Novice trying to buy a pocket watch for my father (collector)

[Darx]

Hi all,

I’ve been looking for a pocket watch to gift my father for a few months now and was trying to find one that’s solid gold and nice design that’s unlike his current collection.

I came across one recently and I believe it’s not American but let me know if I’m mistaken. I am being told by the seller it’s solid gold as well.

Any confirmation the watch is solid 18K gold and European would be appreciated.

The watch is estimated to be approximately 150 years old with credentials to support. It seems to be in excellent condition for its age.

See attached photos.

 

[MrRoundel]

I don't recognize the case maker as being American. And the movement itself is marked with Geneva, so it is indeed Swiss. In addition, the style of the "18" hallmark is also in the Swiss style. So IMHO, it is 100% Swiss. The marking does say "18" in a style of shield which should be 18K, and it probably is, but I don't know for 100% certain. Maybe one our Swiss experts can give you something more definitive on the gold content and case maker. The only think I am 100% certain about is that the movement is Swiss. Good luck. Cheers.

 

[Darx]

I don't recognize the case maker as being American. And the movement itself is marked with Geneva, so it is indeed Swiss. In addition, the style of the "18" hallmark is also in the Swiss style. So IMHO, it is 100% Swiss. The marking does say "18" in a style of shield which should be 18K, and it probably is, but I don't know for 100% certain. Maybe on our Swiss experts can give you something more definitive on the gold content and case maker. The only think I am 100% certain about is that the movement is Swiss. Good luck. Cheers.

I believe it is Swiss import and the original case maker was Aikin, Lambert & Co of New York (who was more known for their fountain pens) based on some research.

I should have noted that in my first post.

 

[MrRoundel]

You may well be correct on Aikin, Lambert, & Co. selling the watch. I did a little research into the company and it seemed that while they also sold jewelry, they predominantly sold fountain pens. My guess is that they had a customer who wanted a nice gold pocket watch and A.L.&Co. had one put together and sold with their name on the case. Casemaking was such a specialty that I just have doubts that A.L.& Co. actually made the case. Sold it, yes. JMHO.

I'm still hoping that someone else comes along with something more definitive for you. It's certainly a fine watch. Cheers.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I’ve been looking for a pocket watch to gift my father for a few months now and was trying to find one that’s solid gold and nice design that’s unlike his current collection.

This looks like a relatively good quality watch with a lovely case and very nice engraving. The case looks to be in very nice condition. Because Swiss watches of this age can be difficult to repair if they have any serious problems you will want to be assured that it is in good working condition.

Also, you do not indicate the size of the watch. It looks like it may have been a ladies' watch when it was made. That may not be a problem for your father ... many collectors appreciate the beauty and quality of a watch regardless of size, but it may be a consideration. I know that several of us here will wear a larger ladies watch at times. If it is 1-3/4" or larger (~45 mm) it is likely to be a man's watch. If it is smaller than that it may have been intended as a woman's watch.

 

[mosesgodfrey]

AL&Co were the Paul Breton brand importers for many years, as you may have seen. I believe they had case making operations for a time, but this strikes me as Swiss made from before modern hallmarks (came c1880). Charles Hormann made some of the movements—perhaps this one. Searching the forum will generate some info on him. Here’s an 1878 ad. Key wind ads into 1880s. Several Bretons—adjusted by Heinrich—trialed at Yale, but I think yours is long before.

Edit: a quick search shows Aiken & Lambert taking over the Paul Breton agency from Stewart & Huffman in late 1870. So there’s a backstop for earliest date.

I personally do not doubt the metal is 18k or very close. AL&Co was a reputable firm. I think it’s a great watch and fine gift.

 

[Darx]

This looks like a relatively good quality watch with a lovely case and very nice engraving. The case looks to be in very nice condition. Because Swiss watches of this age can be difficult to repair if they have any serious problems you will want to be assured that it is in good working condition.

Also, you do not indicate the size of the watch. It looks like it may have been a ladies' watch when it was made. That may not be a problem for your father ... many collectors appreciate the beauty and quality of a watch regardless of size, but it may be a consideration. I know that several of us here will wear a larger ladies watch at times. If it is 1-3/4" or larger (~45 mm) it is likely to be a man's watch. If it is smaller than that it may have been intended as a woman's watch.

