Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'American Pocket Watches' started by Jon Hanson, Jul 1, 2009.
by popular demand .....................from a glass negative, not copied from a book.
And a portrait in enamel on a Waltham hunter showing Mrs. Dennison and child. From an exhibit at the Watch & Clockmaker's Guild Museum in London, England.
How does one know who is in the portrait?
I have added a third picture. Check it out.
The first picture shows the watch with the label describing the picture. The second picture is of the watch alone. The third picture is a close up of the label that is with the watch.
How do we know the are wife and son? (unless there is a letter or the picture matches other pictures of the two)
Third picture explains it to me.
Okay Jon! Have it your way!
I thought is was pretty conclusive, myself! But there are none so blind as those who will not see. I have removed the three images since it appears as though they have caused distress with one of our more august members. Too bad! I thought they might be of interest.:bang:
can't read it--what did it read
I enjoyed seeing it Doug and thanks for posting it, at least some of us saw it.
Sorry I missed it Doug, you shouldn't take him so seriously, the man is knowledgable but highly skeptical. You know, there are other people on this board who are interested.
I missed whatever there was to read
One more time!
LEFT: The Waltham with the enamel portrait of Mrs. Dennison and son. MIDDLE: The portrait, close up. RIGHT: The label beneath the image in picture on the left and center. These were in an exhibit at the Watchmakers and Clockmakers Guild Museum in London England. Incidentally, verified by Phillip Priestley who was with me at that moment, and at whose request I shot the pictures (he didn't have his camera with him). These items were also viewed by 14 other NAWCC members and wives amongst whom there was no controversy as to their authenticity.
Thank you, Doug, greatly appreciated. Nice exhibit.
I love that kind of stuff.
Nice presentation Doug. Don't let this bully bother you. One of these days the administrators will do something about this bully.
Doug - Thanks for posting portraits (twice). Mike
What intrigues me about the image on the Waltham is that it appears as though it was created directly from a photograph, in vitreous enamel. For the era, I would have expected it to have been hand-painted. Anyone know if a process to permit this to happen had been developed?
Where is the conclusive evidence that this watch is tied to the Dennison family?
You musn't have read my post, above. Phillip Priestley, well known in horological circles, and author of (among many other works), a major work on the Dennison family was standing next to me when I took those photos, at his request! Must I go through this again? If you need more verification, check with the Watchmakers and Clockmakers Guild Museum in London.
I have read all of your posts and apparently you didn't fully read mine.
I repeat - What CONCLUSIVE evidence do we have that this watch is linked to Dennison?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is or it isn't, nor that Phillip is correct or incorrect. But simply telling me that he requested you take photos of the watch is far from qualifying as conclusive evidence.
All am asking for here is the EVIDENCE.
Whatever the rate, a fanastic watch and thatk you for sharing...must have been very impressive to see in person.
Dennison died in 1895!
Curious, very curious indeed...................
While I am content that the picture is of a Dennison family, I suspect it is not Aaron Dennison's wife and child. The picture would have been contemporaneous with the watch. I think the child would be a grandchild of Aaron's.
Phil Priestly can probably fill us in on the details.
Aaron was DECEASED!
Good work Gumshoe Hanson!
I guess what upsets me the most here is that there has been no supporting evidence whatsoever concerning this watch, yet an alarming number of members here (some seasoned) have whole heartedly signed off on this information as being correct.
Furthermore, I think it COMPLETELY insulting that myself and others have been chastised for questioning the legitimacy of this claim. This seems to be a trend lately here on the NAWCC MB and I am getting quite tired of it.
As professional horologists we need to look at things objectively and show supporting evidence of our claims. Without this it is pure conjecture....
YOU ARE QUITE CORRECT HERE!
I ask a question or question the provenance of a Waltham watch WITH NO ID in the display and the TAG TEAMERS get their panties in a bunch!
Back to horology 101..................:bang:
HEY JON - Maybe it was his GHOST!
Research at its finest! hahahahaha
Again, a photo without a name, with an incorrect date tied to old Aaron already deceased, no letter, no specific pedigree.....just a beautiful picture on a Waltham!
PS This would have been a great story for a FLEABAY seller!
I don't know what to tell people who become frustrated when their posts are critiqued for legitimacy. Especially after they have criticized me for questioning them
We all need to be held accountable for the claims we make here on the MB. Otherwise we have very little credibility....
Doug or Tom - perhaps one of you two can talk to Phil and find out exactly what the story behind this beautiful watch is? Suffice to say, my interest (as well as others') is piqued....
So, back to the initial topic of this thread - Where did the negative come from Jon?
the simple answer is to ask about unknown items
or, research their blogs first and stop gum running
Do you mean back to my topic which was hi-jacked?
This glass negative came from the Col's collection (George E Townsend) by way of Dr Bundens. I have had it for 25 years.
I was awaiting for a chance to picture it. My first thought was to try the WIKI but, no, there is no authorship/ownership on that venue. Now, I am sorry I posted it here for the members. My mistake. I SHOULD have KEPT IT FOR CHAPTER 149 or my web site where it is appreciated. The s here just want to cause trouble and play TAG TEAM!
