Chester Hallmarks-Photographed

[Allan C. Purcell]

Reading the Joseph Johnson thread over the weekend, and some of the remarks on there, I thought it would help members if we could post photographs of Chester hallmarks from say 1800 to 1850, with of course the sponsor´s mark
In the Johnson thread, Davey G. mentioned the crowned leopards head wore away over time and was replaced in 1823 by the uncrowned leopards head. This photograph is dated with the letter D for 1822/23 and shows how unclear the stamp had become. The sponsor is Timothy Ellison and Henry Fishwick. Tarlton Street, Liverpool.

On the above photograph, we see the town hallmark on the left (three sheaves) Here we seen it on the right, this is quite often seen, and just a whim of the sponsor. In this case, Richard Lucas of Liverpool, address not known. Date letter Q for 1834/35

Another by Richard Lucas hallmarked U for 1838/39.

This one I think will interest Davey G. Its on a watch by Richard Hornby with the date letter A for 1839/40. The Sponsor is Henry Fishwick, Tarlton Street, Liverpool.
I have plenty more of these marks, though it would be nice to have a whole set from the above dates, so please join in.

Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Chester F 1825/26 K 1828/29

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I only have photos of two Chester cases.

The first is a pair case on a Litherland rack lever -


The second is a watch I used to own, a probable Liverpool table roller for an American jeweler -

 

[PapaLouies]

View attachment 548225

View attachment 548226 Chester F 1825/26 K 1828/29

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I only have photos of two Chester cases.

Hi Jerry, thank you for sharing. Interesting hallmarks, again D for 1822/23 only this time, there is some confusion about the marks of Nicholson Lee and his son Nathaniel Lee his son, though Nathaniel seems to be the sponsor. He was at 32, Leeds Street 1818, 36, Ray Street, 1821, & 2 Ray Street, Liverpool, 1823/30. The other is the M for 1830/31 and the sponsor is James Widowson 4, Shakespeare Gardens, Spon Street, Coventry.1825 to 1829. Widowson would have recorded his mark in Birmingham and Chester.

Thanks too, for PL. Always the gentleman. Thomas Helsby & John Helsby A for 1818/19. 1820 to 1830, Liverpool.

On a Robert Roskell watch for 1842/43. Sponsor is Thomas Cubbin, Great King Street. Hockley, Birmingham. He too would have registered his mark in Birmingham and Chester. Working dates 1837 to 1855.

Best wishes, Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I put this on from Kieth´s post in the Joseph Johnson thread, not just for the marks which are the same as PL´s post, because again we see JJ for the springer. There was a JJ case-maker in London, James Jackson and later James Jackson & Son who had registered his mark at Chester too. Could he also have been a springer too ??

 

[John Matthews]

I think Jerry's Litherland rack case is an earlier 'D' - for 1800/01 and it would be Nicholson Lee at that time. I believe it is his #1625 he posted here.

Jerry's second case has (I·W) in an oval cartouche which I cannot find listed by Priestley. It does exactly match the mark of James Walker of Chester, as listed in Ridgeway and Priestley. He is recorded in the Plate Duty Books submitting items (gold rings and silverware) between 1805 & 1836.

Walker is not listed in the latest Priestley, however on p.188 of his 1994 publication there is an interesting note under (IW) in a style 1 cartouche ...

John Widdowson, Liverpool (seen on a 1810 watch by Jackson who ascribed the mark to James Walker of Chester, but this unlikely according to Ridgeway - also Liverpool casemaker seems more likely)​

So I reserve my final judgement, With Jackson's initial assignment, at a time when I believe the Chester records were more complete, of the (IW) example as being Walker and the assignment of (I·W) by Ridgeway and Jackson in earlier publications to Walker, I certainly think the maker of this case is open to debate.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I think Jerry's Litherland rack case is an earlier 'D' - for 1800/01 and it would be Nicholson Lee at that time. I believe it is his #1625 he posted here.

