Richard Clarke & Sons Cheapside Pocket Chronometer

[Incroyable]

I recently acquired this Richard Clarke & Sons pocket chronometer with an Earnshaw spring detent escapement in a heavily chased 18k gold case by Thomas Hardy circa 1823. The watch is quite heavy at 153 grams.

The movement and case are in almost mint condition with extremely crisp chasing and engine turning.

I'm wondering what the cross like mark is below the TH mark?

Also do you think Thomas Earnshaw had any hand in this movement?

I found a Thomas Earnshaw marked pocket chronometer repeater with the same rope engraving on the edge of the plate from around the same period. I'm wondering if this was simply a fashion at the time or was it a particular stylistic detail that Earnshaw employed?

THOMAS EARNSHAW QUARTER-REPEATING POCKET CHRONOMETER WITH Z BALANCE GOLD Thomas Earnshaw, Invt. Et Fecit, London, No. 3973. The cases with London hallmarks for 1819-20. Very fine and rare, 18k gold, pair-cased pocket Chronometer with "Z" balance. | Important Modern & Vintage Timepieces | Geneva, May 15, 2016

Antiquorum is the world's premiere auction house of modern and vintage timepieces. Buy or sell watches like Patek Philippe, Rolex and Audemars Piguet. Expert appraisals, valuations and more. Browse our auction catalog.

catalog.antiquorum.swiss

I'd also be grateful if anyone had any more information on Richard Clarke & Sons. From my cursory Google search, it appears he was a high end jeweler who worked in the Georgian/Regency era who also sold fancy pistols and the like:

Collections Online | British Museum

www.britishmuseum.org

A Good Four-Barrelled Box-Lock Pistol by Clarke of London.

A Good Four-Barrelled Box-Lock Pistol by Clarke of London.

www.garthvincent.com

Bonham's sold an almost identical watch but with what seems to be an amplitude limiter several years back:

Bonhams : Richard Clarke & Sons, Cheapside, London. A rare 18K gold key wind open face chronometer pocket watch Movement No.5151, London Hallmark for 1820

Movement No.5151, London Hallmark for 1820 Gilt full plate fusee movement, engraved balance cock with diamond end stone, Earnshaw type spring detent escapement, cut and compensated bi-metallic balance with polished weights, blued steel helical spring, textured champagne dial with highly polished...

www.bonhams.com

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

I'm wondering what the cross like mark is below the TH mark?

I'm wondering whether this is in fact Thomas Hardy; according to Priestley, Thomas Hardy II, who was working at this time, used a mark with a spot between the letters. The date letter 'h' is for 1823/4, (it can't be earlier since the leopard has no crown), or 1903/4, which seems improbably late, but if it isn't Hardy using a mark not listed by Priestley, I can't establish who it might be.

The cross is probably the joint maker's mark.

It's impossible to say anything about the balance without a picture of it at rest.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Incroyable]

Hi Jeffrey,


I'm wondering whether this is in fact Thomas Hardy; according to Priestley, Thomas Hardy II, who was working at this time, used a mark with a spot between the letters. The date letter 'h' is for 1823/4, (it can't be earlier since the leopard has no crown), or 1903/4, which seems improbably late, but if it isn't Hardy using a mark not listed by Priestley, I can't establish who it might be.

The cross is probably the joint maker's mark.

It's impossible to say anything about the balance without a picture of it at rest.

Regards,

Graham

Actually you're right; upon closer examination of the maker's mark there's a dot in between the T and H so it must be Thomas Hardy II who I presume was Thomas Hardy's son. Priestley lists Thomas Hardy II as working from 1813.

Terence Camerer Cuss has an Arnold pocket chronometer from 1819/1820 in "The English Watch" with a similar looking case and frosted solid gold dial also by Thomas Hardy. I wonder if that's also a Thomas Hardy II case misattributed to the father.

The watch is running now but I found out that you can take Slo-Mo videos on iPhones so I froze frame the balance. It's a bimetallic balance.

