It is a nice watch. Look for a mark with a letter, the date letter. That is a good indicator of when it was made. When you close the front cover be sure to press in the button at the top of the pendant. This avoids wear to the catch that holds the cover closed.
Watches by the Dent Fanily can be very difficult to date for numerous reasons. Date letters on cases are sometimes usefull in dating a watch, but not always. The address on the movement and the dial can also indicate a date of manufacture. Between 1853 and 1860 Frederick Dent who took over part of E.J.Dents business when E.J. Dent died was located at 34 Royal Exchange. For several years he sold old stock signed E.J. Dent before he put his own name on his watches. It would be interesting to see what the date letter is. As I said before the case makers date of operations is also and indicator. In addition M.F. Dent also sold old stock from E.J.Dents business. Keep in mind that dates listed in Vaudrey Mercers book are not always accurate.
Thank you - I'm away on work for the week, but shall see if I can find any other letters or hallmarks elsewhere on the watch when I'm next with it at the weekend. Was it common for watchmakers to license out their name, or to have other watchmakers create stock for them? Does Charles Gartner have a decent reputation? I've had a cursory look around the internet, but couldn't fin much about him.
As far as I am aware, no watchmaker ever "licensed out his name". But almost all watchmakers bought movements at various stages of completion or major sub-assemblies from makers, and of course cases, and finished or assembled these to make a complete watch. Dent at all times in their history used to buy complete movements from a variety of movement makers and Charles Gartner (according to Loomes) was a London watchmaker in 1864 but otherwise I have never heard of him. The fact that he made movements for Dent would be sufficient to suggest that he was a good maker.
Just found the following information-- Chronometer Makers of the World by Tony Mercer Page 148 Gartner, Charles M.E. (Pt M) 13 Lower Ashley Street C'well, EC, London 1858-1865. In 1856, together with W.S. Mitchell, he patented a form of winding for fusee watches and a regulator lever actuated by Screw (Britten) Advertised himself as a watchmaker. Rodanet, who became President of the school of horology in Paris, was his appprentice. Charles gartner is also recorded as a maker to Dent at same time.
Hi Frank, Not sure if you picked this up already.. Dent 33 Cockspur St. London Serial 30276 Case hallmarked 1886
Frank, I have a J Dent pocket watch serial # 13195 with 33 Cockspur St. London, I have been unable to find anything with that serial number,would you have anything? NAW&C membership # 402069d2241da69bbe81c3313189910f Thank you, Ronald Laferte rlaferte@tampabay.rr.com
Please provide a description of the watch with, if possible, some shots (inside and out). Thanks Paul www.audemars.co.uk
Hi I have a....... Dent Keyless Wind 33 Cockspur Street Hallmark 1902 Case marked RN (Robert North) ? Serial # 32518 Would like to know more about the movement if possible. Thanks Pete.
Your watch was produced by M F Dent (Marianna Frederica, widow of Richard Edward) and according to Mercer's book the movement was made by Nicole Nielsen & Co (a prolific maker for Dent). Nicole Nielsen were a top-class maker but I can't see any dteail in your photo - I assume it's a pretty standard NN movement. I assume that the casemaker was indeed Robert Benson North, but without seeing the full set of hallmarks I can't be certain.
Hi Marty Thank you for your speedy and informative reply much appreciated. Sorry about the poor quality pictures will try again hope these are better. Kind Regards Pete.
Yep, those hallmarks all check out - Robert Benson North was casemaker for Nicole Nielsen Ltd at that date. The movement is definitely by Nicole Nielsen. I have the same movement serial number 33063 (shown below) and interestingly the case is also by Robert North but hallmarked 1907. That demonstrates how long firms like Dent had a movement in stock before they sold and cased it.
Hi Marty Thanks for the info.. Does Mercer give a date for the movement? I realise Dent operated out of both 33 and 34 Cockspur St is there any significance in one or the other in terms of makers? Kind Regards Pete.
Whilst I'm not particularly interested in Dent I have, for a long time, sought the source of movements with that design of top plate - so now I know. Thanks Marty. Every day's a school day.
Mercer dates your movement (from Dent record books, I believe) at 1902. E J Dent had traded at 82 Strand from 1840. In 1843 he acquired 33 Cockspur Street (off Trafalgar Square and close to his Strand location) to cater for his fast expanding business. He installed Richard Rippon as the manager of the new premises, and when Edward died in 1853 he bequeathed the shop and all its stock to Richard ... who had by now changed his name to Richard Rippon Dent. Josiah Emery and Louis Recordon had both used the shop. And then in 1844 he opened a third shop at 34 Royal Exchange. Richard (Rippon) Dent died in 1856 and his business at 33 Cockspur Street was taken over by his wife Marianna, who turned out to be an excellent businesswoman, By 1862 she had expanded the business to the extent that she took over the shop next door at 34 Cockspur Street. I have seen all three forms of the address on watch movements - 33, 34 and 33 & 34 - and I am just not clear on how those three representations were used.
Dear Sir, As this thread started a long time ago, I don't know whether the evaluation is still valid. I just purchased a M.F. Dent Chronograph with the serial number 32652. Supposedly the watch was manufactured in 1902. Could anybody check whether this is correct? Thanks in advance, Wim
Welcome to the board, Wim Yes it is an old thread, and sadly the member who started it, Frank Menez, died a while ago. He was a great researcher and a Dent specialist. Vaudrey Mercer's book list a pocket chronometer by M F Dent at 33 Cockspur Street, serial number 32585 dated 1905, and this would probably be the date of your watch although there can always be a difference either way of a few years when we date by serial number. A Dent chronograph is fairly uncommon, and it would be interesting to have some more details of your watch. Is it a full rattrapante 3-position chronograph, and is it operated from the stem or from a button in the rim? Does it have split seconds hand? Photographs would be wonderful! The watch would almost certainly have been sold originally in a gold case which would be hallmarked - if we can see those hallmarks we can give a more accurate date.
Hi Marty, Thanks for your response. Herewith you have some pictures showing the watch and the marks (first on the outer lid and second on the inner lid). As you can see it is a rattrapante with the mark showing it should be from 1902. Would be nice if you could tell me a bit more about it. Thanks in advance. Wim
Dear Marty, It has been quite a while since I posted my last tread in response to your questions, there was no reaction from your side up to now. Did I miss something? Best regards, Wim Kloosterman
Hello Wim ... I'm sorry but somehow I missed your last post The hallmark does confirm the date as 1902, which is also confirmed by the text to "Her Late Majesty" referring to Queen Victoria who died in 1901. I can't quite make out the maker's mark at the top of the hallmarks set. I have tried I.N and L.N but neither of those appears correct. Can you tell me what that first letter is? The movement of hour watch looks superb, and unlike any chronograph design I have seen. I wonder who made this for Dent - maybe Nicole Nielsen? It would be good to hear from others about this. I assume that the chronograph function is operated off the stem? It's also interesting that the watch has a 60 minute chronograph counter rather than the more typical 3o minute. Altogether a wonderful watch, Wim, and in superb condition!
As I was researching an article on a specific aspect of the Dent businesses recently, I made a note of individual watches for which I came across a record or photograph. Very broad brush but might be useful as a secondary check reference.
Hi Marty, No problem, was just wondering if everything was ok. Thanks for your input. The makers mark says RN, so it could be very well that the movement is from Nicole Nielsen. Yes the operation of the chronograph is from the stem. Indeed the watch and chronograph work perfectly, I am quite happy with it. I am still hoping that someone could tell me a bit more about the watch as I tried to find out more using Google but failed to find a similar chronograph. So anyone out there that could tell me a bit more about this watch, don't hesitate to contact me.
Hi Davy, According to the table the watch would be from the 1870/1880's. That doesn't correspondent with other research I have done, apart from the hall marks that show 1902 and the "late queen" remark on the watch.
Hi Martry, Just tried to find some info again (using the link on Davy's reply) and came across a watch with a very similar movement for a split second chronograph; it was a Nicole Nielsen movement of 1897, also with a 60 minute chronograph and a very similar dial (from Willis). The watch was made by Charles Frodsham. This watch however had a chronograph function from the rim.
For the benefit of other less knowledgeable readers, the "RN" mark would be for Robert North who (together with Harrison Mill Frodsham) bouth out the firm of Nicole Nielsen & Co in 1888. North became Managing Diector of the company in 1899 upon the death of Emil Nielsen, and at that point the sponsorship of the firm's cases would have changed from EN (Nielsen) to RN (North). I had guessed that the watch might have been by Nicole Nielsen because by 1900 both Dent and Frodsham no longer made their own watches, and were buying in complete watches made by NN for the top end of their range of retailing. I assume that there is a problem showing photographs of the movement, Wim Could you send me a PM with a link to what you found? Given my comments above about North, it would be no surprise to find a Charles Frodsham watch very similar to a Dent. Willis, by the way, was one of the top dial makers of his day and Frodsham's very best watches included his dials.
Dear Wim, I'm always wary of movement numbers/dating. Inconsistences and anomalies are very common. Often this probably results from poor administration,but there can be legitimate reasons such as a movement held in stock for aconsiderable time before being cased. However, there are also instances of manipulation - see http://theoldwatchword.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/what-papers-said-miscellany-1.html A chart as I posted here is just for broad reference. Regards. David [QUOTE=wckloosterman;991965]Hi Davy, According to the table the watch would be from the 1870/1880's. That doesn't correspondent with other research I have done, apart from the hall marks that show 1902 and the "late queen" remark on the watch.[/QUOTE]
Dear David, I understand that the movements need not to be of the same age as the watch is. That's why I was trying to find out more, also as I couldn't find a similar movement of a chronograph watch. Thanks to your link I found one that looks quite similar and is of the same (expected) decade. I sent the link to Marty, perhaps you could also have a look and give your opinion. The history as Marty described it together with the hall marks combine quite well with the similar watch I found. best regards, Wim
Hi David, Your not being thick. The thread that I posted before as a reply to Marty apparently disappeared. I have posted a reply with link to Marty again. Best regards, Wim
it is the movement of a pocket watch - minute repeater with chronograph - Dent . On the dating : late 1850s - early 1860s . System Keyless plant belongs to Nicole & Capt. At the plate under the dial number is stamped 6705 . Question: 1 ) whether there is reason to believe that the mechanism is made entirely N & C 2 ) What is the production capacity was N & C in the 1850s 3 ) Could Louis Audemars fulfill orders Dent and N & C as a producer of some movements 4 ) Did Audemars suppliers blanks in the London office under a different numbering
Very uncommon watch, Edgar. The watch dates to 1870, when the firm at Cockspur Street was owned by the three children of Marianna Frederica Dent (who had died in 1869); Vaudrey Mercer's list of manufacturers for M F Dent (which I assume was created from Dent ledgers) shows serial numbers 26125-26226 under Nicole's name. You are right that it is widely believed that the Nicole firm was making complete movements for Dent even though Dent held the sole licence to the patent keyless system. M F Dent specialised in watches with enamelled cases made specially for "the gentry", and since your watch is a complicated watch, I am not convinced that M F Dent themselves had the technical capability to make or finish it ... whereas Nicole Capt certainly did! In 1862 Adolph Nicole had taken out a second famous patent relating to "stop-watches and timekeepers" in which he improved on the castle wheel and the application of the heart-shaped cam which combined to make the first chronograph. Perhaps this patent is incorporated in your watch. I am not clear on your reference to Louis Audemars. Audemars is known to have supplied partial or complete movements to M F Dent up to 1862, but I think not later than that. Nicole Capt and later Nicole Nielsen were a regular maker for Dent from the 1830s until at least the 1890s.
I have heard the theory put forward that the family connections of Nicole and Capt with the Swiss relatives led to support in the form of complications and especially repeating work being done in Switzerland and possibly by Audemars. I do not know what documentary evidence might exist but a couple of my friends spent some time in Switzerland trying to sort it out. I would not dismiss the possibility that Audemars supplied the repeating work on this watch. It is a very interesting watch. Thank you for sharing it. Nicole Nielsen operated the equivalent of a small factory in Soho and had substantial capacity. I believe David Penney has documented that pretty conclusively.
Tony Maragna (Tony are you out there?) is the Nicole Nielsen expert. The Nicole and Audemars families were very close to each other in Switzerland and over the years there was more than one marriage. My great-great-aunt Suzanne (sister of Louis Audemars-Valette) married Charly Nicole in London. I believe their London establishements in Soho were very close to each other, if not next door. A Paul Nicole was Audemars' Paris agent and some London Agents were at various times, Nicole & Garmish and Nicole & Capt. Marty, I hate to argue but I have around four hundred entries in the Audemars Ledgers for sales of stuff to Dent. All post-1880. It's not always obvious which Dent. As always the Audemars, although having very neat handwriting were a bit cavalier about detail. I know that among them there is at least one reference to Cockspur Street although it would puzzle me to find it quickly. Paul
I think It was M.F. Dent ( clockspur 33 1857-1861 ) details of the movement , their treatment is very similar to the work of Audemars. on Russian forum we made a bet : who made the movement n&c or Audemars? The availability of production capacity of this level in those years will definitely tip the balance to what is n&c , otherwise it is Audemars Personally, I think this Audemars) Have n&c in those years, their calibres, their developments repeater?
Tony has an account here and has posted in the past. On one or two occasions, David P. has posted also. If one looks at the Usher & Cole or the Kullberg work books, it is apparent that there were many hands involved in the making of these pies. Repeating work is essential a separate operation from the time train and the escapement. That is why I think this piece is a divided effort.
Hartmunt Zantke: In 1858, the two offices in London and Paris were doing very well, as were the sales of blanks to Geneva and to the mountains of Neuchâtel. So the Louis Audemars company sought to expand by establishing new subsidiaries outside Europe. Louis-Benjamin Audemar - Sein Leben und Werk: Extract Part II does this mean that London and Paris could produce blanks and finished parts or movements? 1858 NICOLE & CAPT move to larger premises to 14 SOHO SQUARE, LONDON. - this is a very strange coincidence! maybe n&c this is the mission of Audemars in London in 1858?
Edgar, Edward Dent himself set up a business at 33 Cockspur Street in 1843. That address continued as R Dent from 1854-1856, then as M F Dent from 1856-1919. In 1862 M F Dent also expanded into 34 Cockspur Street which was adjacent to No. 33. Paul, looking at Vaudrey Mercer's list of bought in movements for M F Dent, on closer examination I have now found jut five Audemars pieces, delivered to M F Dent after 1862, which I missed earlier: 1879 3 pieces 1880 2 pieces My guess is that the 400 pieces to which you refer were probably sold to E Dent, run by Frederick Dent after Edward's death in 1853 until Frederick's death in 1860, then run by Edward's widow Elizabeth until 1865, and then by Mary Buckney and Amelia Gardner, (Mary was the wife of Dent's famous foreman Thomas Buckney), and finally the operational control of the business passed to Thomas Buckney's son. Vaudrey Mercer's suppliers' list for E Dent ceases at 1862! E Dent's addresses were 62 Strand and 34 Royal Exchange - do you have Dent's addresses in your ledger entries? Edgar, Mercer's entry clearly shows that your watch was supplied to Dent by Nicole. Unless Audemars was sub-contracting to Nicole Capt, it must be that Nicole Capt made the movement, and not Audemars. If you can find a description of Nicole's 1862 patent for a chronograph movement, it would be instructive to have your watch examined to see if it incorporates that patent, which if it does would conclusively prove that Nicole Capt made the movement.
the existence of a patent does not mean the production of movement and all its parts! A patent is only the scheme and design feature. So in the end what is the production date of the movement?? NN was very close to Louis Ademars and even ran his office in London. What makes You think that NN was at that time all necessary for the production of the movement from beginning to end? Most likely the order was made Louis Ademars at his manufactory. Is there evidence of NN the same production capacity in 1858-1863 ? Are you sure that there is not Audemars took no part?)
Yes, I know what a patent is. I suggested to you that it would be helpful to you if you looked at the patent design, and then examined your watch to see if it does incorporate that patent. According to Vaudrey Mercer's book, the movement was delivered to Dent in 1870. Amd Mercer states clearly in his book that he considers the M F Dent records to be "reliable". If you want to know when it was made, you will need to find some Nicole Capt production records. But failing those, it is probably reasonable to assume that it was made in 1869/1870. I assume you mean N&C? I have no idea what production facility N&C had in London, nor what production Audemars had, nor whether this movement was made in London at all. I do know from examples of N&C watches that they had (whether in London or Switzerland) the corporate skills to produce your movement, whereas I am uinconvinced that M F Dent had those skills. What evidence do you have that Audemars fulfilled this order What evidence do you have of the production capacity of N&C? Of course I am not sure that Audemars took no part in the manufacture of this watch, nor am I sure that Thomas Buckney took no part. The limited evidence that I have produced says that N&C made this movement, and until someone produces evidence of an alternative, I am happy to believe that.
I don't speak English to a good degree, about the same as You the Russian language , so there may be difficulties in translation. 1) I don't understand why the Dating of 1870? On the dial inscription "33 clockspur" it 1857-1861 year. 3) unless after 1861 was not the inscription 33&34 clockspur? The proof I have is this comparison of the details of the movement of Audemars - his own style.
I think you're doing just fine with your English, Edgar I am trying to keep my English simple for you, but that is not always possible ... so please keep asking me to explain what I am not making clear You have to realise that dating Dent's just from serial numbers is very difficult. That is because production records of movements are usually not available, so most dating is done from the hallmarks of cases which contain the movements. That method of dating is sometimes unreliable. You are right that if you only use your serial number to date the movement, according to Vaudrey Mercer's book the estimated date could be about 1861. But in a separate part of Mercer's book there is a list of movements supplied to Dent by outside makers. It is not clear what this list represents, but I believe that the list is taken from book records of the Dent company, and the list shows a group of serial numbers, followed by a maker's name, followed by a year - which must be the year these movements were delivered to Dent by the maker. This list must be much more reliable than any estimates of date from hallmarks. Your serial number 26218 is included in the group shown in the following entry on Page 699 of Mercer's book: 26215-26226 Nicole 1870 I think that is conclusive that your movement was delivered to Dent by Nicole in 1870, and I am guessing that the movement must have been made by Nicole in 1869 or 1870. Mercer's book also contains several observations of hallmarked watches, and these include on Page 682: 26374 dated 1870 26834 dated 1871 and these again suggest a date of 1870- for your watch. I have number 26438 dated 1870. The address 33 Cockspur Street continued to be used for a long time after number 34 was acquired. I have three dated 1882, 1890 and 1895. The only use I have ever seen of 34 Cockspur Street was in 1910, and I have only ever seen 33 & 34 Cockspur Street once (but I can't remember where!). I can't comment on the "Audemars style", and also I know nothing of the "Nicole style". But is it possible that Audemars was actually using the Nicole style as defined by the Nicole patent for a chronograph?
I have said there is no evidence of an Audemars production facility in London. To elaborate: After Louis Audemars Jr's bankruptcy in 1838 and his flight to the USA, and the subsequent mess which drifted on for a few years, there was no directly-controlled Audemars facility in London. What we would these days call agencies were directed by a succession of non-family people, including the Nicoles. The Paris office was set up by Hector Audemars in 1848. It was essentially a sales office coupled with repairs and restorations. There is no mention of manufacture in Paris or London in my record (on which Zantke's account is also based). The Audemars' numbering system was chaotic (and other makers' systems were possibly a bit shaky too) and in my opinion no reliance can be placed on it 130 years later to prove any particular point. Ébauches and other bits and pieces and - as has been said, whole complication assemblies - were exchanged between people and enterprises. By the 1860s-80s, even in a small community like Le Brassus, self-employed outworkers were probably working for several different producers, and were certainly also setting up their own enterprises (C H Meylan and Jules-Louis Audemars for example). Cross-fertilisation of styles and techniques would have been inevitable as would have been the similarity of components sourced from local suppliers. There must be a limit to what can be extrapolated - even by the most enthusiastic and dedicated researcher - from the fragmented records. Paul www.audemars.co.uk
Books written by people who can make mistakes . I see what is written on the dial. If Dent working since 1861 on 33 & 34 clockspur signed as a 33 clockspur - it changes everything . But I saw the inscription clockspur 34 and 33 & 34 clockspur .... and not just me ) How then to explain this fact ? Do dating in numeration N & C?
This is Dent 33&34 clockspur st original watch box : I'll try to fined some more about 33&34 ... Probably numeration in 1870s were changed ?
Edgar, there is no doubt at all that Dent continued to engrave the address "33 Cockspur St" on their movements at least as late as 1900. As I said earlier, I have three Dents dated 1882, 1890 and 1895 from hallmarks, serial numbers 29630, 30696 and 31347 .... all inscribed "33, Cockspur St" .... and to convince you I am posting the photos below!!!! I have just one inscribed 34 Cockspur St, and that is hallmark dated 1907. This is shown below and is also in an original box with the same address. 34 Cockspur Street was next door to no. 33, and it may be that the additional space at no. 34 was used for storage or workshop or other non-retail purposes. That might explain why the address was rarely inscribed on the movement. Anyway, whatever the reason for the way Dent expressed their address, the fact of how they showed their address is not in doubt.
Found it (there may be others but this is the one I remembered), Audemars no 11961 from the "Register of Superior Watches". Brass ¾ plate movement. 20 lignes (45mm / 1¾"). Minute repeater. Independent seconds. Lever escapement. Unbranded. Production cost Frs 842.48 Commenced October 1872. Shipped to Dent in Cockspur Street January 1874. (Audemars' version of the customer and address: "Dent de Cockspure") Not sure what - if anything - this adds to the discussion, but it's nice to know the memory hasn't completely petrified just yet. P www.audemars.co.uk
Here are two more. Audemars Nos 12184 & 5 from the register of superior watches. Uncased hunter watches (i.e. with dials and hands). Brass hunter movements. 20 lignes. ¾ plates. Lever escapements. Moon phase and perpetual calendars. Steel "pear-shaped" hands. Gold winding crowns. Gold cases made and hallmarked in London Commenced 1873. Shipped to Dent of Cockspur Street October 1875. Production cost Frs 1867.40 (for the pair) P
Am I on a roll here? Audemars No 12342 from the register of superior watches. Brass hunter movement. 19 lignes. ¾ plate. Lever escapement. Minute repeater. Calendar (not it seems perpetual). Commenced December 1873. Shipped to Dent in the Strand ("Strandt") December 1874. Production cost Frs 352.80 And a more or less identical movement No 12371 shipped to the same address January 1875 (commenced Feb 1874). I note that one of the operatives who worked on both these movements was Jules Audemars who in 1875 co-founded Audemars-Piguet. Ho hum P