Well spotted John, I must admit I overlooked the D for 1800. So we now have the starter, plus "A" 1818/19 "D" 1821/22 and 1822/23 "F" 1824/25, "K" 1828/29, "M" 1830/31, "Q" 1834/35 "U" 1838/39 "D"(gothic) 1842/43, only forty-one to go. Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Davey, this is the one I was looking for, this looks to have been double stamped. It's on No. 27275, Richard Hornby, Liverpool. The Gothic "N" for 1851/52. So it was the son Gerard Hornby who sold it, as you know Gerard kept his fathers name and address till at least 1868. (Sponsor, of course, Henry Fishwick). Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

WE can now add Chester 1826/27. This on a Liverpool watch, sold by Ferrier of Hull. 3017 on the plate-no number on the case. Sponsor Thomas Helsby & Co.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

This from an 18K Quarter Repeater, by Joseph Johnson Liverpool. The sponsor could be an Edward James with a question mark. Letter "B" for 1819/20 Escapement not known. (Massey??)


Number 1766.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

The "O" for 1832/33 on a Richard Hornby watch 41, Pool Lane, Liverpool. Sponsor "RL" Richard Lucas Cheapside London 1827. 47 Cheapside 1847. 35, Cheapside 1849-53. Priestley.

 

[John Matthews]

Richard Lucas Cheapside London

Allan I don't believe this is correct. Priestley, I have found has excluded maker's marks from his earlier publication with Ridgeway, where he did not have evidence that a maker made watch cases. I have recently found a number of examples where it is not possible to match exactly a mark in Priestley, as is the situation here [Richard Lucus's mark is incuse and not in a square cartouche as is this case], but they can be matched in the earlier publication. The mark in a square cartouche is recorded in the Plate Duty Book for 1832-39, and two possibilities are provided one of which is Richard Lucas a Liverpool, the other Robert Lowe Preston. The former could be related to the watch case maker in Cheapside, or even the same person - I think the latter unlikely as there is a date of 1827 for the Cheapside address - but it is possible.

John

 

[Nick23]

The 'K' for 1806/07 on a Robert Simpson watch of Poulton, Lancs. Sponsor's Mark 'EM' for Edward Maddock, Ormond Street Liverpool.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Thank you Nick, nice clear example of the leopards head with crown. Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Just arrived back from a short holiday on the Rhein, and waiting for me was a new copy of "Jackson´s Hallmarks" edited by Ian Pickford. (2018). I was a little surprised to see how large it was, and for a so-called pocket edition, and can only say, you will have to have big pockets in your jacket. I then opened it at Chester of course, and there was also a small surprise, the letter "D" for 1821-23. It prints the letter "D" only once, unlike other hallmarks books that show it twice. Bradbury for instance only as "D" 1821, then "D" 1822, this then indicates 1821/22 and 1822/23 which is correct, but the new Jackson gives "D" 8 Nov. 1821-5 July 1823. It is then that they changed each letter on the 5 July, till the 5 July the following year. See posts 1 and 3 above. So, in theory, a watch so punched, could be anywhere between Nov.1821 and July 1823. You will also notice in post three that the leopards head is crowned in post 1 it is not. So the crowned ones are earlier that the uncrowned. Allan

 

[John Matthews]

Allan - welcome back from your break.

All Jackson publications, probably back to the original version in 1904, show the dates for 'D' in the same way. Earliest I have is a unaltered reproduction of the 1921 edition which shows it as you describe. Priestley and Ridgeway show as a single entry as you describe. Priestley's last publication simply copies Bradley's format and so acknowledges. I think the two 'D' entry format is Bradbury's and other publications have copied.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Thanks, John just goes to show it is my first copy of Jackson, though I think he produced the best way to note that "D" letter.
In Pickford´s Preface, there is more I did not know, for instance, that there have been two attempts to get rid of our hallmarking system by the EEA, then we were to rely on the Trades Description Act with producers and retailers simply stamping their own marks with an indication of the standard. Good God, they will want the Queen to drink coffee instead of her tea!
Over here in Germany, they too have antique shows in their TV programmes, and time and again they wish they had, had the same system. Much the same in the rest of Europe. Plus we know how Keith R thinks about it.
Nice to be back, Allan.