The watch case measurement is 41mm so I would agree it was likely a women’s watch originally. I do not believe my father will care if it was a women’s watch originally. He has enough of the generic men watch’s already and I thought the detail on and condition of the watch was great based on comparable watches I’ve been watching for the last 5-6 months.

 

[Darx]

AL&Co were the Paul Breton brand importers for many years, as you may have seen. I believe they had case making operations for a time, but this strikes me as Swiss made from before modern hallmarks (came c1880). Charles Hormann made some of the movements—perhaps this one. Searching the forum will generate some info on him. Here’s an 1878 ad. Key wind ads into 1880s. Several Bretons—adjusted by Heinrich—trialed at Yale, but I think yours is long before.

Edit: a quick search shows Aiken & Lambert taking over the Paul Breton agency from Stewart & Huffman in late 1870. So there’s a backstop for earliest date.

I personally do not doubt the metal is 18k or very close. AL&Co was a reputable firm. I think it’s a great watch and fine gift.

View attachment 764587

The seller noted the watch was made in 1874 (best guess based on documentation in the case) so your dates appear to line up.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Darx,

Nobody has remarked on the contrast between the 'AL&Co' in a cartouche on the inside of the back lid, (clearly a single punch), and that on the inside of the front lid which is quite crudely engraved, not made with the same punch as might be expected.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Darx]

Hi Darx,

Nobody has remarked on the contrast between the 'AL&Co' in a cartouche on the inside of the back lid, (clearly a single punch), and that on the inside of the front lid which is quite crudely engraved, not made with the same punch as might be expected.

Regards,

Graham

When I was looking around for watches made by AL&Co I came across two others with similar engravings. One was sterling silver and the other was gold. I thought it was uncommon as well to have different logo stamps but after seeing two others with similar stamps, I got over it.

 

[Darx]

I don't recognize the case maker as being American. And the movement itself is marked with Geneva, so it is indeed Swiss. In addition, the style of the "18" hallmark is also in the Swiss style. So IMHO, it is 100% Swiss. The marking does say "18" in a style of shield which should be 18K, and it probably is, but I don't know for 100% certain. Maybe one our Swiss experts can give you something more definitive on the gold content and case maker. The only think I am 100% certain about is that the movement is Swiss. Good luck. Cheers.

I have another picture where it appears there is an area where the gold is rubbed off. Any thoughts if this case is merely gold filled?

 

[MrRoundel]

That's interesting. It doesn't look like a discoloration, but rather, as you mentioned, a possible wear-through to the base metal/brass. If it won't polish off by hand with a chamois or microfiber cloth, I'd consider passing on the watch. Hallmarks that say "18", without a "K" or decimal purity, like .585 or .750, can be suspect. There were some strange goings on in the case marking realm back then.

IMO, if you really want to buy your dad a gold watch, and are going to be paying 14K/18K prices for them, you might want more certainty. Uncertainty about such things will effect the price when anyone else goes to sell it. There are questions.

The plot is thickening, and the gold may be thinning. It may be more of a crap-shoot than many would like to roll Good luck.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I think what you are seeing is the solder that bonds the thin fingernail tab to the back lid.

 

[Darx]

I think what you are seeing is the solder that bonds the thin fingernail tab to the back lid.

I’ve never seen this on any of the solid gold watches I’ve seen in person before. Not saying you are wrong. I’d love to get my hands on the watch and get a jeweler to test the gold.

 

[mosesgodfrey]

Or ask them to provide 3rd party testing. Seems a fair ask imo

 

[John Matthews]

I do not believe the case is 18K gold - in fact I am not convinced that it is solid gold. The combination of '18' & the crown was introduced as a hallmark for English gold in 1798 during the reign of George III. This is the mark on a genuine gold case from London 1846.

The design of the crown on the 'Aiken/ Lambert' case is not of a design that I have seen used in genuine English hallmarks, but it is of a design I have seen on faux gold marks on cases housing English movements that are found in America. This makes me favour the possibility that the mark was added in America to a case of unknown gold content.