 

[Incroyable]

Hopefully this shows the dot in between the T and H.

Under London Priestley also lists a Thomas Harris in Bath Wiltshire with the same mark working from 1805.

 

[Bernhard J.]

I am jealous!

 

[SKennedy]

A lovely watch. I'd be most interested to see if the dial is hallmarked or otherwise scratched with info but obviously would have to take it off for that!

 

[Incroyable]

A lovely watch. I'd be most interested to see if the dial is hallmarked or otherwise scratched with info but obviously would have to take it off for that!

The dial is frosted yellow gold with very finely applied pink gold numerals.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

Actually you're right; upon closer examination of the maker's mark there's a dot in between the T and H so it must be Thomas Hardy II who I presume was Thomas Hardy's son. Priestley lists Thomas Hardy II as working from 1813.

Under London Priestley also lists a Thomas Harris in Bath Wiltshire with the same mark working from 1805.

It's a minor failing of Priestley that he wasn't able to include actual facsimiles of the marks but had to use the standard typography to render them, which is perfectly adequate in most cases, but the occasional entry can be misleading, as here. Perhaps Culme could shed more light on this mark, a quick search in Jacksons for Hardy doesn't reveal anything.

It's a bimetallic balance.

As were practically all chronometers; it wouldn't make sense to go to all that trouble for a plain balance.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Jeffrey - congrats on your purchase.

Looking solely at the case, if I had no knowledge of the movement I would immediately conclude that it was made in Liverpool in between 1810 & 1825 and expect the movement to be signed by Moncas, Johnson, Tobias or the like. Further I would speculate that the maker was possible Thomas Helsby, that the watch had been exported to America and hallmarks might be faux. I have captured an identical case to yours containing a Moncas movement ~1820 made by Helsbys which was sold on ebay.

This may sound off-track and fanciful.

The mark TH on you case I do not believe to be that of Thomas Hardy I or II (I don't see a period). I do believe the assay marks to be genuine for London 1823. One of the minor problems I have found with Philip's truly excellent work on case makers is that his marks are restricted to the smiths who are listed as watch case makers. For 99.9% of the marks we see on cases this enables us to identify the maker. Sometimes it has been possible to identify a marks by looking at the marks listed 'smw' - small workers in general listings. This may be the case with this watch. I notice that in the listing of the watch the identification was shown so ...

Not sure of the significance - but it might be worth asking, and if you do, ask for any provenance they have for the watch.

I also note that the initials appear to be off the vertical.

The best match for the mark in Grimwade is Thomas Hasting who was operating first with Rowland his brother in 1808, on his own from 1811, last mark in 1836. See if you can find some of his work and compare the marks.

The earlier example sold by Bonhams (1820 #5151) has the same case marks, and Bonhams did not identify a maker.

(Graham did you look at the Bonhams listing? if so a fitment to lock the balance?)

So was the case made by Thomas Hasting, Thomas Harding II (an unregistered mark) or was it made in Liverpool by Thomas Helsby, where the movement was fitted, then assayed in London (by a devious process)? Finally, after assay the watch was finished in London. You know, I fancy being controversial - this is a Liverpool case!

As to the movement I think it unlikely that between 1820 (#5151) and 1823 (#5763) that Richard Clarke & Sons sold over 600 watches - so I think the serial number is probably that of the movement finisher - worth a search as it looks as if both have common distinctive features.

Worth posting the Invoice on the BM site , prior to his sons joining the business and the description of the watch.

and some trade listings ..

1814

1818 Cheapside

1823

John

 

[Incroyable]

Jeffrey - congrats on your purchase.

Looking solely at the case, if I had no knowledge of the movement I would immediately conclude that it was made in Liverpool in between 1810 & 1825 and expect the movement to be signed by Moncas, Johnson, Tobias or the like. Further I would speculate that the maker was possible Thomas Helsby, that the watch had been exported to America and hallmarks might be faux. I have captured an identical case to yours containing a Moncas movement ~1820 made by Helsbys which was sold on ebay.

