Please post your English Case Maker's 'Subsidiary' Marks here

[John Matthews]

I have started this as a result of a question asked here as I think it is worthy of a separate thread which will provide a place where these 'subsidiary' marks can be recorded. I have reproduced my initial response below.

First, some introductory notes regarding maker's marks.

Formerly known as the mark or sign of the worker, possibly originating from medieval times as the sign, not containing letters, displayed on the outside of a workshop. Signs, accompanied by letters were still in use into the middle of the C19th. The use solely of an emblem had virtually ceased by the Restoration (1660). In The Touchstone of Gold & Silver Wares (1677) 'in the lead are struck the worker's marks, generally the first letters of their christian and sirnames' . Those marks to be visible on all gold and silver work or every part made separate and subsequently assembled.

In 1697 the initials used were changed to be the first two letters of the surname on the introduction of the Britannia standard for silver. This practice for silver was in place until the Wrought Plate Act of 1720.

The mark must be present before the wares are sent for assay and must match the mark previously approved. The size of the hallmarks will vary according to the size of the item and may differ in size to that of the marker's mark.

By 1784 Act 23&24 Geo.III c.23 (Ireland) the maker's mark for gold wares to be the 22 or 20 or 18, according to the fineness, followed by first letters of christian name and surname. There are a number of examples in Priestley (2018 p.123) - he shows examples with the initials followed 18 or 22.

The term 'mark of the worker or maker' exists in the legislation prior to, and including, the Birmingham and Sheffield Act of 1773 (s.4), but s.8 includes maker's or owner's mark. The Gold & Silver Wares Act of 1844, includes 'Every dealer in gold or silver wares who shall enter his private mark ... ' and defines dealer 'every goldsmith and silversmith and every worker, maker and manufacturer of and trader and dealer in gold and silver wares'. This extension of those who could send items for assay was a consequences of the Custom's Act of 1842 where it was implicit in that Act that importers of gold an silver items could do so. Today the term used is sponsor's mark - but note this was only introduced in 1999.

These notes taken from De Castro 'The Law and Practice of Hall-marking Gold & Silver Wares (1935)

Sometimes a minute subsidiary mark, e.g., a cross, a star is observable besides the maker's mark; it is probably a workshop-mark used to trace the work to an actual craftsman where many hands are employed.​

​

... when the wares have been returned to the maker the function of the maker's mark is not at an end, and the maker is not free to obliterate his marks during, or after 'finishing'. Should anyone entertain doubt on this point, let him consult the Jeweller, Watchmaker, Silversmith & Optician of 1916, at p.1301, where a maker to avoid a threatened prosecution for this offense, was constrained to print an apology to the Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate in Birmingham, and to pay a substantial sum by way of legal costs. Nor is the maker at liberty to stamp over his own mark the mark of a retail customer who requires a single item only, when more convenient to supply it from stock.​

​

A few makers go perilously near obliterating a set of marks in the 'finishing' with the object seemingly of giving an appearance of age.​

I included these quotes because it illustrates that these mark exist on general silver and gold wares. Unless the provenance of such marks can be identified, I don't think we should describe them in terms that identify a particular activity - so I have taken up the term used by De Castro and refer to them as subsidiary marks. The second and third part of the quote describe features that are seen on watch cases.

I have no reference to a study of these subsidiary marks. Here's a small selection

It is worth remembering that case making, like movement making, could be broken down into a series of discrete tasks and these tasks could be performed by different individuals 'managed' by the 'case maker' who submitted the case for assay. Some, but I suspect not all, allowed those individual makers to make a mark on the case. Some of these marks may have been that of a 'journeyman' working under a master case maker and the latter's contribution may have been no more than adding his stamp prior to dispatching the case for assay.

If you look up Vale & Rotherham in the Birmingham section of Priestley you will find he lists a number of slightly later examples with two sets of initials e.g.

I suspect these subsidiary marks were those of the actual case maker who was either working exclusively for V&R as an outworker, or was in their direct employ.

John

 

[SKennedy]

I have started this as a result of a question asked here as I think it is worthy of a separate thread which will provide a place where these 'subsidiary' marks can be recorded.....
View attachment 748803

I suspect these subsidiary marks were those of the actual case maker who was either working exclusively for V&R as an outworker, or was in their direct employ.
John

Ah, case on the left from when I was doing my apprenticeship under old Mr Rotherham back in the 1820s....Happy days.

;-)

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

John, I have plenty of these, I think you would have seen this one before, it was made by the Vale & Rotherham firm, Coventry, and hallmarked in Birmingham. It was one of the R&V watches serviced in 1814 by Osborn & Wright, New York. (Alex. Hollinson, Liverpool) I notice you do not mention the Springer many of these marks could well be made by him or her. Sorry about the photographs, but I did not want to take them out of their cases.



If you would like more please say so, and if I missed something too.

Allan.

 

[John Matthews]

I have included this example from the British Museum collection to illustrate that these small subsidiary characters and initials are not always what they first appear to be.

The silver box carries the London date letter for 1772/73, a very worn maker's mark and what appears, from cursory inspection, to be a subsidiary mark beneath. It will be seen that the winding hole cuts through the date letter and as far as can be seen, there is no evidence of an earlier hole that has been filled. The dial and the cased verge movement are both in the English style. The movement is signed Thos Nadroy, London, an individual of which there is no record. The front of the pillar plate carries the maker's mark IB, for which there are a number of candidate Lancashire makers. The BM has the movement catalogued as being of continental origin, but I am not certain that it is. I believe their opinion is influenced, in part, by the nature of the subsidiary mark.

The 'foreign' subsidiary mark is actually a Dutch import mark, that was used for much of the C19th. The same mark also found on the outer embossed case, which has no obvious English hallmarks. For clarity, also from the BM, a better preserved import mark from a similar embossed silver outer of the C18th.

All that can be safely inferred is that an English style verge movement, possibly built on a Lancashire frame, that is not of superior quality and has a signature which is probably fictitious, was fitted into an already London hallmarked box. It is not possible to determine when, or where this was done, however, the pair cases were imported into Holland on or after 1814.

John

 

[Incroyable]

Is it common for original cases to have winding holes cut through the hallmarks?

 

[John Matthews]

I believe it is found where movements that have a rear winding arbor and

• a movement has been re-cased, in which case it is necessary to try and establish any evidence to support that assumption, or
• where a case has been made and sent for assay, prior to a movement being fitted to that case, and when the original movement is fitted, the position for the arbor corresponds to one of the hallmarks.

In both situations, if the modifications were done in the UK, there was a danger of committing an offense by defacing a hallmark, depending on the legislation in force at the time.

Some of the examples, where there is no evidence of re-casing found, the movement is clearly of continental origin and early legislation was passed in order to prevent empty English hallmarked cases being exported ...

William III, 1697-8: An Act for the exporting Watches Sword-hilts and other Manufactures of Silver. While the title refers to 'export', the text, indicates that in addition to the export of empty cases (which were then fitted with foreign movements) the Act was also to address the issue of counterfeit names.​

​

And whereas great Quantities of empty Boxes Cases and Dyal Plates for Clocks and Watches have been exported without their Movements and in Foreign Parts made up with bad Movements and thereon some London Watchmakers Names engraven and so are sold abroad for English Work and also there hath been the like ill Practices in England by divers Persons as well by some professing the Art of Clock and Watch making as others ignorant therein in putting counterfeit Names as also the Names of the most known London Watch-makers on their bad Clocks and Watches to the great prejudice of the Buyers and the Disreputation of the said Art at home and abroad ​

​

For the preventing therefore of all such ill Practices for the future be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid That no Person or Persons whatsoever shall after the said Four and twentieth Day of June export or send or endeavor to export or send out of this Kingdom of England Dominion of Wales or Town of Berwick upon Tweed any outward or inward Box Case or Dyal plate of Gold Silver Brass or other Metal for Clock or Watch without the Movement in or with every such Box Case or Dyal plate made up fit for Use with the Clock or Watch-Makers Name ingraven thereon​

​

nor any Person whatsoever after the said Four and twentieth Day of June shall make up or cause to be made up any Clock or Watch without ingraving or putting or causing to be ingraven or put his or her own Name and Place of Abode or Freedom and no other Name or Place on every Clock or Watch he or she shall so make up or cause to be made up under the Penalty of forfeiting every such empty Box Case and Dyal plate Clock and Watch not made up and ingraven as aforesaid and also for each and every of such Offence the Sum of Twenty pounds one Moiety whereof to be to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and the other Moiety shall be to him her or them that shall sue for the same in any of his Majesties Courts of Record by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information wherein no Essoign Protection or Wager of Law shall be allowed or more than than one Imparlance Any thing herein contained or any Law or Statute to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.​

​

The phrase 'or cause to be made up' is what provides the 'let out' to use the retailer's signature.​

​

Note the reference to 'ill practices in England' which I suspect is the situation with the example I posted, albeit that the signature was not of a 'most known London maker' . These ill-practices clearly continued into the early C19th.

John

 

[John Matthews]

Types of Subsidiary Marks
The form of subsidiary marks is diverse and it is convenient to group them in order to aid identification and to help understand their significance. I believe the following types can be identified:

• additional registered marks (0.5%);
• duty marks (14.5%);
• foreign marks (1.0%) - see post #4 above;
• letters (35.0%);
• numbers (17.0%) ;
• symbols (45.0%);
• trade marks (9.5%) &
• worker's initials (5.5%).

I have initially examined approximately 200 cases and the percentage of each type present is indicated. The representation of individual types will be very much dependent on the characteristics of the sample examined and the figures are only relevant to my sample set which cover the period 1770 to 1964.

It is not unusual for more than one type to be present on a single case and for different marks on the box and outer case with pair cases. It seems likely that outworkers would have worked for more than one master case maker, and therefore I would not be surprised to find the same distinctive subsidiary marks on cases stamped with different maker's marks. Cases with the same case maker's marks and hallmarks are found with different subsidiary marks, this I infer to be feature of the output of a substantial case making operation with parallel lines of production.

Some representative examples:

John

 

[John Matthews]

The missing examples of numerical marks

John

 

[Coalbolt]

Might be a pointless post, but here's three of my Rotherhams with subsidiary marks. All of these are hunter cased full plate English levers. There's ALOT of these later Rotherhams here in New Zealand, to the point where you can buy in bulk.

London 1883, C.H casemaker, "11" Mark


Birmingham 1892, JR casemaker, "1" mark with 300 or 306 serial n#


London 1883, JR casemaker, "J" mark with 602 serial n#


London 1811, IR casemaker, "x" mark, Wm Robinson, pair cased

 

[Incroyable]

Might be a pointless post, but here's three of my Rotherhams with subsidiary marks. All of these are hunter cased full plate English levers. There's ALOT of these later Rotherhams here in New Zealand, to the point where you can buy in bulk.

For all the historic talk of English watchmaking and its decline I'm surprised at how many Victorian-1920s English watches of modest quality are around.

Those and silver cased verge fusees seem almost as plentiful as American watches.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

John, I hope this is what you are seeking:

WS for William Sexton of Coventry, on an 18k Bonniksen Sharman D. Neill PL keyless hunter, #08,948, circa 1902


AN for Adolph Nicole, on an 18k Charles Frodsham calendar/chronograph hunter with a keyless Nicole Nielsen movement, #4672, circa 1872


HMF for Harrison Mill Frodsham, on an 18k Charles Frodsham demi-hunter with a keyless, free-sprung Buckney movement, #06793, circa 1883


RB likely for Robert Bellow on an 18k key-wind full-plate "Arnold" Charles Frodsham, #9144, circa 1857


FT for Fred Thoms on an 18k William Gabriel keyless free-sprung hunter, movement possibly by Victor Kullberg, #358/1000, circa 1892


PW for Phillip Woodman & Sons at 33 Smith St. Northampton Square Clerkenwell, on an 18k James Hoddell keyless free-sprung Earnshaw detent chronometer minute repeater, movement signed by Barnaby & Rust, Hull, #16584, circa 1888


SB probably for Samuel Brookes, 33 Ashby St., Clerkenwell, on an 18k OF key-wind William Reid Earnshaw detent free-sprung chronometer, #487, circa 1809-1830


ALD for Dennison Watch Co., on an 18k OF keyless Waltham American Watch Co. grade bridge model, #10552410, movement circa 1902, case Birmingham hallmarked for 1920-21


HW for Henry Webb of St. John Street, London, on an 18k OF James Poole keyless, free-sprung, helical spring lever watch with wind indicator, #5969, circa 1881-1882


NL probably for Nicholas Lee or his son Nathaniel, on an 18k pair-cased M.J. Tobias key-wind rack lever, #2700, circa 1815


FT for Fred Thoms, on an 18k Usher & Cole keyless free-sprung demi-hunter, #31281, circa 1899-1890


I also found these marks on watches I no longer own.

CG I think for Caroline Green, on an 18k OF Arnold & Lewis key-wind patent union chronometer, #2964, circa 1862

AB for Arthur Baume, on an 18k OF Sir John Bennett, keyless watch, movement #32372, circa 1896


JH for John Hewitt of Coventry on an 18k OF Durrant & Sons keyless watch, #55387. The pendant is marked CH for Charles Harris of Coventry


HS for Henry Stuart of 170, Park Lane, Liverpool, on an 18k OF John Gleave key-wind fusee, #33246, circa 1857


JR? for ? on an 18k OF Gray & Co. key-wind fusee, #38839, circa 1873


WCS for ? on a triple-case tortoise shell and silver Edward Prior, with key-wind fusee movement #72995, circa 1830s


TR perhaps for Thomas Russell on an 18k Thomas Russell keyless center seconds hunter, movement #104756, circa 1900

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I do not have many cased English watches and only two with subsidiary marks that I can discern:

J.K. Fellows, American private label, probably Liverpool origins in London hallmarked consular case probably by R.Samuel, ca.1847: small "bonbon" mark in inner and outer case back. 1847 fusee exported to United States


Late fusee lever marked A.S.Sinclair, Methlick in Birmingham hallmarked pair case, probably William Henry Adams, ca.1894: "K" stamped in case and box

Going-barrel pair-cased watch

Hi all, So....here's something I haven't seen before. It's a pair-cased going-barrel movement. It's a perfect fit...but is it likely a recase...I thought paircased examples were always fusees? It's dated 1889. I forgot what that trademark stamp is too! Thanks, Piers

mb.nawcc.org

 

[John Matthews]

Many thanks to these posts with photographs and the information provided identifying the cased movement. I will capture your examples and will post any observations I can make.

I have, somewhat late, been reading through Priestley's work and one of the (many) facts I had preciously missed is that an Act of 1785, introduced a new regulation ...

​

'All exporters must engrave on the inside of every watch case a Number corresponding to the number on the movement top plate.'​

While many cases even for the domestic market carry the movement number, I hadn't appreciated that it had been subject to any regulation. Neither do I know to what extent the 'export' requirement was actually enforced nor whether, for example, the Liverpool cased watches that were specifically made for the American market in the late C18th & early C19th, invariably have (had) matching numbers on the movements and cases. My recollection is that they possibly do (did).

Initially, I did not consider the movement number as a subsidiary case mark, but it clearly is and I will start tagging photographs where a case number is demonstrably that of the movement.

John

 

[John Matthews]

Ethan - I think you may have the incorrect description with these three cases ...

I believe the cases are

1. London 1873 - WW=William WICKES, Chapelfields Coventry
2. Chester 1907 - not certain of the maker's mark
3. London 1862 - William Caleb SCOTT, 70 Rahere Street, Goswell Road, London

John

 

[John Matthews]

Feedback regarding Ethan's Edward Prior example ...

Note the letter/symbol is present on both [WCS] - William Caleb SCOTT) and [AT] - Alford THICKBOTTOM. I would be interested to know whether it is present on all boxes with Edward Prior movements and if it is present on the boxes of Islamic watches with movements carrying different signatures.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

THICKBOTTOM

'Thickbroom' I think.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

John, thanks for catching those mistakes. Despite being an anglophile and a modest collector of English pocket watches, I've never really master its hallmarks and other marking systems.

I took another look at the photos of my ex-collection Prior. Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of the entire marked cover. It is possible that it had an AT stamping. I just do not know.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

John, the major mistake I made with respect to the watches you listed as

1. London 1873 - WW=William WICKES, Chapelfields Coventry
2. Chester 1907 - not certain of the maker's mark

was mismatching photos with descriptions.

I said that your #1 was of a Gleaves watch, and I used my notes on the Gleaves, but the photo wasn't of the Gleaves. Here is the right photo and description I previously used. Let me know if it is incorrect.

HS for Henry Stuart of 170, Park Lane, Liverpool, on an 18k OF John Gleave key-wind fusee, #33246, circa 1857



The photo I mistakenly said was the Gleaves was actually the Gray & Co. photo. Here is the erroneous Gleaves photo now with the correct description.

WW for William Wickes, Chapelsfield, Coventry on an 18k OF Gray & Co. key-wind fusee, #38839, circa 1873 (London hallmark)


The photo I mistaken said was the Gray & Co., (your #2) actually was of a silver case on a John Forrest. Here is that photo and the description I should have given for it. Let me know if it is incorrect.

JF? for John Forrest? on a silver-cased John Forrest hunter, movement #55947, circa 1907 (Chester hallmark)

 

[SKennedy]

TH&Co, Chester 1826. Watch by C Harris, Cornhill. Star subsidiary mark.

 

[S.Humphrey]

I have a William Cain watch in a TH&Co. case.
1829, Chester, with a . . . different mark.

 

[S.Humphrey]

This Liverpool watch for Brinsmaid Bros. Co in Vermont is another with nice subsidiary marks.
Chester, 1850. Ralph Samuel.

 

[John Matthews]

Brinsmaid Bros. Co in Vermont

Steve this watch is a very good example of the Liverpool-America trade.

In addition to [RS], the case not only has the 'crossed circle' symbol, it has [J.B.] which I believe is probably the initials of the person who made the case for Ralph Samuel, [S.L.S] - Sylvester Lewis SAMUEL, listed as American Agent & Commission Agent in Priestley (by 1865) and the dome has the movement serial number.

There is also a stamp on the dome which appears to be 2oz - could you confirm please?

John

 

[S.Humphrey]

There is also a stamp on the dome which appears to be 2oz - could you confirm please?

John

Indeed, it does.

 

[John Matthews]

I have never seen such a stamp before.

To me that doesn't seem to be stamp that would be used by an English case maker. I wonder if it was thought it would appeal to the American market.

Anyone?

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

The ones I have seen with 2 oz. on cases were made by ALD in Birmingham. Could well have been for the American firms. I have one on file, made for the "Paillard Watch Co. Chicago USA. (Illinois Watch Co.) Hunter case.

See American Sterling Silver cases-Please show yours. (post 57)

 

[John Matthews]

Allan's Dennison example, to be found here, caused me to check Priestley's Aaron Lufkin Dennison publication of 2009.

Weight Marks

Priestley's Aaron Lufkin Dennison publication (2009) indicates that in the last quarter of the C19th, Dennison's output was principally supplying Waltham with some output going to Elgin and possibly other companies. At the end of the C19th his customer base had widened and included the Lancashire Watch Company, Errington and J G Graves. Priestley provides a series of tables covering some of the company's output of gold, silver and gold filled cases. The tables include information on case markings and the movements housed. The vast majority of the movements are Waltham, together with some English and Swiss movements.

Table 4 covers gold and silver cases with the A.L.D marker's mark and under the heading 'Case Number' he also includes additional case information. For three silver cases "weight" information is noted. The three entries in italics are as listed in the table, to which I have added Allan's example:

I would be very pleased to learn of other examples on Dennison or other manufacture's cases.

John

 

[S.Humphrey]

I have never seen such a stamp before.

To me that doesn't seem to be stamp that would be used by an English case maker. I wonder if it was thought it would appeal to the American market.

Anyone?

John

Hi John,
I haven't ever seen another like that, either. I had presumed it was done particularly for the American market, and not very often. Possibly, specifically requested this way by Brismaid Bros.
It is right in that time period when big American coin silver cases were frequently marked with their ounce weight.

Regards,
Steve

 

[SKennedy]

Another I have is this with two possible makers mark. Though it also led me down the rabbit hole of researching the engine turners and I've a possible attribution of the HG to one of those. With the overlapped marks the HG appears to have been stamped second since the edges of the JH (or IH) appear distorted by it.

 

[John Matthews]

Seth - I do think they are both registered marks ...

London 1829
[HG] - Henry GALLOWAY, Upper Clifton Street, Finsbury, registered: 25/08/1826 &
[IH] (script cojoined) John HARRIS, 41 Rawstone Street Islington Road, registered: 17/09/1823

John

 

[John Matthews]

Use of subsidiary marks as an aid to identification

These four London hallmarked cases were, I believe, made by Thomas GOOCH who registered [TG] from 23 Coppice Row, Clerkenwell on 4 January, 1794. The cases date from 1812 to 1815 and each carries the distinctive subsidiary letter stamp [H]. Close inspection of the each of the maker's marks reveals what appears to be a pellet between the 'T' & 'G', however the pellets are not consistent in their position. While the first and last examples might be considered as genuine pellets, thereby the mark becoming [T·G], it is unlikely that the centre two marks, would be interpreted as such. It is significant to note that the mark [T·G] was registered by Thomas GIBBARD of Quaker Building, Smithfield on 6 July, 1768.

John

 

[SKennedy]

Seth - I do think they are both registered marks ...
London 1829
[HG] - Henry GALLOWAY, Upper Clifton Street, Finsbury, registered: 25/08/1826 &
[IH] (script cojoined) John HARRIS, 41 Rawstone Street Islington Road, registered: 17/09/1823
John

Yes, those were my original thoughts and still the most likely - it being a coincidence of the initials matching those of a engine turner who possibly cut the pattern on the dome. Though the HG doesn't quite match that shown here . It would however be interesting to try and answer the conundrum of two registered marks appearing on a case.

Considering those TG marks with a supposed 'pellet'. Since the pellet position varied with respect to the letters it obviously can't have been a feature on the punch. Is the dot actually at the centre of the case and therefore perhaps a residual mark from the dome making process? And then perhaps Mr Gooch used this as a guide so as to punch his mark in the case centre?

 

[John Matthews]

Seth

it being a coincidence of the initials matching those of a engine turner who possibly cut the pattern on the dome. Though the HG doesn't quite match that shown here .

Who is the engine turner - do you have a name? What exactly was produced by the 'engine turning'? If the turning is only on the dome, would not the mark only be on the dome? I assume, the turning was done after hallmarking to avoid damaging the turning? Do you have a photograph of the turning?

I use three primary references for London case hallmarks, Grimwade, Culme & Priestley. I find that the internet sites often do not have the level of detail to make a reliable identification. The marks registered by Henry Galloway in Priestley, consist of a series of 6 incuse registrations from 3 August, 1816 to 22 April, 1839, with different addresses for each registration. Then a separate registration for a incuse registration on 10 December, 1841 with the address of 81 Nicolas Street, Hoxton (Hackney). Then finally, at this same address, a mark in a rectangular cartouche on 16 January, 1843. The last two registrations are in Culme confirming the address.

The date I quoted, 25 August, 1826 corresponds to the mark that would have been used on your case. I believe, from the way that Priestley separated the entries, that he either knew, or thought it possible, that the final two registrations were those of a different individual. However, even if all the registrations were made by one individual, there were undoubtedly more that one set of incuse punches, and possibly up to seven. So a failure to obtain an exact match of the marks on your case with the one on the silver makers site, has no significance, even if the relative wear of the case mark and that of the photograph were comparable.

Is the dot actually at the centre of the case

It is clearly not at the centre of the front of the POWELL case, where it is the subsidiary letter 'H' that is in the centre. If GOOCH took the time to make a location punch mark as a guide to the position of the maker's mark, I would think that it would not need to be so prominent (deep), and I would hope he could have been more accurate when he used it to punch his mark.

John

 

[SKennedy]

Hello John,
The turner was Henry GIlling or his son Henry Slader Gilling, who did later register his own marks as a case maker. Yes, the turning must have been done after the marking but I think a turner could be considered as someone (along with joint makers and others) who may have made a mark just before carrying out their operation, if indeed these susidiary marks do relate to a separate workers activity. I still agree with you that Henry Galloway is the most likely but we don't know why two case makers marked this or the other example you have.
In any case, I'm pleased by the coincidence in initials with Gilling as it lead me to find out a lot more about him and many others.



My suggestion was not that the pellet/dot mark was an intentional separate location punch mark but that it was caused by a pip in the centre of the dome forming punch, or the former that the dome was spun over. But if it is not always in the centre of the case than that can't be it. Maybe the pellet is a separate subsidiary mark of its own relating to someone in Gooch's employ?

 

[John Matthews]

Seth - that is beautiful work.

I entirely agree that anyone who works on a case could be responsible for a subsidiary mark. I checked H S Gilling, born 1811, so it would have had to have been his father, who seems to have died in 1856. You have probably seen these, but just in case.

John

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I found one more in my collection that has subsidiary marks - an 8-size lever fusee from Brockbank & Atkins. The consular case has a plain back and London hallmarks for 1864. I infer the case maker to be Thomas Holliday. This is the only English fusee I have with a dust ring rather than a dust cap.


The clearest marks are in the inside case, showing a subsidiary mark in the midst of the hallmarks - at first glance it looks like an incuse "W" but the bottom is straight across and it might be called a trident.


The marks in the back cover are more rubbed, but there is an additional "S" (I think) under the TH.

 

[John Matthews]

Thanks Jerry.

I have not captured a Holliday case before and I haven't seen the symbol that is below the lion passant on other maker's cases. If I find other examples I will post them.

John

 

[VinSer]

Feedback regarding Ethan's Edward Prior example ...

...

Note the letter/symbol is present on both [WCS] - William Caleb SCOTT) and [AT] - Alford THICKBOTTOM. I would be interested to know whether it is present on all boxes with Edward Prior movements and if it is present on the boxes of Islamic watches with movements carrying different signatures.

John

The mark EP C is present in all the cases of watches signed Edward Prior produced by William Chambers and his son George Chambers beginning in 1849 until 1875. It was finally registered as trademark in the UK in 1876.

For more info see the article from Antiquarian Horology entitled "The Priors: a successful British watch brand for the Ottoman market"

Ciao

 

[VinSer]

Two additional symbols: a hart and something like a cross.

The hart is on the pair case of the watch of this thread , the other one on the internal case of the same watch

Ciao

 

[John Matthews]

For more info see the article from Antiquarian Horology entitled "The Priors: a successful British watch brand for the Ottoman market"

Luigi - Many thanks for the reminder of your article, which had slipped my memory. Particular thanks for the reference to the advert in HJ July 1876 ...

John

EDIT - Information provided in the article and the AH site as referenced ...

The mark is found on cases between 1849 and 1875 containing Edward Prior signed watches. The cases carry the following maker's marks [JB/WW] - Josiah BARNETT & William WATERS (1849-55); [JB] - Josiah BARNETT (1850-55); [TH] - Thomas HOLLIDAY (1854-58); [WCS] - William Caleb SCOTT (1856-75); [AT] - Alford THICKBROOM (1862-69). The 1862 hallmarked cases containing movement #76.975, are recorded as carrying both [AT] & [WCS] - this is an example of watch with four cases and I infer these marks may have been on different cases.

VinSer - please check that I have extracted the information correctly and that my interpretation of [TH] is Thomas HOLLIDAY. In anticipation my thanks.

John

 

[VinSer]

Luigi - Many thanks for the reminder of your article, which had slipped my memory. ...

For some reasons it is easier for me to remember about it

... VinSer - please check that I have extracted the information correctly and that my interpretation of [TH] is Thomas HOLLIDAY. In anticipation my thanks. ...

Yes, all dates correspond (including new additions). And yes [TH] should be Thomas Holliday.

Ciao

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Two additional symbols: a hart and something like a cross.

VinSer's post, with the crossed lines in a square reminded me that I also have this extraneous mark in a gilded brass case - the inner box actually. The outer case is long gone. My notes tell me the matching movement by John Dwerrihouse is circa 1810, but there is probably some latitude on that estimate.

 

[John Matthews]

Thanks Jerry.

I think your John Dwerrihouse might be just a little earlier, closer to the turn of the century. The maker could (tentatively) be Thomas Gooch - I have captured identical initials on a 1801/02 London hallmarked silver box. Unfortunately the subsidiary mark is different.

John

Jerry Treiman - Just found this post by zedric with information on John Dwerrihouse that may be of interest.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Jerry Treiman - Just found this post by zedric with information on John Dwerrihouse that may be of interest.

Thanks, Jerry, It was well worth a repeat.I have printed it again. I know I have it somewhere, but where?

Allan

 

[Rich Newman]

Thomas Parker, Philadelphia, SN 77. Gilt silver cases.
Box: Birmingham, 1794, Duty Mark, "HH" for Henry Harding of Coventry w/"H"
Outer (replaced): London, 1804, "IR" for John Riley w/moon

 

[Rich Newman]

Joseph & Thomas Pearsall, New York. SN 8684
Giver Pair Case, London, 1770, "FM" for Francis Mince (Priestley correspondence) w/K on box.

 

[Rich Newman]

Leslie & Price, Philadelphia. Serial Number 1040. Silver Pair Case.
Box: London, 1794, Duty Mark, "IT" for John Taylor
Outer: London, 1794, Duty Mark, "IT" with pellet for John Taylor w/subsidiary mark

 

[Rich Newman]

Robert Leslie & Co., Baltimore (run by Abraham Patton). Serial Number 871. Silver Pair Case.
Box: London, 1796, Duty Mark, "CS" for Charles Saffell w/"Y"
Outer: same but without the "Y"

 

[Rich Newman]

Pearsall & Embree, New York. Serial Number 53221. Silver Pair Case.
Box: London, 1786, Duty Mark, "NTW" for Nicholas Thomas Wood of Clerkenwell, w/moon
Outer: same
Perhaps the moon is part of Wood's mark?

Similar marks are on another NTW (London, 1796) also with a moon. Watch sold by Caleb Wheaton of Providence, R.I.

 

[Rich Newman]

William Kimberly, New York. Serial Number 31558. Silver Pair Case.
Box: London, 1796, Duty Mark, "WL" for William Lewis of Clerkenwell, w/"V"
Outer: same

 

[Rich Newman]

Abraham Hews Jr. & Co.. Boston. Serial Number 8689 (Massey 3). Silver consular case.
Chester, 1850, "RS" for Ralph Samuel of Liverpool, w/"8"