My knowledge of Swiss marks is limited, but my understanding is that from 1880 the mark for 18K gold was so

The head of Helvetia being the recognised mark. I am not aware of a crown being a part of an official Swiss mark.

John

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I am afraid we may be overthinking this. I have seen a mark like this on many early American gold cases and do not think this simple mark is intended as a faux hallmark. It just indicates the gold purity. A crown was sometimes used by Philadelphia case makers (and perhaps others). Here is the mark in a case I have, with a Waltham movement from 1865, that I am fairly confident is 18K. I have tentatively associated the mark with Philip Schmidt in Philadelphia.

 

[John Matthews]

Jerry

I did not say that is was a faux mark - I said that the crown was of a design that I had seen on American cases carrying faux marks. I concluded ...

This makes me favour the possibility that the mark was added in America to a case of unknown gold content.

It may be 18K solid gold, close examination and testing would be needed to confirm

John

 

[MrRoundel]

Here's a link to a rather fine chronograph by Paul Breton. What I can see of the trademark under the front cover, it looks like that same diamond shape as is on the OP's prospective gift watch. The case looks like another very nicely made case and is certainly quite heavy at ~155 grams.

At this point I'd be less afraid of overpaying for the watch here, but with the understanding that one might have some "splainin'", or testing, to do if they themselves ever wanted top dollar for the watch in the future. This thread shows the type of confusion that surrounds uncertain, at least as to gold content, case marks.

In doing additional searching around the web, I am surprised that I hadn't seen A.L.&Co. markings before. At least I don't recall seeing the mark. Cheers.

Oh, link.

 

[mosesgodfrey]

Yes, that was a particularly nice one, and Hagan’s Tempered Spring is a qualifier I've not seen before

 

[Dr. Jon]

The 18K mark is either Swiss or American and has no legal significance. The Swiss had a hallmarking system that was reliable when used but it was optional and not appled to this watch if it was cased there.

The US had no hallmarking system and the marks were significant only to teh extent of teh reputation of the seller.

A&I seems to have run a solid and reputable business. I have seen a lot of watches liek this and they have always been solid gold althoug hthey are likely to be a bit under 18K purity. US gold was allowed 1/2 K underage and almost all US makers were under.

Testing would in my view be a waste of time and money, Unless you are willing to significantly deface the case with a deep file cut, the test will only test the surface.

It is almost certainly solid gold although it is also probably a bit under the marked purity.

 

[John Matthews]

Jon

Surely the point is that unless any gold item has been tested and hallmarked, you cannot be certain as to the gold content. There is also a requirement that at the time of testing and hallmarking, the integrity of the process is sound. There may have been times when this may not have been so, but for me the jury is still out.

As you say, the significance of a mark made outwith of a sound regulated hallmarking system, depends upon trusting whoever made the mark. I have also seen many cases with similar marks and because my focus is on English watches, many have been used to impersonate English hallmarks. This does not mean that the cases were of a lower fineness than the impersonated mark was attempting to indicate, but without testing it is impossible to know the composition of the case. In these examples there was clearly an attempt to deceive.

It is entirely up to the owner of a gold object that is not hallmarked, whether testing is performed. The testing necessary to establish that an object is solid gold and to determine its fineness is very expensive, can rarely be justified, and is certainly not something I would advocate.

John

 

[Darx]

The 18K mark is either Swiss or American and has no legal significance. The Swiss had a hallmarking system that was reliable when used but it was optional and not appled to this watch if it was cased there.

The US had no hallmarking system and the marks were significant only to teh extent of teh reputation of the seller.

A&I seems to have run a solid and reputable business. I have seen a lot of watches liek this and they have always been solid gold althoug hthey are likely to be a bit under 18K purity. US gold was allowed 1/2 K underage and almost all US makers were under.

Testing would in my view be a waste of time and money, Unless you are willing to significantly deface the case with a deep file cut, the test will only test the surface.

It is almost certainly solid gold although it is also probably a bit under the marked purity.

The seller had the watch tested at my request and I spoke directly with the jeweler as he was testing it. The seller also let me choose the local jeweler for the testing.

The person I spoke with confirmed it is 18K solid gold although it is under slightly under karat which he noted is common for antique watches. The readings were 17.3 to 17.6 as he tested 4 of the surfaces/plates. He used a handheld XRF gun for the testing.

I also asked about the metallic color I was seeing and he confirmed it was solder as he could see the seam under magnification. He did say it appears to be stainless steel solder and wondered why they didn’t use gold solder. Afterwards, he rechecked the back cover a second time to reconfirm the solid gold reading and tried to test the spot in question, but it was too small to for his tool to differentiate.

While I will still get it tested myself if I purchase, the jeweler said he was confident the watch is solid gold and the denoted 18K was accurate given back then they didn’t have the modern tools we have today. He said a lot of the antique 14K watches are actually closer to 13K than 14K.

 

[Darx]

I think what you are seeing is the solder that bonds the thin fingernail tab to the back lid.

You were correct. Local jeweler who tested the gold content of the watch confirmed that is solder and he could see the seam under magnification. Kudos to you sir!

 

[John Matthews]

This is not meant to be a reflection on the integrity of the results by the jeweller, but you should be aware that although the results obtained from handheld devices can be exceedingly accurate, the accuracy is dependent upon many variables. These include the specification & age of the gun and whether it has been recently calibrated. The penetration of some guns can be as less than 100 microns. Worth researching, if ever in the situation where the gold content of an object is of critical importance. Here's a starter - technology will have changed since 2014, but not the science.

John

 

[Dr. Jon]

Very impressive. I was not aware that XRF is now available at the consumer level.

When I referred to gold testing was not aware of the posisblity of XRF (X ray Fluorescence) tesitng which if you will pardon the usage should be the "Gold Standard". It can go deep and it it does not leave any damage.

The other methods, scratch, filing, and conductivity literally just scratch the surface. Dishonest people have long been able to circumvent these.

I have a friend who scrapped a hallmarked English 18K case and had the refiner come back to him after it came up short in the melt. Seems the case maker knew when the samples woudl be taken and put proper gold there and only there.

 

[Darx]

This is not meant to be a reflection on the integrity of the results by the jeweller, but you should be aware that although the results obtained from handheld devices can be exceedingly accurate, the accuracy is dependent upon many variables. These include the specification & age of the gun and whether it has been recently calibrated. The penetration of some guns can be as less than 100 microns. Worth researching, if ever in the situation where the gold content of an object is of critical importance. Here's a starter - technology will have changed since 2014, but not the science.

John

My understanding is XRF is one of the most accurate ways to test gold (especially for non-damage methods) absent melting it down. This is why I called around until I found a reputable jeweler with high ratings who had an XRF testing device in the area. I do understand nearly all tests have some room for error though.

It sounds like you are convinced the watch is not gold or have strong reservations at a minimum. How would you suggest confirming the watch is solid gold absent damaging the piece?

I’m fine passing on the watch. I just liked the entire design was made by hand so the slight asymmetry of the piece is kind of endearing to me give everything is machine made these days.

 

[John Matthews]

I said that my comments were not directed specifically at the testing performed by your jeweller. I simply wished to record that for any testing you need to understand the specifics about the equipment used and the procedures followed.

The decision to purchase a watch is personal. A decision to add to your own collection can be difficult unless you have established a set of consistent criteria and few of us have. Purchasing for another person, particularly a fellow collector can be even more difficult. However, the decision to purchase would normally be based upon all aspects of the item of interest, unless there is a single outstanding characteristic that has particular appeal. Personally, the precious metal content of a watch case has little influence on my decision process. While I would expect to have to pay more for a watch cased in an 18K hallmarked case, rather than one in a silver case, the decision to buy would be based on the complete watch. The quality of the workmanship and the design of the movement and case, are far more important to me than the precious metal content.

The watch case may be 18K or close to it. You have had it testing, which most purchasers would not. I have indicated some potential limitations in the method of testing and how these can be avoided. As far as the case is concerned, I would say that you have all the information to make your decision and no further testing is necessary.

John