This may sound off-track and fanciful.

The mark TH on you case I do not believe to be that of Thomas Hardy I or II (I don't see a period). I do believe the assay marks to be genuine for London 1823. One of the minor problems I have found with Philip's truly excellent work on case makers is that his marks are restricted to the smiths who are listed as watch case makers. For 99.9% of the marks we see on cases this enables us to identify the maker. Sometimes it has been possible to identify a marks by looking at the marks listed 'smw' - small workers in general listings. This may be the case with this watch. I notice that in the listing of the watch the identification was shown so ...

View attachment 746943

Not sure of the significance - but it might be worth asking, and if you do, ask for any provenance they have for the watch.

I also note that the initials appear to be off the vertical.

The best match for the mark in Grimwade is Thomas Hasting who was operating first with Rowland his brother in 1808, on his own from 1811, last mark in 1836. See if you can find some of his work and compare the marks.

The earlier example sold by Bonhams (1820 #5151) has the same case marks, and Bonhams did not identify a maker.

(Graham did you look at the Bonhams listing? if so a fitment to lock the balance?)

So was the case made by Thomas Hasting, Thomas Harding II (an unregistered mark) or was it made in Liverpool by Thomas Helsby, where the movement was fitted, then assayed in London (by a devious process)? Finally, after assay the watch was finished in London. You know, I fancy being controversial - this is a Liverpool case!

As to the movement I think it unlikely that between 1820 (#5151) and 1823 (#5763) that Richard Clarke & Sons sold over 600 watches - so I think the serial number is probably that of the movement finisher - worth a search as it looks as if both have common distinctive features.

Worth posting the Invoice on the BM site , prior to his sons joining the business and the description of the watch.

View attachment 746954
View attachment 746951 View attachment 746950

and some trade listings ..

1814

View attachment 746956

1818 Cheapside

View attachment 746957

1823


View attachment 746958

John

I also thought it looked like a Liverpool case since apparently Liverpool makers were known for making these elaborate chased gold cases.

This came from the collection of a Hermann Sacher who was a Jurgensen Dynasty expert. His collection had dozens of various Jurgesen chronometers and minute repeaters as well as some fine English watches including tourbillons, Parkinson & Frodsham, Karrusels, Karl Zimmerman, etc.

Does the Clarke invoice list any chronometers? 18th century calligraphy isn't my forte.

I suspect Clarke was a retailer who catered to the Regency upper classes so the lavish Liverpool style case would be right up their alley. A pocket chronometer in a case like this must have been a very lavish purchase.

 

[John Matthews]

Best I can do ...

1 best jeweled watch ?? 2522 in pr gold cases the outside case richly enameled & a diamond circle with? hair at the back

John

 

[Incroyable]

Best I can do ...

1 best jeweled watch ?? 2522 in pr gold cases the outside case richly enameled & a diamond circle with? hair at the back

John

Looks like the price was 31 guineas and 10 shillings?

 

[Incroyable]

Of course the question is did London makers copy the Liverpool look in this brief period when such styles were fashionable?

I've seen a number of similarly chased gold keys, fob seals and chains from this era as well.

 

[Incroyable]

The mark TH on you case I do not believe to be that of Thomas Hardy I or II (I don't see a period).

I examined the mark under a 10x loupe and there is definitely a period though it's hard to capture in photographs. Hopefully this shows it better.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

The maker's mark being in an oblique font, (not really an italic), does raise a doubt because it's quite unusual. Where there's a spot in that middle position between letters, it's usually much more prominent, more of a 'pellet'. I agree that this style of decorated case seemed to be popular with US buyers, and also that the Helsbys are known for this type. The apparent London town mark doesn't imply that the maker was based in London, many weren't but kept a London mark registered for prestige reasons.

