Kullberg wind indicator

Discussion in 'European & Other Pocket Watches' started by Travler1, Nov 20, 2019.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    489C8FAE-FF8D-4938-8629-CCD365063E19.jpeg AA52AE98-33B8-4AC4-A8B3-E0926F2F0ADF.jpeg 34271FE4-C75F-40F0-A90B-D9F392A3340F.jpeg C4C20434-C354-48C2-AD44-55B9FCB9D824.jpeg

    Hi Graham.... appreciated thanks. I’d like to solicit your help with the below case. The earliest as per the awards on the back plate would be 1873 and we have a London S with the same date ? Also if you would please explain the 2 sets of initials . I’m assuming one set is the case maker ?

    In reference to your comments on English watchmaking circa 1900 and steep decline ....100% acknowledged. However, in my thoughts, they did produce some exceptional timekeepers 1900-1910 ....reading the Kew results, and the top 50 placements during those years....

    always the best, thanks again for your help ..John
     
    Omexa, pmwas and Keith R... like this.
  2. gmorse

    gmorse Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 7, 2011
    10,348
    1,096
    113
    Male
    Retired from Xerox
    Breamore, Hampshire, UK
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Hi John,

    As this is a different watch, I suggest that you ask a moderator to start it in a new thread for you, otherwise it could become confusing.

    'PW' in an oval cartouche is for Philip Woodman & Sons, first registered in March 1872, and 'JM' in an oval is probably for John Martin; that 's' on the Woodman doesn't look like the 1873/4 style, but more like the 1893/4 and I can't see a date letter on the Martin. What hallmarks are inside the front lid? All this suggests that one of the back lids has been replaced, possibly because of damage.

    So they did, at the top end of the trade as these watches were, especially the Bonniksen karrusels, but the bulk of the business wasn't in this tiny sector and that's what was declining.

    Regards,

    Graham
     
    Omexa likes this.
  3. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Hi Graham ....I haves PM’d Tom and asked for his assistance in separating this thread ....a replaced cover, that’s insightful. I’ll shoot additional photos and post ASAP ....the movement does have the Kullberg “quirky” winding and time set up .....where the crown spins with front cover closed but winds with cover open. The time is set by depressing the pin located at the 4:00 position on the crystal bezel ....not really sure if that feature,helps with a date of manufacture ....or how one pin can seemingly perform two separate tasks required of the crown, by opening the front cover, I could very well be wrong in my description of these mechanical properties. So I’ll have a butch when shooting photos next ...John
     
  4. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    PS to my last ...total agreement on your thoughts of the general demise of the industry while the top end seemed to pass away later ...however the best of the best we’re really something ! I consider the time trial movements, of that general time, to be akin to formula 1 racing.

    The S.Smith & Sons rotating escapements, the Bonniksen Karrusels, the Andrew Taylor annular tourbillon’s .....all were definitely race car stuff grabbing some pole position for the England side !!
     
  5. Dr. Jon

    Dr. Jon Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 14, 2001
    5,386
    183
    63
    Aerospace Engineer
    New Hampshire
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Keyless fusee watches such as this had a lock out to uncouple the crown so it would not turn in the pocket catching a thread and stopping. For hunting case watches like this Kullberg used this device and used on these watches for many years. The dating is best by case number.
    Replacement of a cover was the usual method of repair of damage or of removing an inscription.
     
    Keith R... likes this.
  6. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Hi Dr. John thank you for the input ...I was not aware that this movement was a fuse rather than a going barrel Unfortunately the case does not have a movement stamp. The movement number is marked 3193 the address is 105 Liverpool rd London ....I do not believe the rear or front lid have been replaced ...99% sure as the match is perfect for gold color and architecture ...they are perfect match front to back. The rear covers both snap hard when closing ...pictures might explain.

