i have a fusee watch and i have been unsuccesfull at finding any info on it..

[tacosmurph]

Any help is appreciated... thank you

 

[novicetimekeeper]

That scalliped edging only appeared for around a ten year period before the last quarter of the 18thC I believe, though those pillars were out of fashion by then. The arcaded chapter ring was on longcase clocks briefly about the same time though I don't know when it was popular on English watches.

The hands look continental to me.

I can't make sense of the hallmarks, I can't see how the verge is adjusted, and I don't know what that iton lump does at the edge of the balance wheel. I look forward to hearing more from others.

 

[gmorse]

Hi tacosmurph, and welcome to the forum,

Any help is appreciated...

This is quite a mixture. Starting with the dial, the arcaded chapter is in a style typical of those popular in the Dutch market at this time, which appears to be around the 1750s or 60s. However, that isn't to say that's where it was made. There's a lot of debate about the origins of watches with this type of dial, often known in the past as 'Dutch Fakes', but their actual source is probably not the Netherlands. The elaborate hands are, as Nick has said, more often found on Continental watches.

The outer case has an unusual assay office town mark which looks not unlike Exeter or Edinburgh, both of which used a castle, but there isn't a visible date letter. There's also an apparent duty mark of the monarch's head; if this was assayed in Exeter, this mark was only used from 1784/5. The hallmarks for Edinburgh should include an Assay Master's mark as well as the other usual marks, and from 1760 until 1973/4 this was a thistle. Its absence here suggests that this is not Edinburgh. Watch cases with either of these town marks are very unusual, most being assayed in London, Chester or Birmingham, far fewer in Glasgow or Dublin.

The inner case has a leopard's head, (usually the London assay office mark), a lion passant for sterling silver, a date letter of 'p' which means 1750/51 for London and a badly rubbed maker's/sponsor's which may include a 'B'.

Assuming that the outer case is a later replacement, (quite often found, since the outer took all the wear in use), and that the inner is original, (again, not inevitably so), the possible date of this inner case does match the general style of the movement.

The square baluster movement pillars and the 'lace-edge' decoration of the balance cock and the slide plate both suggest a date around the 1750s or 60s, after which these features began to fall out of fashion. The case bolt in one piece with its spring and the ornate screw holding it on the plate are consistent with the date range already mentioned

The edge of the balance cock has been damaged, which may account for the strange steel hook piece attached to one of the slide plate screws, whose actual purpose is unclear; it appears to be holding down the balance cock, so the cock table may be fractured. It's certainly not original and something I've never seen before in the catalogue of bodges I've come across.

The only John Edwin I can find in Loomes, (the standard reference book), is listed as a 'watch engraver' apprenticed 1736 and member of the Clockmakers Company 1743-68. The name in the signature on English watches is most often for the retailer although there are exceptions.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Graham

I think the outer case town mark is Edinburgh, despite the lack of a date letter and fineness mark. AM is most likely Andrew Milligan, Mint Close, Cannongate active 1774-1811 and the presence of the duty mark puts it into the period 1784-1798. Agree inner is London 1750/51. John Edwin clockmaker- took apprentices from 1749 to 1768, listed by Atkins (1931) published by Jeremy Lancelotte Evans - dinner calls, need to search for further details.

John

 

[John Matthews]

References ...

Atkins (1931)

Moore (2003)

As Graham has indicated watch cases assayed at offices other than London, Birmingham, Chester and Dublin are rare. I think it highly probable that this watch was owned by someone in Scotland (close to Edinburgh) in the 4Q of the C18th when the outer case was replaced.

John

 

[Incroyable]

It's clearly been lovingly cared for evidenced by the specially knitted cozies in what appears to be a custom made storage case.

 

[John Matthews]

The eagle eyed may have noticed the discrepancy in regard to the apprentice date for Edwin with his master John Burchett. The first reference is an extraction by Evans from the original 1931 publication that was privately printed by the Company of Clockmakers compiled Edward Atkins (master in 1897, 1909 and 1928). Clearly being bound, as Evans records, on 3 July, 1749 is a little odd given he took Warren as his apprentice in the following year (date checked as correct).. The 1749 date is a mistake. The original 1931 entry is:

EDWIN, John, 2 August 1736, son of William:St Giles in the Fields, to John Burchett. 7 years. Freedom 7 November 1743.​

This, as recorded by Moore, but usefully also providing the date when Edwin became a Freeman.

John

 

[tacosmurph]

The eagle eyed may have noticed the discrepancy in regard to the apprentice date for Edwin with his master John Burchett. The first reference is an extraction by Evans from the original 1931 publication that was privately printed by the Company of Clockmakers compiled Edward Atkins (master in 1897, 1909 and 1928). Clearly being bound, as Evans records, on 3 July, 1749 is a little odd given he took Warren as his apprentice in the following year (date checked as correct).. The 1749 date is a mistake. The original 1931 entry is:

EDWIN, John, 2 August 1736, son of William:St Giles in the Fields, to John Burchett. 7 years. Freedom 7 November 1743.​

This, as recorded by Moore, but usefully also providing the date when Edwin became a Freeman.

John

Thank you for all your help..

 

[Bernhard J.]

Looking at the design of the cock alone, I would assume Swiss of about 1780. E.g. the shell motive does not seem to be English.

Best regards, Bernhard

 

[John Matthews]

Bernard - I don't think this is of Swiss manufacture.

Two quotes from Graham, different watches, but common problem ...

This is quite a mixture.

and

the clues are subtle and sometimes just a feeling.

The problem, which somewhat foolishly, we might think we can resolve, is to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, the provenance of watches that are centuries old. We are, well I know I am, doomed to fail.

I think this watch, because it is 'quite a mixture', probably gives us more clues to 'play' with than most. So here's one take, the one that appeals to me the most - but it certainly isn't the only tale that could be told.

I see no reason to doubt that this movement was made in London, carries a genuine signature of a bona fide clock and watch maker, John Edwin. Neither do I see any reason to doubt that the movement is housed in its original box and a date of 1750/51 for the box, movement and signature are all consistent. True the cock design may be a little off mainstream at the time, but not unlike those (albeit of finer quality) of other makers, e.g. Charles Cabrier, that show the influence of Huguenot immigrants. The elaborate hands are also found on contemporaneous watches signed by Cabrier.

Similar motifs Cabrier 1748 on the left.

The rather crude arm extended over the cock table with its over long screw would appear to imply that the watch suffered misfortune at some point in its history. Whether the timing of the misfortune corresponds to the date of the replacement outer case in the last quarter of the C18th we cannot be certain, but certainly it is possible. Might the dial have also been replaced - such arcaded dials would almost certainly been available at that time, even in Edinburgh.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

Might the dial have also been replaced - such arcaded dials would almost certainly been available at that time, even in Edinburgh.

This is another example of such a dial, on a documented Tompion this time.



The influence of immigrant Huguenot workers on English watchmaking and many other crafts in the 17th century isn't always appreciated.

Regards,

Graham