Just looked at my copy of Jackson´s 1921 and 1964 copies which I had forgotten, and they show only the one "D" as in Bradbury. Page 393.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

A couple of things, but first, I missed the word "not" above. it should read "Not as in Bradbury. Page 393. Today came to, the watch I bought before going down the Rhein. It´s a very nice example of the Massey II escapement, in a really nice case by Thomas Helsby of Liverpool hallmarked with the elusive letter "E" for 1823/24, and with the Thomas Helsby & Co. stamp which is not so often seen.1793 to 1816, 26 Vauxhall Road, Liverpool, has in Priestley. Plus a bonus for John Matthews "RB" inside the dust cap + 1016 which is also on the case, but strangely the number on the watch is 108.( Please, see below.) The retailer of the watch is Francis Walker. You can see that Loomes has him down twice (My opinion) Francis Walker (1?) Maryport (Cumberland) 1811-30. Francis Walker (II) Maryport (Cumberland) b.1800-1848 ?? If Francis II was born in 1800, his working dates would be at least 1821/22-1848, if that is when he died.

)

 

[John Matthews]

Allan - the cap maker RB is Robert Bickerstaff, 50 Circus Street, Liverpool, who is listed both as a watchmaker and a cap maker at that time.

John

 

[John Matthews]

Allan

Francis Walker operated out of Senhouse Street, Maryport according to a 1829 directory and is listed as a watch and clock maker in directories between 1828 and 1847. I note that both the cap and case are stamped 1016, but the barrel bridge carries 108 - it will be interesting to see whether the former number is hidden on the movement somewhere.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

John, thank you for looking up that street address, for Walker. I too find it strange about the watch number. I did think at first it was a marriage, but now think the engraver made a mistake. (Maybe he did not have the case and dust cap when working on the movement)?

Allan.

PS: I took your advice, and found 1016 on the dial plate. So 108 is a mistake, but how?? Thanks again, John. (A wild guess, could the watch have been made or finnished by John Moncas, and the 108 is, his number)?

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

John

Got my Moncas out, and maybe it is not such a wild guess.1016 could be a Moncas number, and 108 for walker. We know Moncas at that period made lots of Massey II escapements in his watches. Though mine is an STR. Nothing though in the cap, though, it would too have come with the watch from the maker to Walker? I will check the Moncas numbers file in the AHS.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Found the article again by Mike Paice on John Moncas. Number 1015 a Massey II. number 1016 not recorded. Could be I am right about this watch-lets hope Mike sees this.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

The rear cover of the Moncas pocket watch 6212 Massey II, sponsors TA for Thomas Adamson Liverpool, with the "H" for 1826/27.

 

[DaveyG]

Hi Allan, below the hallmarks from my Robert Roskell rack lever as posted in 'Revealing My Collection - No 4'.



They are: dome, back cove, front cover. There is a badly rubbed mark on the pendant that is indecipherable.

regards

dave

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Allan, below the hallmarks from my Robert Roskell rack lever as posted in 'Revealing My Collection - No 4'.

Hi Dave, I sorted this out for Tom Mc. but I cannot remember where now, maybe he can. If he can see this? Edward Jones-Watchcase Maker & Jeweller 14 Lumber Street 1800/03, 3 Highland Street 1805, 41 Prussia Street Street, 1807/10, 45 Prussia Street 1813/14, 1830 7 Highfield Street-Liverpool.

Nice watch there and for once in its original case "O" for 1810/11. My Birthday is 24/12/2019.

 

[DaveyG]

Thank you Allan. You are very knowledgeable for one yet to be born

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

"The unborn child is the bearer of our faults." While I am on, could you tell me the weight of No.8751. I have a case like yours on a Hornby Massey III 184Gr.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

This I know is not the best photograph, but it does show the case makers mark as IW with a dot in the middle, with the letter "G" for Chester 1825/26. (My German machine will not give me a dot in the middle)
John Matthews had a look in post 7, at this mark and came to the conclusion that the mark was open to debate. To start then we now have two watch cases with this mark and no doubt in the future we will have more. I don´t think that James Walker is in the running. his mark is J.W notice the dot is at the bottom of the J. I do not think Walker had two marks at Chester one with J and another with the I and the dot in a different place. The only mark IW with the dot in the middle is for John Wyke with a partner T.G but the dates do not match, so they can be eliminated too. This leaves us with John Widdowson of Liverpool. IW in a round cartouche. Not shown is the dot in the middle. I think Ridgway was correct to say a Liverpool case maker. We do know Widdowson did make cases, whereas Walker is not credited with case making. So, for now, Widdowson has his nose in front.

Allan

 

[DaveyG]

The watch weighs in at 5.7 oz (I don't do 'foreign') Allan . Two things to comment on your post above. It is my firmly held opinion that the dimples/dots are not part of the makers mark but just imperfections in the metal. The dots are in different places for each stamp and when viewed under a glass they are not regular in shape. The mark is very definitely a 'J' and not an ill formed or rubbed 'I'

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

The watch weighs in at 5.7 oz (I don't do 'foreign') Allan. Two things to comment on your post above. It is my firmly held opinion that the dimples/dots are not part of the maker's mark but just imperfections in the metal. The dots are in different places for each stamp and when viewed under a glass they are not regular in shape. The mark is very definitely a 'J' and not an ill-formed or rubbed 'I'

(I don´t do antique) 5.7 roughly x 31 = 176.7 Gr. So a little under the Hornby. I asked because I had read that silver was very expensive in the early 1800s. I also do not agree with your deduction either Dave, please see Jerry´s photograph at post 3. There is no distorted marks and no rubbing clear as a bell, the one I have put on is just badly stamped. Not that it matters, we are talking here of who´s mark it was, and at the moment I am with Widdowson of Liverpool. If we were to take your opinion above, Jackson, Ridgeway, Priestley and others were wasting their time. Anyone else got the Chester hallmarks IW with a dot in the middle.

Regards,

Allan.

 

[DaveyG]

Are we at cross purposes here Allan? I am talking about the maker's stamp on the case of my Roskell (#27), which is very definitely EJ incuse, with no dots or dimples. I am not at all interested, at the moment at least, in IW in a (Priestley) No2 cartouche. So, I apologise if I have confused the issue at all.

Dave

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

It was your remark "On the post above" I did think you were answering John, but that was on another thread, so I said nothing. I never mentioned rubbed letters, and it was most clear on your Roskell EJ. So we can now say that is clear. The IW is in a cartouche No1 in Priestley. Square or round corners page 89.

Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Here the case maker is John Widdowson of Liverpool, the mark below T&CO, is not Tiffany and Company (as I once optimistically had hoped), but a mark found on cases that carry M I Tobias & Co signed movements.

John

I found the above in another thread "My very first pair-cased half hunter verge". Pity John chose not to inform me it could have saved some of the remarks made later in this thread. Please re-read post 7 above.

Regards,

Allan.

 

[John Matthews]

(I·W) in an oval cartouche

I have change my mind as to the owner of this mark I did originally think it was John Widdowson, in contradiction to David Penney, but I subsequently concluded here that David Penney was correct and it is in fact the mark of John Walker of Chester. Unfortunately, when I recently posted on Piers thread here, in haste & in error, I used the first post from the Joel thread. It is now my firm opinion that this is the mark of John Walker of Chester and not John Widdowson - the evidence as I posted here. I apologise for my error posted in haste.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Thanks, John, I had not seen the Joel thread, and if I had it was too long ago to remember. I too should have looked in Ridgeway & Priestley, and I didn't. I now think with your reference above, all is now crystal clear.

Thank you.

Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I decided to read last evening, and chose, "English Goldsmiths and Their Marks" by Sir Charles J, Jackson. The 1921 edition. (The Dover edition, first published in 1964, is an unabridged and unaltered republication of the work first published by Macmillan and Co. in 1921)

Of Course for this thread, I re-read the part on Chester, and I have to admit I was surprised to find that though there are anomalies, it was possible to find a concurrent story that leaves no stone unturned. Most anomalies lay in the periods from 1540 to about 1790, but the documentation for Chester starts in 1668 as far as hallmarking goes for this thread. The history's at first relays on donations of old silver in private hands that could be associated with Chester. The first being "George Oulton, Mace: Presented in 1668 by the Earl of Derby to the Chester corporation." The first set of alphabet letters as we know them came about in 1701/2 starting with "A" to "Z" only missing out the "J" The "Z" being 1725/26 The next "A" was 1726/27 though this time they left out the "i" and included "J" with is very much like the letter "T" Though we need not worry about these early letters, the chance of owning a watch with a Chester hallmark before 1750 is very rare indeed. (If ever) So the second list went from 1726/27 to "Z" in 1750/51. In 1751/52 they now they decided to play "Guess who" "a" 1751/52 "B or "b" 1752/53 and they did this with the letters "D or "d" "F" or "f" "I" or "i" "K" or "k" "L" or "l" and lastly "Q" or "q" all the others are, as we know them,
ending this time with "Y" for 1775/76. In 1776/7 was pretty straight forward till 1784/5 they added the Kings head, it ended 1796/6 withe the letter "v". This list was all small. In 1797/8 they used capital letters from "A" to "V" to 1817/18.

To be Cont......

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

To continue, from 1818/19 They started with the Letter "A" down to the letter "U" From then on to 1921, when this book was written. Now it is as we know it till the closure on the 24th. August 1962.

In this book, there is, of course, is a mountain of information, and well worth reading if members like to find their interests in watch case making or Gold & Silver plate.

Here though I would like to step back in time to 1773, to time when great interest was being introduced into the hallmarking of Gold & Silver Plate has they saw it. Quote.

METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE ASSAY OFFICE AT CHESTER.
.
"In March 1773, Mr John Scasebrick */essay master of Chester and Jeweller) informed your committee, that there is a company of goldsmiths and watchmakers at Chester, which consists of two wardens and about eight other members; and produced, pursuant (In accordance with) to the order of your committee, the several accounts annexed in the appendix No3, ans said, that he never made any entries of, nor took any diet from, plate that proved worse than standard; but upon his report of it to the wardens it was defaced and returned to the owners; that he cannot recollect the quantity of plate broke since he has been in the office, but about a month ago, one dozen of watch cases, that came from Liverpool to assayed, were broke, and that he has broken other kinds of plate about a year or two ago, which belonged to a silversmith in Chester; that he is paid for plate which is broke and defaced, the same prices as if it was standard, according to Act of Parliament, and enters such payments in a book; but no entry is made of plate broken. "
*(Mr. Henry Taylor suggests that the name is properly "Scarisbrick", that of a well known Lancashire family. It probably became "Sca´sbrick" by contraction, and eventually as written by the Parliamentary recorder.)

" The witness further informed your committee, that the plate which has been sent by Messrs, Boulton and Fothergill, of Soho, near Birmingham, to be assayed and marked at the Chester office, has generally been 2 03 3 dwt, above standard, and that he never received any plate from the Boulton & Fothergill which was under standard; that he calls 11 oz.2 dwt. standard and 11 oz. 1 dwt, or anything under 11 oz, 2 dwt. under standard, and never received any plate in his time from Birmingham or Sheffield that was under standard."

This goes on for another two pages in small print but will try to have it finished by tomorrow night, though I believe it will be worthwhile..........

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

"Being asked if he had any Assistant in the Office?-he answered, when I am not well, I have a person whose name is Farmer, and who assisted Mr Richardson my predecessor, that Farmer was not a sworn officer, neither was he appointed by the company.
"That witness served his apprenticeship with Alderman Richardson, the late assay master, and that the assay office is at Alderman Richardson´s house, where all the utensils remain; that he never knew an instance of several things in one parcel of plate sent to be assayed that were made of different sorts of silver as to fineness; and that when there are a great number of pieces, he scrapes some off most or all of them, and assays them together; that he never knew an instance of buckles worse than standard, having pieces of silver soldered to them in order to obtain the company´s marks, and believes he could very safely swear they were all as they were cast.
"Being asked his method of drawing, he answered; If pieces come, from which I can cut ff bits, I cut them off; but if there are no pieces fit for cutting, I scrape them with a sharp scraper. I then take an assay weight, called 12 ounces, but which is about 17 grains, and weigh as much of such cuttings or scrapings as are to equal to the 12c ounces, which is then wrapped in lead, and when the furnace and coppels are hot enough, the assay is put in and refined, but no flux is used, because the lead refines it; if it comes out 11 oz. 2dwt. fine silver, we markit with the lion, the leopard´s head, the city arms (being three lions and a wheat sheaf) and the letter for the year; the letter for the present year is "U". Sometimes we pass it at 11 ounces, but when only 11 ounces, I write to the owners and give them caution to take care another time.

"The witness said he wrote to some silversmiths at Liverpool, whose plate was full 11 ounces, not long since, and had done so to others; and his intentions were not to pass it again if they sent it only 11 ounces fine, but they took care to mend their silver.

"That if there is a great deal more solder than necessary upon watch cases, and they were melted down into one mass, the standard of such silver would be reduced in proportion to quantity of solder, because solder has one third of allay in it; and believes solder may be added to silverwares after they are assayed; that he knows nothing of the solder necessary to tankards, because he is not acquainted with tankards, having never assayed any. and never returned any silverware for having apparently too much solder.

Last instalment tomorrow.........

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

"That if there is a great deal more solder than necessary upon watch cases, and they were melted down into one mas, the standard of such silver would be reduced in proportion to the quantity of solder, because solder has one-third of allay in it; and believes solder may be added to silverwares after they are assayed; that he knows nothing of the solder necessary for tankards, because he is not acquainted with tankards, having never assayed any, and never returned any silverware for having apparently too much solder. That he marks the plate after it is assayed, if it proves standard, and keeps the marks locked up.

The late Mr Richardson was a manufacturer of silver at the time he was assayer, and generally kept two or three people at work in the manufacture; and that Farmer ( who sometimes assays for the witness when sick or out of town) worked for Mr Richardson near thirty years, and assayed and marked his plate; that the witness never heard of Mr Richardson´s plate being objected to as under standard; and believes it was not in the power of any man living to object to it, as there never was better silver worked; that it was oftener above standard than under, and that he had tried it and found it so himself; and never found any of Mr Richardson´s plate under 11 ounces.

"that the witness works a little in jewelling way; but never worked above ten or twelve ounces since he has been in the trade; that he has no fixed salary as assay master; his profit arises from the prices allowed by Act of parliament, which never amounted to 10 pounds in any one year. That he doth not assay the lead before he puts the silver in it, because he uses litharidge lead, which has had all the silver taken out of it. and although it may happen. that by overstrong blast upon the test some of the silver may be blown over with the litharidge, yet the quantity is so small that it would make very little difference. That the diet was never sent to the tower to be assayed, nor was ever required by the Lord Chancellor, or anybody else, in the witness´s time. Being asked what quantity of diet there was now in the office at Chester he said he could not tell; for when he wanted silver he had taken some out. That he never met with any silver alloyed with tin and imagines it would not be malleable enough to bear the hammer but would be too brittle. Upon being asked, how he knew when silver was sufficiently assayed? he answered, we know by assay, it has first a cap over it, then that works off in various colours and after that, it grows quite bright, and then we know all the lead is worked away; we always use a sufficient quantity of lead.

As a result of the inquiry concerning the manner of working at The Chester assay office the following report was made to Parliament:- "Your committee upon closing the evidence relative to the assay office at Chester, in order to testify their approbation thereof, made the following observation, viz, that it appears to this committee that the assay office at Chester has been conducted with fidelity and skill`."

So that is how the assay office at Chester was run, in 1773.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

This little watch was given to me in the early 1980s by Ken Shanks, he gave it to me, because of the owner's name on the dial. Wm. Anderson. It is the name on Richard Hornby's marriage certificate, as a witness. If it is the same Wm. Anderson, I will probably never know, but does that really matter, it was the thought that counted, and its one of my treasures. I looked this up because the case maker is Richard Lucas of Liverpool, and I think it was Dave, who was asking about Lucas, plus a small bonus for John there are initials on the dust cap GS and Warrened too. The letter "U" for 1838/39 No leopards head. Allan



PS: The watch Sponsor is a T. Brewer of Preston 1817-1858.Priestley & Ridgeway page 358.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Having written up the1773 inquiry, I feel my next question should go to a metallurgist, who is well-grounded in the metamorphic action of heat or pressure. My question though is quite straight forward. Has anyone noticed among their collection of Liverpool pocket watches, that 1 that most of their cases will turn black if left laying about too long under normal conditions, like a cupboard draw? Then 2, have they noticed the odd case that does not turn black but has a grey shade or colour. If so would it be possible that these cases that don´t turn black have to much lead in the diet? Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Today the watch who´s photograph I used on post 30 for IW with a dot in the middle, arrived. The watch is by Litherland and Divies No. 11778 hallmarked "G" 1825/26. (See below) The case maker is at the moment still in debate.







The first two photographs are from Jackson showing John Walker using the same mark IW no dot, (Left) in 1810/11 and (Right) 1835/36. Marks for James Walker Chester. The next photograph is from Ridgeway and Priestley Giving both IW and IW with the dot in the middle, both for John Walker. " In the old Priestley just the one mark IW no dot To James Widowson with the remark (seen on 1810 watch by Jackson (Above) who ascribed mark to James Walker of Chester (I think he meant John, walker, could that be a mistake?) noted," this is unlikely according to Ridgeway-also Liverpool case makers seems more likely". Widowson is a credited case-maker, whereas John Walker is not, just once seen on a watch case belonging to a Mr Spiridion to Jackson. So I would say more research on this one. I still think Ridgeway's way of looking at it, is still sound.





Allan.

 

[Mike Paice]

Hi Allan,

Thank you for alerting me to this interesting thread - 2019 saw me achieve nothing I wanted to achieve and complete very few of the tasks I wanted to complete. I have a lot of images I want to take and share on here and have failed to make the time - I must do better in 2020.

Francis Walker 108 is a curious thing, isn't it. Here are a few thoughts from the viewpoint of a possible Moncas connection. Since my 2015 article, I have seen a picture of Moncas 1018 but have little detail on it (sold via eBay but I don't think I saw the original listing). As you suggest,1016 could certainly be a Moncas number but this would place its manufacture around 1815-18 - a little too early if Walker was born in 1800 but fine if he was in business from 1800. This earlier date doesn't sit too well either with the 1823/24 date letter on the watch case, if it was a Moncas (unless, of course, it had been laying around in his workshop and he re-purposed it quickly for an order from Walker). However, I have never seen a Moncas watch with a dust-cover with a maker's-mark and/or repeating the movement number - which is not to say that they don't exist but Moncas' dust-cover makers seem to have been pretty anonymous (although one of my latest acquisitions has IG stamped on the inside). I also haven't seen the movement number of a Moncas watch repeated on its dial/pillar plate.

On balance, I think it probably isn't Moncas 1016 although he was certainly making watches for other people around 1815-18, not least for Messrs Roskells.

Mike

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

On balance, I think it probably isn't Moncas 1016 although he was certainly making watches for other people around 1815-18, not least for Messrs Roskells.

Hi, Mike, Thank you for your response, I too think this is a puzzle when you see how far Maryport is from Liverpool. Francis Walker (1) working dates 1811-30 would fit the dates and has you said Francis Walker (2) was born in 1800-48, but we don´t know when he died, so he would have started work probably when his father(?) retired c1830. If Francis Walker (1) was his father. The early number on the watch top plate favours Francis Walker (1) You also say the Moncas number would be around 1815-18, and that would be correct for the escapement (Massey II), but again as you say the case dates, 1823/24 are too late. It would be nice to think the watch was cased when it was sold? Maybe John knows the dates for the cap maker Robert Bickerstaff.

I liked your remark on Moncas making watches for Roskell, I have to say, who in the Liverpool watch trade, was not?

Allan.

 

[Mike Paice]

I liked your remark on Moncas making watches for Roskell, I have to say, who in the Liverpool watch trade, was not?

View attachment 560669

I do wonder how many of those manufacturers left a clue to their involvement in Roskell's production - in Moncas' case a 'JM' under the barrel bar or the foot of the balance cock would be most helpful

Mike

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I do wonder how many of those manufacturers left a clue to their involvement in Roskell's production - in Moncas' case a 'JM' under the barrel bar or the foot of the balance cock would be most helpful.

What do you say now??



Will have a look at the Roskell´s this week.

Allan

 

[Mike Paice]

Whilst I'm here again, I thought that these images from my oldest Moncas watch might be of interest. The watch is #346, and the Chester hallmarks are for Thomas Helsby, with the 'S' date letter for 1814. I am not sure what the inverted 'AV' mark (to the right of the first image) might be but the hallmarks in the main case (those shown are on the back cover) seems to just have a 'V' rather than 'AV'. Any thoughts on this gratefully received. Mike

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Initials like those are usually accredited to the springer, but I am not sure, I think that is for John Matthews. Going onto the Patent on the cock, it´s a Rack Lever, or a very early Massey I? It is not in your article, but very nice to see it here. Allan