As far as I remember there is one interesting watch similar to those posted here. It was acquired by Barraud family and modified into a Perpetual calendar on the movement. However, one can't tell or adjust from the dial/case.
The watch was published on Antiquarian Horology, Vol 17/6 page 608--------Barraud and Lund 2/847 (a detective story) by Leonard Paller
You may like that one.

 

[Nigel Harrison]

Thanks for the reply Siyuan,

That sounds like an very interesting piece. Are you saying the watch was re-bought or returned to Barraud to be changed to a more complicated piece at a later date?

It seems that there were various pieces from Barraud with subtle differences in balance, compensation etc. Some more rare are the dramatic plate changes like the ones you and Tom have. I did see one Barraud chronometer posted from another thread here on the NAWCC forums which has some extra small holes in the plates which was an experimental piece due to modifying functions on the piece over time.

I saw this piece that was offered at Anitquorum recently and it seems to be a special chronometer and not in the normal chronometer serials (first 1000). Plates normal but balance very interesting.
Buy Watch online | Watch Auction Catalog | Patek Philippe, Rolex, Breguet, Cartier

The reason I ask these questions is that I have purchased a Barraud pocket chronometer and comes from the very first 1000 made from Paul Philip Barraud which in itself is hard to find, est date would be 1813/14 based on serial numbers of watches I have seen dated either side of the piece (within 25). My piece is nothing like I have ever seen before from Barraud from a plate design perspective and also watch making design, it also a very very interesting 1/2 plate design and looks to be an experimental piece as it is embracing french watch making of the time by using a going barrel for it s power source. I believe this was done in order to make a thinner watch but still have a quality detent chronometer system. This is interesting and somewhat controversial piece I believe as the early English makers were defiant in keeping their fusee key wound pieces in these years and resisted French and Swiss watch making principles as they saw a Fusee system as a mandatory quality English feature that was required in English watches. Makes things interesting in the thought process what was occurring at Barraud at the time. I won't be posting pictures of the piece until it is inspected by a watchmaker etc. So that could be some time but did want to share the find and ask questions about other experimental/interesting pieces from Barraud, especially from the first 1000 chronometers made.

I have performed some excessive looking online around Barraud pocket watches and have not found another the same so that is interesting. I did find a similar going barrel experiment from Arnold at Sotheby's though was a little more crude and simplistic in design but interesting to see he was playing with the idea as well. I have not seen the Jagger books as yet so keen to have a look through them.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Nigel,

The watch in your Antiquorum link has a balance very similar to the one in this thread, with its early Earnshaw pattern balance, trammels and Earnshaw stud.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Nigel Harrison]

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the other reference there, yes that is interesting that exact same balance is on the other movement. A specific Earnshaw piece? or Arnold?

 

[Nigel Harrison]

I assume an Earnshaw Balance.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Nigel,

I assume an Earnshaw Balance.

It is certainly in the Earnshaw style and I think there's reason to suspect that Thomas Earnshaw was involved in its manufacture.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Nigel Harrison]

Thanks for the confirmation Graham, They sure did try many different techniques on those balances, some worked and some didn't and some probably just too time intensive to produce on scale.

 

[Nigel Harrison]

Do full serial number records exist for Barraud? from my readings I assume not and also assume known lists have only been built on observations? I was reading this knowledge thread Barraud List and it relates to looking at records in Jaggers books and list. Is this NAWCC thread list a more comprehensive and up to date list then what is in Jaggers book/s?

My Barraud movement is serial 661 (first series) and keen to find out if there is any written information out there on it. I am currently making a list of its features from my own knowledge and new research of what I can and observe that was similar in style and development thoughts from what was being made around the same time from high end makers such as Arnold and Pennington(Pennington for Barraud) and others of the time.

Mine is from that smaller block serial range that featured the hanging detent orientation(Tom mentioned this in his great reference site www.awco.org that Pennington most likely made these) mine is the same. Expected date of manufacture is 1813/14 looking at others Tom and others have listed online.

BTW Tom when are you opening your own watch museum with all your pieces you have built up an awesome collection.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

My collection is pledged to the NAWCC in my will. I am hoping that they will keep the more important ones and in particular the Barrauds would be a good exhibit and study collection.

My McIntyre/DeLong collection is also pretty good as a trace of Charles DeLong's life in horology.

If a better collection can not be put together, I also have a good collection of American Watch Co. grade Waltham watches with a handful of outstanding examples including the top performing watch among the Waltham watches at the Centennial Exposition (670,044) and the Nashua made watch with assembly number 102.

It will take me about another 10 years to document it all in an online database. Currently I feel like I should be good for that. A necessary aspect of what I want to do requires the NAWCC to remain healthy and oriented to sharing. That is the reason I put a lot of effort into that result also.

 

[Nigel Harrison]

That is an amazing gesture Tom to pledge your entire collection. Yes I think the NAWCC should display all of it for sure, hopefully they have the room! You have some amazing pieces that are hard to find so to be able to show them off to any and all would be an educational experience and something to aspire to for anyone interested in watches.

Great you have AWCo 670,044 as that is a special piece for sure. I don't think anyone will be beating your collection, especially gifted collections.

That will be fun to document all of your items, ensures they will be fully understood.

Speaking of McIntyre you mentioned above - did you win the McIntyre on ebay this week? I saw it with only 7 minutes to go on the auction and was amazed another one was found in the wild. Would be great to know the history on that piece as I thought most made had been found? I was amazed at the price it went for also, is this due to it being a hunter..or just due to all original?