We are aware of the performance issues with the forum. These are due to problems with Comcast's shared lines in the Columbia, PA area. On December 15, we signed a contract to bring a dedicated fiber line to the forum servers. It should take somewhere between 30 and 90 days to install. Thank you for your patience.
I had some difficulty downloading the PDF pictures, but I think you may find that the name is YABSLEY.
It looks to be a decent fusee...not rare by any means but nice to have in working condition.
It looks like to needs a good clean though. I'd say it's not really a good idea to keep winding and running it until
it's been serviced at least.
It's not permitted to give values etc here, but there's a separate section to do this.
Piers is largely correct but we can estimate values. This is not a highly sought watch. The problem is the market for these is very thin. I doubt a dealer would pay $100 for it. Sometimes people will pay several hundred for a watch likes for one of several reasons:
1) They are ignorant and have enough to so on impulse
2) They have a connection to the maker or place of origin
Loomes has a J.B. Yabsley at Ludgate Hill working 1883-1930s, previously at Brighton? The date letter in the case is for 1880/1, so that matches well. The case maker is probably James Oliver at 6 King Square, Goswell Road, London, but the movement looks like a Coventry product.
I agree with Piers that it's in need of a good clean, and that it shouldn't be run much until that's been done. I'm not sure what's been done to the endstone setting in the balance cock table, I'd expect to see a jewel there but it appears to be a brass bush of some sort. The dial has suffered some chips and cracks, which although they can be remedied to some extent, can't be entirely hidden. None of the hands are original either. The staining on the top plate will be reduced by proper cleaning, but by this date the gold plating was done by electrolysis, producing a thinner coating, and wasn't as robust as the earlier mercury gilding process.
I'm afraid your opinion of its condition errs on the side of optimism and I'd guess that the silver case contributes most of the monetary value of the piece, which echoes Dr. Jon's estimate in post #3. I think the bent sewing pin securing the bow to the pendant is an inventive touch, but it doesn't say much for the standard of earlier repairs.
James Benjamin Yabsley was born in London in 1831. Worked in Brighton in the 1860s, then as a manager for J W Benson (62/64 Ludgate Hill), before establishing his own business in 1877, at 72 Ludgate Hill. Throughout his career he is variously listed as a jeweller, watch & clock maker and chronometer maker. Trade directories were used as a means of advertising and often listings exaggerated the scope of the work undertaken. However, he is listed as employing watch makers, so he probably was responsible for repairing and finishing watches. The firm continued after his death (~1900) into the 1930s.
In 1880 he is listed as a chronometer maker, clock and watch maker.
As Graham as said the movement of your watch has a distinctive look of 'made in Coventry'. In addition to the problem with the balance cap jewel, the movement would have originally been fitted with a dust cap, which is not shown in your photographs. Initially it was probably ordered as a movement and received already signed, then fitted with a London made case. The dial may also have been with the movement, also already signed, or it may have been made and fitted in London (Clerkenwell). Finally the completed watch would have checked and retailed by Yabsley.
London 1915 watchmakers ( ‡ - signifies also jeweller), no longer listed as a chronometer maker