Henry Thompson, London Identification Help...

[smedley]

Hello and thank you in advance! I recently purchased an early "Hen Thompson London" #10273, and am having difficulty getting a mfg. date for the piece. The (London) hallmarks appear to fit well for either 1777 or 1817, (Lower case "b" kind of worn). Assay mark looks like that "King with a Crown" guy. Also a left facing lion, and an "rw" makers mark I presume. Please look at the photos (I just noticed that I can include attachments here). Any help that anyone can give me is very much appreciated. Thank you, Shawn M. from Maui, Hawaii

 

[MartyR]

Hello Shawn

The date is 1777 because of the lion passant mark at the top. This ceased to be used in 1784. I cn't make out the first letter of the maker's mark. I certainly don't think it's "R" (it has to be upper case) and I've tried F and T but can't find either. Can you make another guess?

Ther is a Henry Thompson recorded in London (St Martin's le Grand) from 1748-1759. It's possible that the dates (from Loomes) are slightly wrong, or that thi Henry is the son of that Henry.

 

[Peter Cox]

If you blow the pic up there appears to be a bend to the left at the bottom of the upright so it's possibly a J

 

[Jerry Matthews]

Hello Shawn

The date is 1777 because of the lion passant mark at the top. This ceased to be used in 1784.

I agree that the date is 1777-78, but am puzzled by the statement that the lion passant ceased to be used in 1784. The lion passant (in slightly different formats) has indicated sterling standard silver continuously since 1544. For the first six years he was crowned; from 1550 to 1821 he was lion passant guardant (meaning he is looking toward the viewer over his left shoulder) and from 1821 until the present day simply lion passant, meaning he is looking straight ahead.

The explanation for the difference in Loome's dates for Thompson and the hallmark could well be as Marty says an error in Loomes, or a son or successor carrying on the business. There is also the possibility, though I think less likely because the movement looks later than 1759, that it was for some reason recased.

 

[smedley]

Hello, and thank you for all of your help. Yes, glad to ear 1777 (sounds neat, plus this year pre-dates my wife's earliest watch by 38 years!!) I'll look at the "JW" possibility for the makers mark. Thank you!!!

 

[MartyR]

The lion passant (in slightly different formats) has indicated sterling standard silver continuously since 1544.

But this is gold, isn't it Jerry?

I'm also struggling with JW - the earliest I can find is 1815

 

[smedley]

Thanks, MartyR & Jerry Matthews. Gold? What do you mean...pretty sure we have silver here. Would a few photos of the face/case help. Also have a paper from Philadelphia, no date tho'. Thanks!

 

[RON in PA]

I won't get into the hallmark issue but the design of the movement interests me, especially the use of the Bosley regulator. I associate these with post 1800 watches, when did they start using them?

 

[Jerry Matthews]

But this is gold, isn't it Jerry?

Yes, my previous comment did not go far enough because both silver and gold (22c) were struck with the same hallmarks until 1798. In that year a distinctive gold marking was brought in for 18c gold, but 22c continued to be hallmarked the same as silver until 1816. Then, until 1844, 22c gold was was marked with a sun as well as the lion passant.

Did someone say the system of English hallmarking was simple?

 

[smedley]

You guys are great - I appreciate your inputs. Opinions: what is the mfg. date of the case? the works? thanks! - Shawn

 

[Jerry Matthews]

The case was made the date of the hallmark---1777-78. (Two years, because the date letter changed in May and hence the "b" was in use from May 1777 to May 1778.) The movement would have been made at the same time as the case. Unlike the 19th century American system, watchmakers placed orders for cases as they went along, so that cases and movements are almost always from same date. The exception would be if for some reason a movement was later recased,although I don't think that happened with your watch.

 

[MartyR]

It would be good if you could look at that maker's mark "live", smedley, and see if you can come up with some ideas for the first letter. Sometimes a slightly different angle of reflection of light reveals something quite different. I hate loose ends, and I've never yet been unable to find a maker in Priestley

 

[eddywatch]

Hi, as an English collector I am afraid inform you there is no way this watch is 1777 as the English wedge shaped balance cock is ALWAYS post 1800 (except on chronometers) and is usually post 1812 when lever watches went into quantity production.
The same applies to the Bosley regulator.
These hallmarks are standard London silver assay marks for 1817.
One nice point, the leapords head is crowned; it became uncrowned halfway through 1821. If the date letter is unclear, this feature is often useful.
Hope this helps,
eddywatch.

 

[MartyR]

Hello Eddy, and welcome to the NAWCC board

That's a great piece of information about the balance cock. Just to be clear, are you saying that the wedge was used on chronometers prior to 1800? And do you know if the old (circular, I assume) balance cock was ever used after any particular date?

On the case hallmark, I have been relying on Priestley's Watch Case Makers of England, which contains on p86 a chart of London Date Letters "reproduced by kind premission of the Wardens and Court of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths".

This clearly shows that the lion passant gardant wsa used in conjunction with the (crowned) leopard's head for the period 1756 to 1783. Can you cast any light on this?