It does seem probable that the balances in yours and the Bonhams watch were made by the same hand, and the two grey movements could well have come from the same workshop. Many of the Earnshaw chronometers I've seen have not had the retaining screws on the wedge-shape weights visible on the top, but hidden underneath. These would be easier to adjust in this position.

John, is the feature you're wondering about the steel gallows stud or that small 'something' in the shadow under the balance?

Regards,

Graham

 

[Incroyable]

Interestingly David Penney has a London finished Liverpool style watch on his site:

Thos MOSS, Ludgate Street, London. No 8460 – David Penney’s ANTIQUE WATCH STORE

antiquewatchstore.com

 

[John Matthews]

John, is the feature you're wondering about the steel gallows stud or that small 'something' in the shadow under the balance?

The gallows stud has what appears to have an adjustable slide mounted on the support that could be separate from the stud arm. I wondered whether if it was just by chance that the weight was directly beneath the bracket with the slide in its current position or whether it had been halted in that position by an extension of the underside of the slide that extended beneath the supporting bracket. I have not seen a gallows stud with this feature before.

Jeffery - compare the Moss pendant and ring with yours, also note the barrel edge of the Moss. While Liverpool springs to my mind with your case, not so for the Moss.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

This is just a feature allowing adjustment of the precise pinning radius in the stud. I guess it was fitted on a gallows rather than the cock itself for that very reason.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Graham - seems they allowed for a heck of a lot of adjustment for a helical spring - have you seen this before?

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

...seems they allowed for a heck of a lot of adjustment for a helical spring - have you seen this before?

There are several examples of two-piece gallows studs in 'The English Watch' by Camerer Cuss, but not with such long slots; p347 by JR Arnold, p361 by Goffe, pps 367 and 390 by Cummins. I suspect they were to do with the way the helical springs gradually changed their characteristics over the first year or so after manufacture, (unless the springs were by John Hammersley!).

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Thanks Graham - I should have checked the English Watch.

All those examples only have a minimal amount of adjustment. The Bonham's example looks really extreme by comparison.

John

 

[Dr. Jon]

The chronometer involves Earnshaw in that it uses his detent and balance designs but I doubt it was from his shop/ By 1820 Earnshaw was not doing anything he was not signing.

I do not know enough to know whether this is possible but could the maker have been Grimalde? BY 1820 he had a partner and a shop but was not commanding the prices Earnshaw was.

The balance cock engraving is very typical and was used by many makers.

I would like to see the detent foot.

The making of these involved a lot of outside trade people and many may have also worked for Earnshaw.

 

[Incroyable]

So if I'm to understand correctly this was a Liverpool case--possibly made by one of the Helsbys--finished and assayed in London with a London chronometer movement on order for Richard Clarke & Sons who retailed these to the Regency elite?

Would it have been unusual for a Liverpool case to have been assayed in London? I wonder why Clarke chose to source cases from Liverpool; were they cheaper than London makers or perhaps better at making these chased designs?

 

[SKennedy]

I've seen cases like this (that is patterned band, pendant and bow, plain bezels) by Louis Comptesse of Soho, so presumably he was making them in London.

 

[John Matthews]

Seth - do you have a link to an example of Louis Comptesse case of the type you describe?

I did a quick search and drew a blank for examples with the type of ornate pendant and ring seen on Helsby cases.

Accepted, I am being deliberately controversial to have my theory shot at, but given the nature of the trade at this time, I do think it is a possible scenario. I am influenced by the cases I have seen. This is what I regard as a typical London case of the period (Thomas Hardy 1819/20) (first 2 snips) compared with a Liverpool case (Thomas & John Helsby 1820/21).

(English Watch)

This my Comptesse case (1807/08) albeit in silver and gold, but again what I regard as typically London in style.

While I am yet to see (or to be precise 'remember seeing') a London made case as ornate as those made by the Helsbys. I am not trying to say that they don't exist, but we can only form opinion from that which is familiar to us.

John

EDIT - the most ornate pendant and rings I have seen on London cases have reeded or rope twist designs, but these have barrel edges similar to my Comptesse.

