Brockbank verge

[Keith R...]

OK, watch is signed Jn Brockbank #4751 and a verge. John Matthews has
a Brockbank cylinder #4750, confirmed for 1806. So based on those stats,
I will call this one 1806. Jerry Trieman has an 1800 duplex by them, I'll have
to see his watch sig. This one is Jn Brockbanks on the plate, (1806).

Reread John's PM. It's Jno Brockbanks to 1881, then Brockbanks until
1815, then Brockbanks and Atkins.

One should note, John's research indicates the Jn Brockbanks signature
was valid up to 1781 and thereafter, was Brockbanks, until Brockbanks &
Atkins later became partners.

It is running and timing in all positions. I'm not fond of the hands, (replacements)
as is the seconds bit I fished off the dial from shipment. The dial is likely a
replacement. The case is also not original (I wanted a Brockbanks movement).

It fits decent in the silver pair case, so I'm happy. I'm wondering if the Jno
Brockbanks signature was for his personal watch, or perhaps something
nefarious.

Input is requested and any other like examples are welcome. Even if it turns
out nefarious, I only paid $137 USD. Let's hope for the best. There's the inner
case hallmark, but as I said, a re-case. Also a replacement, (the cock screw).

I'll go through my spares for a seconds bit with a lower profile, although
clearance is OK for now. I added my earliest cylinder dial, from 1790 below.
The dial might be original. Also from 1790, my Grant verge dial of Fleet Street.

Keith R...

 

[John Matthews]

John's PM. It's Jno Brclbanks to 1881

Keith - this is from the PM ... (you typed 1881 rather than 1781)

The watch is signed Jno Brockbanks which from A D Stewart's graph are the early examples up to 1781. There after signature changed to Brockbanks until 1815, when it became Brockbank & Atkins. So that seems to confirm the re-case. The problem is the serial number. All recorded examples signed Jno Brockbanks are <2000. The serial number #4571 you would expect to be signed Brockbanks and date from ~1801​

John

 

[zedric]

Just a quick note, as I think there is some confusion on the name. John’s name was Brockbank (no s). It is my impression that when his sons took over, or moved into partnership with their father, that they renamed the firm Brockbanks to indicate that there were two of them (or more when the father was also in the firm). Much like Lund, who were variously known as Lund and Lunds depending on who was working in the firm.

 

[John Matthews]

Zedric - you are quite right - apology for my error and any confusion caused

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Keith, I would say the "S" is under the screw, so the serial number would be correct. The style of the watch also indicates very early 19th century.

Allan

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I think there is still a puzzle here. Isn't the plural "Brockbanks" used without a first name? This watch is signed with a first name, so there should not be a final "s", hidden or not.

Also, the balance cock and signature style (including "London") are quite different from the Brockbanks watches I have, with numbers not too far off --

 

[John Matthews]

Jerry - I agree.

For comparison my #4750 from here.



My personal view is that this is probably a genuine John Brockbank from ~1780 signed Jno Brockbank. The last similar movement that is known to me is #2226 from 1782. Unfortunately I don't have a photograph, it was sold in a Christie's sale 7434 lot 55 and I haven't chased it down. It would certainly be worth comparing Keith's find with one of John Brockbank's verges - which I am afraid I don't have.

When I first saw the movement I was struck by the difference in style and sharpness of the signature to the serial number, it could just be the light. I did wonder if the serial number had been added later.



John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I think there is still a puzzle here. Isn't the plural "Brockbanks" used without a first name? This watch is signed with a first name, so there should not be a final "s", hidden or not.

Also, the balance cock and signature style (including "London") are quite different from the Brockbanks watches I have, with numbers not too far off --

Hi Jerry, I think you are right, the watch as worried me for a while, my thoughts were, why is the bottom part of the top plate empty, and the odd signature.

Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

Thanks to all. Post #7 is also my feeling.

Keith R...

 

[Keith R...]

Perhaps an employees or the makers watch? Shooting for the moon.

Keith R...

 

[Keith R...]

Given examples in same serial number range, this verge is not in the authentic Brockbank camp.

Almost as if the maker copied their cylinder style from 1805 and counter-fitted a Verge. One of my
most accurate verges though.

Thanks all!

Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Keith, I have been thinking maybe a Brockbank file could help-do you think it would be of use, and worth the effort.

Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

If nothing else to provide authentic examples Allan.

Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Keith, finding original Brockbank pocket watches is not the problem with this firm. They are today loved by collectors worldwide. So I have not had a problem there. The problem I did find was the lack of data about John Brockbank and his brother Myles. So I started with John Penfold´s book "The Clockmakers of Cumberland" 1977. There is a family tree. John Brockbank was born in Corney (Cumberland) 1747, and died London 1804/05? so not sure. Miles (Another way of spelling) was born in the same place in 1754 died 1821 London. These dates have an influence on their partnership later. At the moment I am only looking at watches signed by the two brothers, my point being, John Brockbank had nothing to do with watches signed Brockbank and Atkins. I have taken the time to read up on Brockbank by Penfold, Osterhausen, A.D.Stewart, and Jonathan Bettes. Why you might ask? Because by the time Atkins came in the firm the serial numbers were not those of John or Myles serial numbers. Example- Brockbank and Atkins 800 chronometer S/C L 1816./David Penney Archive) John and Myles were well past that number by 1816. So when I post the file it will be somewhere between 1776/77 when John is thought to have finished his apprenticeship, and 1808 when Myles retired. (Myles did return in 1818-but that has no influence on the serial number file) According to Osterhausen, John was free of the CC in 1769, becoming Master in 1777( that´s a big typo error) John Brockbank was not Master of the CC)

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

If nothing else to provide authentic examples, Allan.

Keith R...

Hi Keith,

I have spent a few hours, each day reading up on John and Miles Brockbank. Most interesting, up to 1808, and has said I made a file from 1769 to 1808 It turns out John Brockbank finished his apprenticeship in 1769, walked across the road, bought a shop with workshop, fully manned with top-grade watchmakers, and turned out of the most beautiful musical watches ever seen. Somehow that did not agree with the way it usually works. So how did he manage all that at the age of 21? Money alone, would not be enough, so Brockbank must have something about him, that rich people would invest in him to make a profit.

Anyway, this is just for you. Not all the watches by this firm are listed especially the three-digit numbers, as it would mean researching all the chronometers, pocket and marine. Some of these are listed when they were put in with the every day serial numbers. I would though highly recommend, all three who have written so much on the Brockbank family, and all three make very good reading. I might extend this later, what do you think?

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I have now taken the file to the end of A.D.Stewarts list to 1818. Leaving out the three-digit numbers. Some of the pocket chronometers are put into the four-digit serial numbers, I will try to find out why.

[pdf]605480[/pdf]

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

An update, still working on it......to be cont......

 

[Andrew Wilde]

Hi Allan,
I have Brockbanks #6542, cylinder escapement, movement only, with dust cover, dial and hands. It was mentioned and illustrated in Keith's odd lot thread, here, post #627

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Thank you Andrew, nice movement that, seems to be c1812.

Allan

 

[Halda Sweden]

Here is Brockbanks No 6889 with cylinder escapement.

I believe the silver case was made 1812 by James Norvill in London.

The musicinstruments are nice I think...

Is there a file with all known Brockbanks Pocket watches?

Rgds
Peter B.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Peter, Brockbank file below, it's not up to date, but will take a look at it later.

Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Peter Looking at the movement with just Brockbanks London I notice now it's on the Brockbank File, it sits between Brockbank & Atkins. Maybe old stock, we will never know. really nice watch.
UPDATE.

 

[Halda Sweden]

Thanks Allan!

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Update,

 

[Halda Sweden]

Great work Allan!

best rgds
Peter B.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I just received this little Brockbanks verge. The pillar plate is only 29.5 mm across and the dial is only a little larger, at 32 mm. The serial number - 6784 - appears to be toward the end of the "Brockbanks"-signed movements, before Atkins joined them. The verge escapement seems like a rather late usage. Winding through the dial also seemed odd to me for an English movement, but the small size, and (presumed) intention for use by a lady, may have contributed to simplifying the winding/setting operations to just one side of the watch. The keyhole has a brass collar to protect the enamel.


I had hoped for an original case, but the 1843 London hallmark would seem to indicate this is a second case for the movement. The hinge block, too, seems like a later modification for this case as it lacks gilding to match the rest of the pillar plate. The case has a solid back, since a hinged back was not needed for this front-winding movement. (It appears to have a button for releasing the back, but it is entirely non-functional on this case, with no sign of past utility).

