Dent Watch Serial Numbers

[gmorse]

Hi Montrealgpf1,

I notice that the pendant has a date letter of 'd' in Old English, which is certainly for 1859/60, although pendants were frequently made by workers other than the case maker, so could show a different year. However, James Thickbroom may have made this pendant himself, as he's listed as a specialist pendant maker.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Montrealgpf1]

I believe this will be clear enough. Thanks for your help.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Montrealgpf1,

...I believe this will be clear enough...

The date, sterling and London marks are clear, but the 'JT' is rather rubbed; the marks inside the dome are often less rubbed, so could you post a picture of those marks please? I believe I can see a faint oval cartouche, which would mean that the mark isn't for James Thickbroom, (who isn't recorded as ever registering a mark in an oval cartouche), but for a different maker, according to Priestley.

[Edit] Looking again, is it possible that the mark isn't 'JT' but 'JI'? If so, and it's confirmed as being in an oval cartouche, it could be for John Irvine, trading as McMillan & Irvine, first registered in 1861.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Montrealgpf1]

I still think it is IT, but here goes. Do you depend on the case maker to date the watch?

 

[Montrealgpf1]

Strike my last question. I had missed your second pos of Oct 10.

 

[Montrealgpf1]

Its service history is unknown, but the amazing thing is it keeps time perfectly, losing only 30 seconds per day.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Montrealgpf1,

Yes, I agree, it's certainly 'IT'. The shape of the cartouche, if any, and the style of font are important in differentiating makers with the same initials who were registered at the same time. This does look to be incuse, and without a full stop, which would probably place it back with James Thickbroom, although James appears to have registered several punches with this particular format, as the extract indicates. Having said that, the source is wrong on the 1855 date, because although Thickbroom did register a mark in 1855, it was 'I.T', not 'IT'; the full stop is significant!

Do you depend on the case maker to date the watch?

Only if the date letter is ambiguous, missing or there are no other clues in any of the marks, such as whether the London leopard's head is wearing a crown.

Regards,

Graham