Joseph Johnson movement

[SLDunlap3612]

Hey all! Years ago, I picked up a pocket watch movement from a little resale shop, only because I didn't want to see something this pretty get sacrificed for an arts and crafts project. I wanted to ask about the feasibility of putting it with a case and dial, etc. to make it viable again. I know that it's impossible to say definitively without examining the movement, but to my untrained eye, it looks like it might be intact. Before schlepping it to a shop, I wanted to know if anyone else has ever successfully done this, and if they would do it again. Either way, it's beautiful to me!

It is marked, Jos. Johnson, 25 Church Street, Liverpool. I've read several entries about the maker and address, which is why I wanted to put my restoration question out to the NAWCC web-o-sphere. Thanks!!!!

 

[gmorse]

Hi SL,

If you can post some clear pictures of your movement, we'll be in a better position to advise you.

If you've read some of the recent posts on this maker, you'll know that English watches of this period were largely hand made, that replacement parts may be made to fit if you're lucky but can involve long searches, and also that, unfortunately, this maker's work was a target for fakers.

Regards,

Graham

 

[SLDunlap3612]

Here is the back and front of the movement--thanks for your help!!

 

[gmorse]

Hi SL,

Good clear pictures, thanks. Our Johnson specialists will be along to comment I'm sure, but it looks like the real thing to me.

The movement is certainly quite dirty, no sign of a hairspring, it looks as though the fourth wheel arbor for the seconds hand is bent, and there are a few broken screws. Most likely courtesy of the case scrappers. Unfortunately the brass edge is obscuring most of the marks on the pillar plate, although it looks like the number "16" is there, and there could be a frame maker's mark under there.

I see that there's a balance brake, which is quite common in these watches. The escapement is a lever by the way, and there's maintaining power on the fusee.

To be realistic, although it would be possible to restore this, it would be an expensive undertaking, and probably cost a lot more than the commercial value of the movement. However, it would be an interesting long-term project.

Regards,

Graham

 

[SLDunlap3612]

Thanks, Graham, I really appreciate your input! I figured this would probably be a lost cause, but I love the beauty and history of it nonetheless. I'm always ready to learn more in this Mimi passion of mine!

 

[novicetimekeeper]

Hi SL,

Good clear pictures, thanks. Our Johnson specialists will be along to comment I'm sure, but it looks like the real thing to me.

The movement is certainly quite dirty, no sign of a hairspring, it looks as though the fourth wheel arbor for the seconds hand is bent, and there are a few broken screws. Most likely courtesy of the case scrappers. Unfortunately the brass edge is obscuring most of the marks on the pillar plate, although it looks like the number "16" is there, and there could be a frame maker's mark under there.

I see that there's a balance brake, which is quite common in these watches. The escapement is a lever by the way, and there's maintaining power on the fusee.

To be realistic, although it would be possible to restore this, it would be an expensive undertaking, and probably cost a lot more than the commercial value of the movement. However, it would be an interesting long-term project.

Regards,

Graham

I'm slowly learning, I can see the balance brake, but how do I identify maintaining power on the fuse?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Nick,

Good question; if you look on the top plate between the "Johnson" and the "25", there's the top of an arbor showing. That's the top pivot of the maintaining power click. Nothing else would be fitted there.

Regards,

Graham

 

[gmorse]

Hi SL,

I've just found something intriguing; one of our "Johnson specialists" here is compiling a list of Johnson watches from various sources, and included in his first draft listing is a watch with your serial number, but different characteristics. The balance is shown as cut compensated, but yours is plain gold, and that watch also has a window in the balance cock table.

He goes under the name of Lychnobius here, (real name Oliver Mundy), and I'm sure he will be interested to see this watch. Now, it's a work in progress, so everything is subject to review, but let's see what he says about this.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Lychnobius]

This is most curious! My thanks to Graham for pointing out the anomaly.