    Grant I have misled you on case markings .....the front cover is clearly stamped K&D the rear cover is stamped PW ....the dust cover is stamped JM ....on the dust cover at the bottom toward the hinges I found a micro stamp of a W or a V1 small small small ....hope this helps pictures soon come....John
     
  7. gmorse

    gmorse Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 7, 2011
    10,348
    1,096
    113
    Male
    Retired from Xerox
    Breamore, Hampshire, UK
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Hi John,

    The craftsmen who made these cases were certainly capable of creating perfect matches if a replacement part was ever required. Looking forward to seeing some pictures.

    'K&D' was the mark of Kendal & Dent, listed as gold and silver workers, but was not registered until 1921 at the earliest; the shape of the cartouche is, as always, significant. Whilst subsidiary parts such as pendants were commonly made by specialists and bought in by the principal case makers, hence bearing different hallmarks, this practice was not common for the major case parts, so to find different marks on the various lids does strongly suggest that some modification has been carried out.

    Regards,

    Graham
     
    Travler1 likes this.
  8. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    4F62E8D5-4CA3-4263-9797-5A345DF9DD6A.jpeg 494698E1-7111-43FD-B00F-5B99E35CAC37.jpeg 52D3F3E4-5711-469A-9ACB-EACCA89D62AA.jpeg 8164B5E5-4428-47FC-A1C0-7AA89485E38E.jpeg
    Hi Grant ....I would never argue with you on a replacement cover ! Only attempt to supply photos and info, the present 4 shots are all front cover. I consider the engraving to be 30-35% worn ....the bottom marks on case are very week strike ....I would guess 18 for one mark and lions head for the second. More photos to follow
     
  9. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Hello again ...4 shots of hinge detail ... 5FF94720-F842-438C-B653-9C4476C1A1E1.jpeg 1B9C9111-4A11-4A3B-9FEA-2CEEC340EBDC.jpeg 4388608A-BFA8-4C65-9DE8-348DBE787385.jpeg 07E76139-1312-44F8-BE0A-0C00F51BA752.jpeg the back cover appears to have much less of a hidden hinge?
     
  10. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    06D1C959-FC5B-4513-8B54-079FE9B2EECD.jpeg 1D85E595-2282-40A6-AF03-5E607435C605.jpeg C8F2281F-B3C5-42F2-8124-164A4252D43E.jpeg
    Marks inside back cover
     
  11. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Inside marks dust cover A3C87B74-3DC0-4EF3-9F3A-0230A9938918.jpeg F268D623-70E5-479A-978A-CB529759D5E1.jpeg The micro W mark I mentioned can be seen in the first photo ...above and left of watchmakers service (in green felt tip)
     
  12. Dr. Jon

    Dr. Jon Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 14, 2001
    5,386
    183
    63
    Aerospace Engineer
    New Hampshire
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Replacement may not have been what occurred. The may have had work done on the case but it was enough that the the parts had to be reassayed and as such marked with the sponsor mark.

    As Graham wrote, the goldsmiths then could have made a perfect match if they decided that making anew part was less effort than a modification or repair, but a major repair would have required re marking
     
    Travler1 likes this.
  13. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    481B3C96-70A3-442C-8E6F-BE984823846A.jpeg DED78222-DE14-42DC-8CA8-8D2000516C3A.jpeg 04D68485-3353-4E38-84DA-8F33DE476B05.jpeg Hope these help ....any chance of dating the movement via serial number ? Any Kulberg serial numbers available from viewers ? did they run true or play hopscotch ? Thanks to all for your help with this watch ...John
     
  14. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Graham .....apologies as I do know your name. Sometimes I post is a hurry or enjoy a certain type of dyslexia. Best alway with a special thanks as you have always been most helpful with my questions ....John
     
  15. gmorse

    gmorse Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 7, 2011
    10,348
    1,096
    113
    Male
    Retired from Xerox
    Breamore, Hampshire, UK
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Hi John,

    Those two marks together would usually be a crown and the 18 for gold.

    The third picture in your post #10 shows very clearly that the date letter is for 1893/4; all the other 's' marks are in very different fonts.

    Regards,

    Graham
     
    Omexa likes this.
  16. John Matthews

    John Matthews Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Sep 22, 2015
    1,977
    786
    113
    Retired Systems Architect
    France
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Graham is definitely correct - you need to check gold hallmarks in Jackson not Bradbury. While the date letters are the same for both gold and silver, the shape of the cartouche differs. For silver the cartouche is a shield with a pointed base (as shown in Bradbury), for gold it is a square with cut corners, as the stamp in the photograph that Graham refers to.

    John
     
  17. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    John ....Graham,

    Please don’t consider me argumentative as I have utmost respect for the both of you and your generous sharing of knowledge ....However I’m having a problem with ascribing an 1890-1900 date on this watch.

    I would very much appreciate your further comments once I lay out my research. The earliest serial number I captured in my notes is. #2075 1872 JM , # 2875 1875. JM. # 3262 1877 JM #3282 1876 JM # 3415 1877 JM # 3453 1879 JM ...those are the JM case maker watches I found record of

    Moving on I found #4323 - 5048 ( 6 watches date stamped 1886-1888) next I found. #6063 - 6288 ( 4 watches date stamped 1894 - 1899 )
    I found #6474 date stamped 1905. # 7143 date stamped 1910

    Enclosed are photos of one of the watch’s I found
    43FF2064-2660-4D47-B5E4-597FEAE0CACA.png B7492B16-65C6-4E90-B314-F0DFB2FF2DCA.png Seems to me my watch dates to around 1878 via serial numbers ...am I tripping :???:
     
  18. Dr. Jon

    Dr. Jon Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 14, 2001
    5,386
    183
    63
    Aerospace Engineer
    New Hampshire
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #18 Dr. Jon, Nov 21, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
    The Kullberg records are at the Guildhall Library in London and some who look at this board have a copy of them.

    The Vaudrey Mercer book on the Frodshams has a short table to Kullberg watches sold by Charles Frodsham.

    Frodsham sold Kullberg #3881 in 1880 and #2021 in 1871 which bracket your watch. This supports but does not prove an earlier date. Keyless fusee watches with up down indication were top of the line items and may have stayed in inventory for years before being sold.

    I have an extract of fifteen numbers in the 2300 range with sale dates from 1872 to 1876.

    You can get a copy of the actual records of your watch from David Penney for a modest fee. If has it, it will tell when the was sold,who did the various specialty work and when
     
  19. gmorse

    gmorse Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 7, 2011
    10,348
    1,096
    113
    Male
    Retired from Xerox
    Breamore, Hampshire, UK
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Hi John,

    As Dr. Jon suggests, serial numbers aren't necessarily a reliable guide to the date of a movement, especially in the case of high end examples. When a watch was made by one company and sold by another, (as was almost always the case), there can be some doubt as to whose serial number is on there. Jonathan Betts has commented on this subject:

    "Finally a point that needs to be emphasised when interpreting these series, and the series of many other watch and chronometer makers, is that the numbering was rarely perfectly chronological. Numbers were applied at the outset of an instrument's life, and by its completion, possibly two or three years later, its place in the series could be considerably adrift. We should also remember that serial numbers are not always what they seem. Parts of a number, sometimes the first digit(s) but possibly sometimes the last digit(s), can represent a category rather than part of a numerical sequence and creating a 'number against date' list is often too simplistic an analysis."

    However, what really needs to be established here, if any meaningful dating is to be arrived at, is which set of hallmarks, if any, are those on the original case, because we appear to have three at the moment, only one of which is reliably dated.

    Regards,

    Graham
     
  20. John Matthews

    John Matthews Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Sep 22, 2015
    1,977
    786
    113
    Retired Systems Architect
    France
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #20 John Matthews, Nov 22, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
    John,

    There is a difference between the dates derived from a case and that of the movement - cases as well as movements can record work being undertaken across many decades - which is the situation here ...

    My summary - spelling out what Graham means by ...

    All we can say with certainty from the photographs that you have posted is that the dome (dust cover) carries the maker's mark (JM) in an oval cartouche and no date letter. The back carries a different set of initials (PW) again in an oval cartouche. To reliably assign a name to a maker's mark you MUST have a full set of genuine hallmarks. In this case you do appear to have such and both Graham & I believe those marks to be for London 18K gold cases assayed in the assay year 1893/94. Given that information we can, with a degree of certainty, say that (PW) is the mark of Philip Woodman & Sons who continued in business until at least 1907, even after Philip's son John died in 1903. With less certainty, it is possible that (JM) could be the mark of John Martin who registered marks in 1866 and 1875.

    The front cover has the mark (K&D) a mark which again we have to try and assign in the absence of a full set of hallmarks. However, this mark is not recorded in Culme who records the London goldsmith marks up to 1914. It is recorded in Priestley, who records marks up to 1970. We can therefore be fairly certain that this element of the case is the latest - the mark is that of Kendal & Dent, I believe their earliest registered 18 May, 1921.

    So to conclude in my (our) opinion you have a Kullberg movement in a case that has elements made at three different times and only one can be reliably dated.

    John

    Edit - here is a link to David's services mentioned by Jon ...

    The horological index - David Penney's Antique Watch Store
     
    Travler1 and gmorse like this.
  21. gmorse

    gmorse Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 7, 2011
    10,348
    1,096
    113
    Male
    Retired from Xerox
    Breamore, Hampshire, UK
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Hi John,

    I think this image is revealing:

    4388608A-BFA8-4C65-9DE8-348DBE787385_edit.jpg

    It shows that the plugs in both the visible joints are a different colour from the covers and the band and are not a very close fit. Since these plugs would have been perfectly colour matched and practically invisible as originally made, this strongly suggests that both covers have been removed and replaced at some point, and as all the plugs are a very similar colour, possibly by the same case maker. These plugs are destroyed in order to remove them, so that the joint pin can be pushed out and the cover taken off; once removed, new ones must be made.

    It's also apparent that the left-hand cover, (the front), in this picture is very slightly larger than that on the right, that its raised rings are slightly more prominent and that its fit with the band is not as tight.

    Regards,

    Graham
     
  22. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Thank you Dr Jon, Graham & John,

    In my thoughts all three of you are correct ...Graham started with, I think you have a cover replaced, Dr John then said covers aren’t the best for dating a movements build/ the lid might have been repaired/restamped and John M sums up the present debacle of three makers mark !!! What a journey this watch must have gone through ....

    Case markings in my thoughts are an aid used to determine age of the watch ....I asked for hallmark assistance and I have received it !! Thank you guys.
    You have been very detailed with you responses ....Graham ....I 100% agree with you , As a result of your thoughts I see the case lid changes that you suggested and then later pointed out via photos

    Emmm where to go ? I’m thinking that the JM makers mark on the cuvette is a correct mark for the watch and an original cover to the watch. As born out by the serial number on the movement and the fact that 6 watches in my survey, hovering around 1872-1879, were date stamped with JM ....my serial number falling in the midst of those watches ....obviously the front cover was seriously repaired/re stamped or replaced .....as K&D is a non player and obviously much later than the JM dust cover and serial number info. The PW mark is a tad more difficult to understand on the rear cover ....I assume it was replaced/repaired also ....as u can’t have 2 case makers? Or can you ? Seems like I do !!!

    That’s it for me ....I’m done ....I’m satisfied with this blast into the past ...I thank you all for your time and assistance with the watch....John
     
  23. tick talk

    tick talk Registered User

    Sep 16, 2008
    543
    44
    28
    Country Flag:
    Kullberg watch 3193 slots into the range of 3124 to 3409, produced in 1875 according to Mercer's Chronometer Makers of the World, pg 184.
     
  24. Travler1

    Travler1 Registered User
    NAWCC Member

    Dec 26, 2012
    108
    29
    28
    florida
    Thank you Tick Talk ....much appreciated
     

Share This Page