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Jerry,
I would say you have it right. Thanks for posting.

Allan.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I don't believe any of the prior posts are specific about the size of the watch or movement. My own limited collection of Brockbanks (and successors) indicates quite a range of sizes. My "Brockbanks" are 0-size (29.5 mm movement/32 mm dial) and about 20-size (~47.5 mm). Successors (with Atkins) in my collection are 6 & 8 size. Were men's and women's watches about equal in number or are survivors too few (and too select) to tell?

 

[John Matthews]

Are we sure that the size of English pocket watches is only a reflection of the gender of the owner? I thought size was also a function of fashion and there is a chronological factor that also needs to be considered.

John

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Are we sure that the size of English pocket watches is only a reflection of the gender of the owner? I thought size was also a function of fashion and there is a chronological factor that also needs to be considered.

John

I raised this question in another thread - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/men’s-versus-ladies’-watches-what-size.183471/
but did not get much discussion.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Jerry,
Your question is very good, and needs a good answer, but where does one start with this question. Elizabeth (I) was a great fan of watches, and she bought them in the main from France, though the watches she bought could have been for both gender. The fashion then was to wear them around the neck. (A shortage of pockets in those days). Small though was in, the last thing you needed was a heavy lump of metal hanging around your neck.
Another point about size is the cost, way back silver and gold were much the same in price, so larger was more expensive. Not that it bothered the Queen much, they were in fact toys for the rich. timekeepers they were not. Moving on it was the mechanics of the watch that decided its size, the French onions are a good example, though fancy and expensive they had to have room for the bell, and outer cases for safety, though watches now could get near to timekeeping they stayed small.



Looking at the snapshot above, look at the two verge watches in the middle of the top row, these are the early 1700s. and as the century grew older we see the first watch is much larger. At the end of the top row is a full hunter STR 1825. On the bottom row are watches stretched over the 19th century are all very small, but I don´t think they were ladies watches. So has John said, It became a choice of gender later. It needs to be looked at by usage and gender, take the little watch worn by nurses for instance. I think in the end your question can only be answered when asking is this a ladies watch or not.

Regards,

Allan

PS: the last one on the photograph is a small (33mm) watch with a cylinder escapement c1808. I can date all these if you like.

 

[jagrieff]

I just found this Brockbanks verge watch in an antique shop in Victoria. It is cased in an extremely worn gilt pair case stamped TG (case maker Thomas Gaunt?). It has the same 4 arm balance seen on the other watches shown on this thread and, like one posted earlier, has the balance cock engraved with a whole orchestra of musical instruments. Based on Allan's Brockbank file, I believe this dates from 1804. My main interest in posting this new acquisition is to have it added to Allan's file but I do have a few questions. I find the 4 arm balance and engraving of musical instruments on the balance cock to be unusual. Is this due to my lack of experience with this period of verge watches or are these features something unique to Brockbank? I appreciate your input.

Jeff Grieff

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hello, Jeff,
Sorry for the late information, I have not looked at this thread for some time, probably since the last post in 2022. I have put the file here for you because I have put in your watch, with questions. To answer your question on the musical instruments on the cock. though they are on the small cocks rare, they were often used on the larger cocks on earlier verge watches. There is a classic book on this subject by Cedric Jagger, "The Artistry of the English Watch" it can bought for just a few pounds on Amazon or eBay. Well worth every penny.

Hope this helps,

Allan.

 

[jagrieff]

Allan,

Thank you for your reply. To resolve the questions on my entry in your file, this watch is in a gilt (now mostly just brass) pair case with no other markings than the case makers mark that I showed in my post. The escapement is a verge escapement. Thanks for the reference on the Cedric Jagger book - I will definitely look into purchasing a copy.

Jeff Grieff

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Jeff,
Thank you for the information, I had hoped the watch was a Duplex. I have filled in the questions, and put in TG for Thomas Gaunt, though in Priestley´s Gaunt is only listed with his partner Alexander Barker, earlier in the list for TG is Thomas Gooch 1794, 23 Coppice Row, Clerkenwell. So he could have been the case maker, though I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Allan.

PS: There is a thread on here called " An odd Little watch" you might like to read, it's on the next page.