 

[Incroyable]

Seth - do you have a link to an example of Louis Comptesse case of the type you describe?

I did a quick search and drew a blank for examples with the type of ornate pendant and ring seen on Helsby cases.

Accepted, I am being deliberately controversial to have my theory shot at, but given the nature of the trade at this time, I do think it is a possible scenario. I am influenced by the cases I have seen. This is what I regard as a typical London case of the period (Thomas Hardy 1819/20) (first 2 snips) compared with a Liverpool case (Thomas & John Helsby 1820/21).

View attachment 747013 View attachment 747014 View attachment 747017 (English Watch)

This my Comptesse case (1807/08) albeit in silver and gold, but again what I regard as typically London in style.

View attachment 747019

While I am yet to see (or to be precise 'remember seeing') a London made case as ornate as those made by the Helsbys. I am not trying to say that they don't exist, but we can only form opinion from that which is familiar to us.

John

EDIT - the most ornate pendant and rings I have seen on London cases have reeded or rope twist designs, but these have barrel edges similar to my Comptesse.

That's a gorgeous Recordon--you can see why he was Breguet's London agent.

London cases seem to favor coin edging and sedate bows versus the Baroque exuberance of the Liverpool makers. I'd say the Liverpool cases have more of an organic flow whereas the London cases tend towards the architectural.

In some ways I find it hard to believe that the regional styles were so entrenched that neither couldn't or wouldn't make other styles. After all these were commercial enterprises reacting to market tastes.

Dial wise the Thomas Hardy cited by Camerer Cuss looks very similar to my Clarke.

This Thomas Helsby looks like it could be either London or Liverpool in style:

Watch | Thomas Helsby | V&A Explore The Collections

Cast and chased gold watch, movement by 'Litherland Davies & Co., Liverpool, 8463', and casemaker Thomas Helsby, with Chester hallmarks for 1815-16.

collections.vam.ac.uk

Have you come across any other examples of high end watches where the original cases are of ambiguous stylistic origin?

 

[Incroyable]

Here's a Comptesse case very much in the Liverpool style with a chased bow and pendant.

Gold English Quarter Repeating Cylinder | Pieces of Time Ltd

An early 19th Century English quarter repeating cylinder with decorative gold dial in an engine turned gold open faced case. Full plate gilt keywind fusee movement, Harrison's maintaining power. Plain cock with diamond endstone, polished steel regulator. Plain three arm gold balance with blue...

www.antique-watch.com

And another probable Comptesse:

Gold English Cylinder and Key | Pieces of Time Ltd

A fine early 19th Century English cylinder in a decorative gold open face case. Full plate gilt keywind fusee movement, engraved cock with garnet endstone, silver regulator disc. Plain three arm polished steel balance, blue steel spiral hairspring. Polished steel cylinder, large escape wheel...

www.antique-watch.com

 

[Incroyable]

The watch ran down so I took some photos of the balance at rest.

It appears the wedge weights are gilt brass beveled on the bottom edge with black polished steel retaining plates.

The two timing screws look to be platinum.

 

[John Matthews]

Jeffrey - thanks for the links and additional photographs.

The LC (Comptesse mark) case with the cylinder movement is of an example more in the Liverpool style, but it still appears to have a barrel edge.

Incidentally the first link implies that the movement (as the title) is 1815 (serial number is ok for that date) but the description has the case as 1837/38 although corrected in the detailed description - the case is definitely Chester 1815/16. (gmorse - what do you think of the movement ?)

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

London cases seem to favor coin edging and sedate bows versus the Baroque exuberance of the Liverpool makers. I'd say the Liverpool cases have more of an organic flow whereas the London cases tend towards the architectural.

The case of the Joseph Johnson in this old thread from 2019, with its ornamental band and rope-edge lids, is established as being by the Helsbys in Liverpool.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Incroyable]

So do we think the case was made by the Helsbys in Liverpool and then assayed and finished in London with a London chronometer movement?