I cannot post an image of the other 30747 here, since I do not own the movement in question and the picture comes under somebody else's copyright, but (as Graham says) it is very similar in layout to SLDunlap's example: a 'Liverpool runner' (that is to say one in which, when viewed from the back, the sequence of train-wheels runs anti-clockwise rather than clockwise from lever to fourth wheel), with outboard set-up gear, five large jewels and a narrow cock in which the table is no wider than the foot; the only differences are that, as Graham has said, the database specimen has a compensated balance (with three-dimensional decoration rather than line-engraving) and an extra set of jewels on the centre wheel. The problem is that both examples look perfectly genuine to me. Fakes often betray themselves by the coarseness of the lettering, but here the style and arrangement of the lettering is identical and, in both cases, well executed. I have got no reason for casting doubt on SLDunlap's movement*, but equally I have no grounds for questioning the other one. Either the factory made a slip and used the same number twice, or else some of the early Johnson-fakers were working to as high a standard as the original!

The other 30747 is marked 'Railway Timekeeper' and is therefore unlikely to be much earlier than 1850. I should imagine that this one is of similar date. At any rate the countersunk head of the cock screw suggests a date before about 1860, since after this the screw-head usually protrudes.

*Johnson movements normally have diamond endstones, whereas here the endstone seems to be a small sapphire. However, the original could well have been replaced at some time.

Oliver Mundy.

 

[PapaLouies]

Hi Nick,

Good question; if you look on the top plate between the "Johnson" and the "25", there's the top of an arbor showing. That's the top pivot of the maintaining power click. Nothing else would be fitted there.

Regards,

Graham

Hi Graham,

I think you have described the end of a screw that attaches a spring to the under side of the top plate. The very small pivot close to the edge of the index is the click in question.

Regards,

PL

 

[PapaLouies]

Hi Oliver,

Could you contact MartyR and have him change Josh Johnson #4629 to #4529 in your posted list of Johnson movements?

Regards,

PL

 

[gmorse]

Hi PL,

Thanks, I believe you're right!

Regards,

Graham

 

[Keith R...]

Some field thoughts. Would there have been separate serial numbers for domestic
Johnson's verses those for export outside of the UK? Also, there were Josh Johnson's
directly made by Joseph up to March 1827, then by his wife at 25 Church Street
thereafter, (I think the sn# break should come from Oliver and PL). Also, Joseph
Johnson junior had his business residence at 87 Brownlow Hill also producing Johnson's
beginning in 1848.

I often have to remind myself that I have seen very few domestic Joseph Johnsons in
English hallmarked cases. I thought perhaps a duplicated number might mean one for
domestic and a like for export. Or as Oliver said, just a factory slip. Note, US movements
one might see differences like split compensated balance wheels for timing accuracy, the
US likes for large Liverpool windows and trains fully jeweled.

My thoughts, Keith.

 

[SLDunlap3612]

This is all so interesting--thanks!!

 

[SLDunlap3612]

Thank you so much for this really cool info--I can't wait to see what insights others may offer. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

 

[Lychnobius]

'Could you contact MartyR and have him change Josh Johnson #4629 to #4529 in your posted list of Johnson movements?' (PapaLouies)

PL, please forgive the delay in replying.

This is not such a simple matter, since the document I uploaded was in PDF format and thus neither Martin nor I can alter its contents. (I used this format so that the column showing the movement inscriptions, in which it is important to retain the exact typefaces I have used, would be displayed correctly.) Since uploading that version I have had persistent difficulties with the software in which I typed the original document (Open Office); first it decided it would no longer export to PDF without distorting the format, and now it will not print. I am therefore having to re-type the whole thing in a different program (of course incorporating corrections and additions as I go); hence the delay in producing a further version. As soon as I am able I shall post a revision, either in the main Joseph Johnson thread or as a new topic. Please be patient.

Oliver Mundy.

 

[Keith R...]

I will post this one on here so others can be aware. Here is a Josh Johnson
believed to be a fake. I wanted it for study as I got it for .99 plus shipping.

Keith

PS, Note the signature, lack of a 25 Church street address and the cock foot.
Probably 17j though and balance swings free. Also, with split compensated
balance wheel would put it in the 1860's IMHO. Even Liverpool is in block
script.