Interesting Dwerrihouse & Carter verge to table-roller conversion....but exactly how old is it?

PJQL

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
1,492
81
48
Cornwall UK
Country
Region
Hi all,
What I have here is a rather nice verge to table-roller conversion. The original movement is signed Dwerrihouse & Carter, and from what research I've done re the various family names, I'd guess it's possibly pre 1850 (could be wrong of course!)

It's a later nickel case..the movement having been restored and simultaneously orphaned from it's original case.

What is fascinating is the hand-engraved inscription inside the rear cover.
It's tiny script and not easy to read...but states the following:
"Movement restored and put in this case by I J HARSH (I think), Dec 1954.

Movement made by Bradley (?) about 1750-90"

So...what do we think? Could the original movement be that early?

Open to the floor!

Regards, Piers.

20220928_174818.jpg
20220928_174929.jpg 20220928_175538.jpg 20220928_175551.jpg 20220928_175053.jpg 20220928_174836.jpg 20220928_174842~2.jpg 20220928_174818.jpg
 

Lychnobius

Registered User
Aug 5, 2015
620
254
63
Redruth, Cornwall, UK
Country
Baillie dates the partnership of Dwerrihouse & Carter to 1802. From the pierced cock, flat-rimmed balance and early form of Bosley regulator, I should think that this movement is not later than 1810, but I cannot believe that it goes back to the eighteenth century. 'Bradley' could be a misreading of 'Berkeley'.

Oliver Mundy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

gmorse

NAWCC Member
Jan 7, 2011
14,559
3,680
113
Breamore, Hampshire, UK
Country
Region
Hi Piers,
What is fascinating is the hand-engraved inscription inside the rear cover.
It's tiny script and not easy to read...but states the following:
"Movement restored and put in this case by I J HARSH (I think), Dec 1954.

Movement made by Bradley (?) about 1750-90"

So...what do we think? Could the original movement be that early?
Well, 1750-90 is quite a wide range! The first thing that's apparent is that the balance cock table has been radically cut down and re-gilt, it was originally a full circle, so could have been made in the 1780s or 90s. The next thing is that 1750 is rather early for a Bosley regulator, (I know it was invented in the 1750s but it was rarely fitted until later), but 1790 is more plausible, although these only became common in the early years of the 19th century. A picture of the top plate without the balance would be useful to show the slide plate arrangement.

Regards,

Graham
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

John Matthews

NAWCC Member
Sep 22, 2015
4,082
2,190
113
France
Country
Region
I agree with Oliver in that the dates given in the standard references for the partnership commencing in the early part of the C19th, correspond to when the movement was made. Early editions of Britten record John Dwerryhouse at 23 Berkley Square in 1798 and his dates as 1778-1800. This entry is followed by Dwerryhouse & Carter 23, Berkeley Square in 1810, although the 1808 PO London directory has Dwerrihouse & Carter at 30, Berkley Square.
I have not researched the Dwerrihouse family, but I did note that clock making paid a significant part of their business and that one AH advert for a drop wall clock signed Dwerrihouse, Berkley Square, had the following note:

John Dwerrihouse had a series of partners during his working life, but appears to have worked on his own account from c.1800 until he was joined by a Mr Carter in 1805.​
John
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

PJQL

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
1,492
81
48
Cornwall UK
Country
Region
Baillie dates the partnership of Dwerrihouse & Carter to 1802. From the pierced cock, flat-rimmed balance and early form of Bosley regulator, I should think that this movement is not later than 1810, but I cannot believe that it goes back to the eighteenth century. 'Bradley' could be a misreading of 'Berkeley'.

Oliver Mundy.
Thank you Oliver. As far as I can tell, Bradley is the closest match to the script.....butbeho knows?

Piers


Hi Piers,


Well, 1750-90 is quite a wide range! The first thing that's apparent is that the balance cock table has been radically cut down and re-gilt, it was originally a full circle, so could have been made in the 1780s or 90s. The next thing is that 1750 is rather early for a Bosley regulator, (I know it was invented in the 1750s but it was rarely fitted until later), but 1790 is more plausible, although these only became common in the early years of the 19th century. A picture of the top plate without the balance would be useful to show the slide plate arrangement.

Regards,

Graham
Graham....thank you for that. Ha...I never spotted the cut-down balance cock...but now you pointed it out, its kind of obvious!!!
I'll remove the balance later and post a picture of what lies beneath.