What of the enigmatic TH maker's mark?

Perhaps this was some sort of special custom order made through Richard Clarke & Sons. The condition suggests it was little used through the years.

 

[Incroyable]

Jeffrey - thanks for the links and additional photographs.

The LC (Comptesse mark) case with the cylinder movement is of an example more in the Liverpool style, but it still appears to have a barrel edge.

Incidentally the first link implies that the movement (as the title) is 1815 (serial number is ok for that date) but the description has the case as 1837/38 although corrected in the detailed description - the case is definitely Chester 1815/16. (gmorse - what do you think of the movement ?)

John

This Parkinson & Frodsham from 1816 is very Liverpool in style as well.

Fine Decorative Four Colour Gold English Watch | Pieces of Time Ltd

A fine early 19th Century English four colour gold decorative watch with matching dial. Full plate gilt keywind fusee movement. Plain cock inscribed "Inventor & Fecit" on the table, diamond endstone. Plain four arm polished steel balance with blue steel spiral hairspring. Converted to English...

www.antique-watch.com

 

[John Matthews]

Jeffrey - yes the P&F is in the style of the Liverpool cases.

However, this is not a straightforward example.

I believe P&F #994 is later than 1816/17 said to be the hallmark on the case. #948 is dated 1823/24 & #1102 1824/25 according to Mercer. It is said to have been converted, which again makes the watch's history more complex. Finally in 1828 P&F opened a branch at 54 Castle Street, Liverpool.

How all this relates together, I have no idea, but I would want to have the watch in hand and be far more knowledgeable about P&F before drawing any conclusions.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

This Parkinson & Frodsham from 1816 is very Liverpool in style as well.

This watch bears a very strong resemblance to one I'm familiar with from a few years ago, only two serial numbers away from it, including the 'Invenit & Fecit' engraving on the balance cock, which I'm very interested to see. It too was believed to have been converted to a table roller, but it had a two pin roller, (not a Savage). It also had the same serpentine hands and a dial with some similar features. The London case maker was probably William Mean. The engraving of 'London' on both watches is in a strongly Liverpool style.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

This watch bears a very strong resemblance to one I'm familiar with from a few years ago

Yes Graham. I don't remember, with the famous #999 whether we considered P&F's shop in Liverpool. That case was stamped WM incuse for William Mean and you considered a possible Coventry connection for the movement. It does make me wonder whether some of these cases were sourced from Liverpool by P&F and Clarke etc, passed to a London case maker who had them assayed and finished the case subsequently.

"English watch cases were submitted to the assay office for hallmarking in a complete but unfinished state. This was because the hallmarking process would have damaged the smooth and highly polished surface of a case that was finished. After hallmarking watch cases needed extra work, called "rectification" by English watch case makers, to restore their shape and finish before final polishing. This extra work was said to add considerably to the cost of making a watch case."​

Copyright © David Boettcher 2006 - 2023 all rights reserved. ​

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

I don't remember, with the famous #999 whether we considered P&F's shop in Liverpool.

I've just gone back and looked at the report, and I didn't mention Liverpool but I did wonder about the Coventry star. This watch, like number 997, has two screwed and two pinned pillars, but it isn't cased as a swing-out, it's secured by two dog screws, and has a jointed dome, not a fixed one. The appearance of the 'mixed' pillars in 997 is interesting, as I had originally supposed that this feature in 999 was the result of early damage, but now having seen an identical layout on a very similar movement I was probably mistaken in this.

Lots to ponder on here!

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Did we consider the dates of the case in the context of Mercer’s dates? It makes you consider that these hallmarked cases could pre-date the movements.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

This was because the hallmarking process would have damaged the smooth and highly polished surface of a case that was finished. After hallmarking watch cases needed extra work, called "rectification" by English watch case makers, to restore their shape and finish before final polishing.

When a case was engine turned or otherwise decorated, that was also done after assay for obvious reasons. (Not a problem now that laser engraving is used for hallmarking where required).

Did we consider the dates of the case in the context of Mercer’s dates? It makes you consider that these hallmarked cases could pre-date the movements.

I didn't have access to Mercer when I examined 999, and the possibility of an earlier case did cross my mind, but I discounted it as being most unlikely. There are references to makers providing movements to fit specific cases though, I think in literature concerning Joseph Preston. Now that we know of two similar '99x' watches with cases assayed in the same years, both being cased in this way seems less likely still.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Now that we know of two similar '99x' watches with cases assayed in the same years, both being cased in this way seems less likely still.

Graham - I think there are too many unknowns, so I am not certain that this is sufficient to counter:

• the chronological sequencing of the serial numbers as reported by Mercer;
• the nature of the movements - are they conversions or early detached levers?;
• the possibility that the movements may have been worked in Coventry.

John

 

[Incroyable]

I'm curious whether this style of elaborate cast cases with gold dials was invented in Liverpool or did they simply specialize in the style?

If you look at other decorative arts from that era such as silver that heavily cast flora and fauna style was very much in fashion amongst the great London silvermsmiths like Paul Storr not to mention the numerous examples of period cast gold fobs and chains for watches.

What's also interesting is that there appear to be few pocket chronometers cased in this elaborate style. Most pocket chronometers from that era still tend to be in rather sedate cases at least from what I've seen.

 

[John Matthews]

Jeffrey - my opinion ...

I don't believe 'decorative' style is invented, rather it evolves as a result of demand in a particular period of time and the ability of a supplier to satisfy that demand.

For these decorative watch cases, the skills required combined the ability to produce the decoration and that of case making. That combination existed in the hands of relatively few, mainly in Liverpool and London. I suspect the demand was driven in London by the 'local wealthy' and less by the export trade, whereas in Liverpool the export trade was the dominant market. The nature of the demand (fashion) was perceptibly slightly different. This explains the impression I have that many of the highly decorative cases that were made in Liverpool are now often come to the market in America. They are often found housing movements signed by 'makers' active in the American trade.

The demand for a chronometer in a decorative case came from the very rich, those who wished to display it as a possession, rather than use it for a practical purpose. It was an object that could be admired for its mechanical excellence, for its timekeeping, but more 'instantly' could be admired for its beauty. Those chronometers that were housed "in rather sedate cases" were required to accurately measure time. The had to work good, not look good, often in environments where an elaborate gold case would not only be a waste of money, it would not be practical.

John

 

[Incroyable]

Jeffrey - my opinion ...

I don't believe 'decorative' style is invented, rather it evolves as a result of demand in a particular period of time and the ability of a supplier to satisfy that demand.

For these decorative watch cases, the skills required combined the ability to produce the decoration and that of case making. That combination existed in the hands of relatively few, mainly in Liverpool and London. I suspect the demand was driven in London by the 'local wealthy' and less by the export trade, whereas in Liverpool the export trade was the dominant market. The nature of the demand (fashion) was perceptibly slightly different. This explains the impression I have that many of the highly decorative cases that were made in Liverpool are now often come to the market in America. They are often found housing movements signed by 'makers' active in the American trade.

The demand for a chronometer in a decorative case came from the very rich, those who wished to display it as a possession, rather than use it for a practical purpose. It was an object that could be admired for its mechanical excellence, for its timekeeping, but more 'instantly' could be admired for its beauty. Those chronometers that were housed "in rather sedate cases" were required to accurately measure time. The had to work good, not look good, often in environments where an elaborate gold case would not only be a waste of money, it would not be practical.

John

Yes I was initially attracted to it because the combination of its elaborate case and movement seemed almost antithetical to the notion of a chronometer. It's really an object of extravagance. No doubt that explains its condition as well since it probably wasn't actively used as a timepiece or if it was it was in the possession of someone who had numerous ones.

It sort of reminds me of those carriage clocks with chronometer escapements by Dent, etc. Almost completely unnecessary and wildly expensive.