Nov. 25, 1811- Aaron married Charlotte W. Foster.
Feb. 18, 1854- Their last child, a son, Franklin, was born. Franklin was destined to become the Chairman of the Dennison Watch Case Company.
Sept. 8, 1883- Franklin, now married. His son Gilbert is born.
Jan. 9, 1895- Aaron Dennison dies, age 83.
June 3, 1901. Mrs. Dennison dies in UK.
Sept. 8, 1904- Waltham watch with portrait of someone (Mrs Charlotte W.Dennison ?) and a son (Franklin ?) is presented to someone. Possibly presented by Franklin Dennison, Chairman of the Dennison Watch Case Co to his son Gilbert (Dennison's grandson) on his 21st birthday? Picture on watch Gilbert's father (Franklin as a baby) and Gilbert's grandmother?
No less authorities than Phillip Priestley and the British Watchmakers and Clockmakers Guild Museum say this is a rendering of Mrs. Dennison and one of the Dennison sons. Who are you two to question the veracity of this assertion? Jon feels I've highjacked his topic! Tough!
You be the judge. The British Watchmakers and Clockmakers Guild Museum doesn't go into this much detail, but it makes sense to me! My information comes from Phillip Priestley's article in BULLETIN # 296, June 1995, pages 321-327. At the time, this article would have been subject to peer review, and the information contained within was deemed credible. What isn't credible (to me) is the negativity amongst a limited few that this submission to this posting has generated. Owing to the wholly positive reaction from the majority who have responded in favor of the submission, this time I'll leave the images there.
1. what peer review?
2. how could the malcontents have an opinion without your above post they did not read?
3. by your type written "someone(?)" and question marks galore written above--SOMEONE WHO THIS IS ALL SPECLATION! NO FACTS!
YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT!
There is no actual pedigree for this piece!
:bang: No less authorities than Phillip Priestley and the British Watchmakers and Clockmakers Guild Museum say this is a rendering of Mrs. Dennison and one of the Dennison sons. Who are you two to question the veracity of this assertion? Jon feels I've highjacked his topic! Tough!
SPECULATION still and tough you cannot understand simple facts, or in this case LACK OF CONCRETE FACTS!
Next time, PAL, start you own thread!
At this point, the portrait has engendered far more interest in this thread than your image of Dennison has. Start my own thread? I'm having too much fun with this one! Besides, I'd have suffered just as many barbs from you if I HAD posted it as a separate thread! I might just get into the habit of doing this more often!
Who ever she is, she certainly has a big nose.
Re: Dennison portrait.....posted due to popular requests
Yea, well, WITHOUT MY factual POSTS, PAL, where is the WATCH VERITAS?
You state 'FUN"--maybe you have learned something here, but I doubt it!
Like I say, back to horology 101! You
Hahaha, like some of those posting and bitching.
Larry, have you counted the question marks in the famly blog?
Veritas is back and finds this thread mostly interesting.
I would love to know a bit more about the original information in the Museums archives.
Perhaps this was a pic of one of Dennisons ancestors' wives. As we all know the company continued in business for many years.
Perhaps it was done posthumously.
One thing that might help piece together the puzzle a a bit would be the hallmirk
Since this is a British case, the hallmark will at least tell us the year the case was made.
Let's keep it civil guys, please. Terms like "panties" and "bit&*ing" have no place here.
When Phil's book on Dennison is published, it will contain a large number of family pictures and we will likely see why Phil asserted that it was a Dennison family picture.
With respect to "tag teaming," when two people that share a common view post alternate post to the thread, that is called tag teaming. This is especially true when the posts only iterate upon information or viewpoints already provided.
I believe this is very unseemly, no matter who does it. It reminds me very much of experiences on the playground as a child that I found unpleasant then at the age of 8.
The portrait of Dennison himself appears to be from a copperplate engraving (I think, I am not that expert on engraving techniques). That would imply that it was created for a publication of some sort. Does anyone know where it appeared first in print?
Just a note on copyright. Jon cannot copyright the image of Dennison since he did not create it. The image itself is undoubtedly in the public domain. If Jon edited the scan he made of the image, he can copyright that edited scan.
Well, he married her in 1840; she was born in 1811. Not sure which year Nov. 25 goes with.
I asked for it to be removed.
And I am sorry I posted it, but several folks asked me to post it, and what a waste of time. Next time I shall simply post it on 149 where things are appreciated and WWIII never breaks out!
Here's another uneducated guess who might be portrayed. Please bear with me if I'm wrong, I'm just speculating and have no proof.
The lady just might be mrs Andrew Leslie Dennison, the wife of ALD jnr. Anyhow there is a look-a-like (with the same nose) on page 72 of Philip Priestley's Bulletin Supplement 20 "Watch Caase Makers of England"
A bit older, but sure seems to be the same person to me. Might be a sister, though
I think you're right, Peter, and that would explain Philip Priestley's interest, I guess.
If you look at the Encyclopedia article Dennison, Aaron Lufkin you will see that there were two ALD's. I suspect the second one is associated with the Watchmaker's Company watch.