Regards, Piers

I agree with Oliver in that the dates given in the standard references for the partnership commencing in the early part of the C19th, correspond to when the movement was made. Early editions of Britten record John Derryhouse at 23 Berkley Square in 1798 and his dates as 1778-1800. This entry is followed by Derryhouse & Carter 23, Berkeley Square in 1810, although the 1808 PO London directory has Dwerrihouse & Carter at 30, Berkley Square.
I have not researched the Dwerrihouse family, but I did note that clock making paid a significant part of their business and that one AH advert for a drop wall clock signed Dwerrihouse, Berkley Square, had the following note:

John Dwerrihouse had a series of partners during his working life, but appears to have worked on his own account from c.1800 until he was joined by a Mr Carter in 1805.​
John
John....appreciated. It's signed Berkeley Square....but no specific number. So somewhere between 1800 and 1810-c1815 may well be close to the mark.

Regards, Piers
 

novicetimekeeper

Registered User
Jul 26, 2015
12,204
1,526
113
Dorset
Country
Region
My Dwerrihouse & Ogston says Davies street, which leads into Berkeley Square. I think it might be the same address, I have a feeling the changed road layout has extended Berkeley Square into Davies Street.
 

SKennedy

Registered User
Jan 5, 2017
332
264
63
Country
There's also the possibility that this movement is not the one put in the case by the chap in 1954 but is in itself a later replacement. Hence the confusing 'movement made by' line which doesn't seem to tie in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL and gmorse

gmorse

NAWCC Member
Jan 7, 2011
14,559
3,680
113
Breamore, Hampshire, UK
Country
Region
Hi Seth,
Hence the confusing 'movement made by' line which doesn't seem to tie in.
Yes, it's difficult to see where that name could have come from if it wasn't part of a top plate signature. However, the inscription does include 'movement restored and put in this case', but if the movement was subsequently replaced by another, why would that be done in a base metal case, however well-made? I can only suppose that if this was done, the present movement was considered to be superior to the 'Bradley', and happened to fit it pretty well. The wide collar around the winding hole in the dome may be there to hide an enlarged hole because the original one didn't quite align.

Regards,

Graham
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

John Matthews

NAWCC Member
Sep 22, 2015
4,082
2,190
113
France
Country
Region
I suspect the person who did the work in 1954 was guessing as to the dating of the movement and Oliver's suggestion that, perhaps the inscription being done in haste, failed to understand and interpret correctly the engraving.

John
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

PJQL

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
1,492
81
48
Cornwall UK
Country
Region
Thank you everyone for all your input. This watch has generated some really interesting points and theories. Meantime, it's running very nicely.

Just one query...the crystal is missing and obviously need replacing asap. Would a bullseye crystal be an accurate and/or sympathetic option?
 

gmorse

NAWCC Member
Jan 7, 2011
14,559
3,680
113
Breamore, Hampshire, UK
Country
Region
Hi Piers,
Just one query...the crystal is missing and obviously need replacing asap. Would a bullseye crystal be an accurate and/or sympathetic option?
This raises the question of which part of the present watch should you try and match; is it the movement, the case or the dial? All three are from different periods, and since the case and dial affect the outward appearance, I'd say that a bulls-eye wouldn't be appropriate, (these were largely a 19th century affectation, fitted to 18th century watches), and a plain dome would look best. A bulls-eye would be like fitting beetle and poker hands to this dial, it would just look out of place.

Regards,

Graham
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

PJQL

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
1,492
81
48
Cornwall UK
Country
Region
Hi Piers,


This raises the question of which part of the present watch should you try and match; is it the movement, the case or the dial? All three are from different periods, and since the case and dial affect the outward appearance, I'd say that a bulls-eye wouldn't be appropriate, (these were largely a 19th century affectation, fitted to 18th century watches), and a plain dome would look best. A bulls-eye would be like fitting beetle and poker hands to this dial, it would just look out of place.

Regards,

Graham
Thanks Graham. You're right of course to ask that important question...what am I trying to match?
And since you have raised those latter observations, I will take your advice and seek out a domed replacement.
Meantime, I will take a photograph under the balance cock and see what's there.
Watch this space !
 

PJQL

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
1,492
81
48
Cornwall UK
Country
Region
Here is what's underneath the balance cock....doesn't seem to be anything unusual...except for the length of the bottom of the staff....which I suppose is the norm for these conversions.
20221005_121023.jpg
s

Piers.
 

gmorse

NAWCC Member
Jan 7, 2011
14,559
3,680
113
Breamore, Hampshire, UK
Country
Region
Hi Piers,

You can see the typical shape of the aperture, nearly squared on one side to clear the original escape wheel. The slide plate and regulator are an unusual but very robust design, probably as a result of the shape of that aperture.

Regards,

Graham
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJQL

Forum statistics

Threads
177,646
Messages
1,556,982
Members
53,636
Latest member
dad.watch
Encyclopedia Pages
909
Total wiki contributions
3,058
Last edit
Watch Inspectors by Kent