 

[John Pavlik]

Jeffery, Very nice chronometer!! Nothing much to add…. May have missed it, Have you determined who made the movement ? I have quite Few English watches, but never have seen such a large and elaborate serial number marking… Appears to me the movement was a “Stock” item and sold to this retailer … While a bit early, the case is missing the movement number…

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

John Matthews, you said::

The demand for a chronometer in a decorative case came from the very rich, those who wished to display it as a possession, rather than use it for a practical purpose. It was an object that could be admired for its mechanical excellence, for its timekeeping, but more 'instantly' could be admired for its beauty. Those chronometers that were housed "in rather sedate cases" were required to accurately measure time. The had to work good, not look good, often in environments where an elaborate gold case would not only be a waste of money, it would not be practical.​

Is my William Reid chronometer an example of impractical bling? It is discussed in William or James Reid Chronometer.

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

...the chronological sequencing of the serial numbers as reported by Mercer;

Regarding serial numbers, whilst we know that they aren't an infallible indicator of the date of production, I believe this to be especially so with chronometers, which not only took a long time to make but sometimes remained 'on the shelf' for some time afterwards before even being cased ready for sale.

May have missed it, Have you determined who made the movement ?

This will have to wait until the dial can be removed so that any stamps on the pillar plate are revealed.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Graham - my comment regarding serial numbers was with reference to Mercer’s Frodshams book & #997/#999, neither of which are chronometers. For these watches I think the chronological sequence is significant.

John

 

[Incroyable]

Jeffery, Very nice chronometer!! Nothing much to add…. May have missed it, Have you determined who made the movement ? I have quite Few English watches, but never have seen such a large and elaborate serial number marking… Appears to me the movement was a “Stock” item and sold to this retailer … While a bit early, the case is missing the movement number…

The case does have the movement number engraved on both the inner cover and outer cover. It's in between the hallmarks.

I wonder if the large elaborate engraving was designed to appeal to the customers who could afford to buy this type of thing.

 

[thesnark17]

I guess that all gold watches are "impractical bling", since gold is an inferior case material in a variety of ways.

An upper-class gentleman's watch-and-chain is 50% a timepiece and the other 50% a social statement. Looked at in that way, a gold watch is not automatically bling.

After all, gold is an inferior material for jewelry in a variety of ways... none of which really matter since people like the way gold looks.

Ethan's watch, specifically, is hardly over-the-top in its ornamentation anyway.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Perhaps Culme could shed more light on this mark, a quick search in Jacksons for Hardy doesn't reveal anything.

John Culme´s book is titled "The Directory of Gold & Silversmiths Jewellers & Allied Traders 1838-1914"
(Having a copy of these two books, saves time).


Brian Loomes in "Watchmakers & Clockmakers of the World Complete 21st Century Edition"

Has the following.

CLARK (E)

Clark(E) Richard & Son, Bank Street, Bradford (Yorks) 1822
Clark(E) Richard &Son, London early 19C.
Clark(E) Richard Junior Worcester 1850-4
Clark(E) Richard. a.1794 to James Richardson of Eastingwold (Yorks, q.v.
Clark (E) Richard. Birmingham (Warx) 1851 Clock Dials.
Clark (E) Richard Charleston (SC, USA 1767-72 from London
Clark(E) Richard. Dublin 1782.
Clark (E) Richard. Horsham (Sussex) 1625 rep.d Church Clock. Blacksmith.
Clark (E) Richard. London (Cheapside) 1779.
Clark (E) Richard. London (Spitalfields) a. 1781 CC1790-2. said to be the son of John Clark (E) of Primrose Street, London, q.v.
Clark (E) Richard. London 1795 Watch case maker.
Clark (E) Richard. London a. 1713 CC1720-45
Clark (E) Richard. London a.1766
Clark (E) Richard. a. 1794 Son of Robert Cowell Clark(E). q.v.
Clark (e) Richard London d. 1790
Clark (E) Richard. London early 19c.
Clark (E). