Most visitors online was 4107 , on 14 Jan 2023
CHESTER 1901 18CT GOLD POCKET WATCH MOVEMENT IDENTIFICATION
- Thread starter RAYLEE
- Start date
John Matthews
NAWCC Member
Please post a photograph of the marks on the case - the hallmarks and ‘maker’s‘ marks will assist.
John
John
Hi I have added some images but it is difficult to photograph. The mark on the winder is 'CH' the makers name above the Chester hallmark IS 'WN'
Hope this helps
Regards
Ray
gmorse
NAWCC Member
Hi Ray,
The marks in the case and on the pendant are for the makers of those parts, not normally for the movement maker.
'WN' is probably for William Neal at 4 Craven Street in Coventry, and 'CH' is possibly Charles John Hill at 1 Russell Terrace, Chapelfields, Coventry, or Charles Harris at 6 Norfolk Street, Coventry, who was registered in both Chester and Birmingham assay offices. The making of pendants was a separate branch of case making and these would often be bought in ready made, (and hallmarked), by case makers; another instance of the extensive division of labour into separate specialist trades in watchmaking at this time.
Given the Coventry context, it's probable that the movement was also made there. If the case was made by Charles John Hill, who was the son of William Henry Hill, (one of the trustees of the Chapelfields development in Coventry in the 1840s), the movement may also have been made by his factory.
Regards,
Graham
The marks in the case and on the pendant are for the makers of those parts, not normally for the movement maker.
'WN' is probably for William Neal at 4 Craven Street in Coventry, and 'CH' is possibly Charles John Hill at 1 Russell Terrace, Chapelfields, Coventry, or Charles Harris at 6 Norfolk Street, Coventry, who was registered in both Chester and Birmingham assay offices. The making of pendants was a separate branch of case making and these would often be bought in ready made, (and hallmarked), by case makers; another instance of the extensive division of labour into separate specialist trades in watchmaking at this time.
Given the Coventry context, it's probable that the movement was also made there. If the case was made by Charles John Hill, who was the son of William Henry Hill, (one of the trustees of the Chapelfields development in Coventry in the 1840s), the movement may also have been made by his factory.
Regards,
Graham
John Matthews
NAWCC Member
I am sure Graham is correct regarding the probable Coventry origin, but I am not certain of the maker. There are some resemblances to Rotherham supplied three quarter plate keyless going barrels marketed by Barraud & Lunds, set in a similar case design, but not sufficient to be positive.
As to the pendant maker - here are the two marks to compare.
Easier to distinguish on cases than pendants. The main difference is the pellet between the the C & H. [C.H] with clean cut corners on the right being the mark of Charles Harris, registered 1878. No pellet (CH) on the left and the rounded corners the second registration of Charles John Hill in 1869.
John
As to the pendant maker - here are the two marks to compare.
Easier to distinguish on cases than pendants. The main difference is the pellet between the the C & H. [C.H] with clean cut corners on the right being the mark of Charles Harris, registered 1878. No pellet (CH) on the left and the rounded corners the second registration of Charles John Hill in 1869.
John
gmorse
NAWCC Member
Hi John,
The corners of the Hill mark could be described as either square or rounded without too much imagination, and in the small size used on a pendant it is , as you say, often difficult to distinguish them. However, in Ray's picture there is a small highlight where the pellet would be in the Harris mark; whether it's part of the mark or an artefact of the image isn't clear.
Regards,
Graham
The corners of the Hill mark could be described as either square or rounded without too much imagination, and in the small size used on a pendant it is , as you say, often difficult to distinguish them. However, in Ray's picture there is a small highlight where the pellet would be in the Harris mark; whether it's part of the mark or an artefact of the image isn't clear.
Regards,
Graham
John Matthews
NAWCC Member
There is one further complication that I should have pointed out.
Both these pendants carry the registered mark of Charles Harris ...
The first pendant was hallmarked in London and has the mark that was registered by Harris on 28 June, 1878. This is the pendant on a 1902/03 Fred Thoms London half hunter case. The second, without a pellet, was registered in Birmingham by Harris on 8 September, 1893. That pendant from a 1905/06 Newsome & Co (of Coventry) case and note that although the case has a Chester hallmark, the pendant has a Birmingham hallmark.
For your gold example check the opposite side of the pendant to that with the maker's mark, for the hallmarks. If present, I think I can see them in your 4th photograph, there will probably be a date letter, from which in the absence of a town mark, you can determine the assay office. I would not be surprised if it was a Birmingham letter 'z', 'a', 'b' or London 'd', 'e', 'f'. I am yet to find a Harris pendant with a Chester hallmark.
Pendants were supplied to case makers invariably already hallmarked and it is very common to find Coventry pendants with Birmingham hallmarks on cases that have been assayed at London and Chester as well as Birmingham. Neither is unusual to find that the date mark on the pendant can be one or even two years earlier that the assayed case, from which it is inferred that they were purchased in batches and held in store until required.
John
Both these pendants carry the registered mark of Charles Harris ...
The first pendant was hallmarked in London and has the mark that was registered by Harris on 28 June, 1878. This is the pendant on a 1902/03 Fred Thoms London half hunter case. The second, without a pellet, was registered in Birmingham by Harris on 8 September, 1893. That pendant from a 1905/06 Newsome & Co (of Coventry) case and note that although the case has a Chester hallmark, the pendant has a Birmingham hallmark.
For your gold example check the opposite side of the pendant to that with the maker's mark, for the hallmarks. If present, I think I can see them in your 4th photograph, there will probably be a date letter, from which in the absence of a town mark, you can determine the assay office. I would not be surprised if it was a Birmingham letter 'z', 'a', 'b' or London 'd', 'e', 'f'. I am yet to find a Harris pendant with a Chester hallmark.
Pendants were supplied to case makers invariably already hallmarked and it is very common to find Coventry pendants with Birmingham hallmarks on cases that have been assayed at London and Chester as well as Birmingham. Neither is unusual to find that the date mark on the pendant can be one or even two years earlier that the assayed case, from which it is inferred that they were purchased in batches and held in store until required.
John
Similar threads
Know Your NAWCC Forums Rules!
RULES & GUIDELINES
RULES & GUIDELINES
Staff online
-
Peter A. NunesModerator
Forum statistics
- Threads
- 181,572
- Members
- 54,871
- Latest member
- TUFTYDOG
- Encyclopedia Pages
- 918
- Total wiki contributions
- 3,137
- Last edit
- Pocket Watch Regulator by Kent