Of course it's always possible that the case predates the movement, but now I've been back to Priestley and burrowed a little deeper on the case maker's mark (there are so many JWs which in turn are also sequenced in an awkward way) and I have found a candidate maker in a JW dated 1815 - John Williams of 56 Great Sutton St, London EC1. I can't find any other candidate matching either this date or the putative 1777 date, so I think I'm now convinced that the case date must be 1817, that there is something amiss with the Priestley chart, and (most importantly) that the case is indeed silver and not (as I was casually supposing earlier) 22K gold.

 

[Jerry Matthews]

Hi, as an English collector I am afraid inform you there is no way this watch is 1777 as the English wedge shaped balance cock is ALWAYS post 1800 (except on chronometers) and is usually post 1812 when lever watches went into quantity production.
The same applies to the Bosley regulator.
These hallmarks are standard London silver assay marks for 1817.
One nice point, the leapords head is crowned; it became uncrowned halfway through 1821. If the date letter is unclear, this feature is often useful.
Hope this helps,
eddywatch.

One of the English watches in my collection was made by George Beifield, London, case hallmarked 1788-89, casemaker James Richards. The balance cock is very similar to that on the Henry Thompson. But I am willing to concede that the Thompson watch more likely dates to 1817-18. One reason is the Bosley regulator. Although this was brought out by Joseph Bosley in the mid-18th century it was not much in use until around 1800.

The series of London hallmarks commencing in 1776 are virtually indistinguishable from the series starting in 1816. You have to go by other clues---dates of the watchmaker or casemaker. This is where the knowledge of crowned/uncrowned leopard's head is useful.

Marty, if you are interested in the subject of English hallmarks, I suggest you ignore Priestly (for hallmark info) and get a copy of Jackson's Hallmarks. My "bible" is the massive hardback edition, but there is a paperback edition available on Amazon for less than £6.

 

[MartyR]

Marty, if you are interested in the subject of English hallmarks, I suggest you ignore Priestly (for hallmark info) and get a copy of Jackson's Hallmarks. My "bible" is the massive hardback edition, but there is a paperback edition available on Amazon for less than £6.

I've used the backbreaker edition once, and I found it tricky to navigate ... but that was on my first try Is there enough extra info in the big version to make it worthwhile, Jerry? Since I collect mostly gold watches, I am indeed interested in hallmarks

 

[Jerry Matthews]

I've used the backbreaker edition once, and I found it tricky to navigate ... but that was on my first try Is there enough extra info in the big version to make it worthwhile, Jerry? Since I collect mostly gold watches, I am indeed interested in hallmarks

I think it is worthwhile, Marty. The basic layout and illustrations of the hallmarks are the same, but the hardback edition has a lot of history and background information in it. There are some copies on Amazon now at rather good prices. (I'm tempted because mine is the 1989 ed, and I see 1999 is on offer.)

Of course, as I guess you know, Jackson covers only England, Scotland and Ireland. Nothing about foreign marks at all.

 

[Rich Newman]

I've yet to see a movement with a bosley regulator, that style watch cock and wide rim balance prior to 1800. Everything about this movement & case says 1817.

 

[Burkhard Rasch]

I agee to that!First quarter 19th cent,not earlier.
Burkhard

 

[Richard Watkins]

I am certain the correct date is 1817. Most importantly, the movement design (balance cock, regulator, etc) is far, far too late for 1777. As a matter of interest, what type of escapement?

The case maker's mark in an oval is probably "JW" for John Williams who registered this mark in 1815. There is no other "IW" or "JW" mark in an oval, listed in Priestley, which fits either 1777 or 1817, the best "IW" fit being John Wills registered in 1800.

Provided the case is original it is usually quite easy to interpret the hallmarks by comparing them with the style of movement.

 

[Bostonjoe]

Hi, just wanted to drop a line that I have this watch's close relative, serial number 10295. Same hallmarks as described by you. Cool that these two managed to survive 200 years!.

 

[novicetimekeeper]

serial numbers don't seem to mean a great deal with most English watches, that movement looks an awful lot earlier in style given the cock design and shape and the tompion regulator.

 

[Lychnobius]

Like Richard Watkins and several others, I feel sure that smedley's movement cannot be as early as 1777-78. I believe the bell-shaped cock table was first used by Peter Litherland for his early rack-levers in the 1790s. Nothing in the two images we have seen so far is inconsistent with a date of 1817. It would certainly be helpful if we could see images of the case and dial.

Oliver Mundy.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Bostonjoe,

This illustrates the pitfalls of reading too much into serial numbers! Stylistically your watch is rather different from the OP's, (as novicetimekeeper has mentioned), with its Tompion disc regulator and circular balance cock table, and is possibly 10 to 20 years earlier. As the signature on the top plate almost always refers to the vendor of the watch and not its makers, the name and location are also of little use in dating. The case hallmarks are a more certain clue, providing that it hasn't been re-cased.

One thing they do possibly have in common is an origin in Liverpool.

Unfortunately the original post was made back in 2010, so we probably won't see any response from smedley now.

Regards,

Graham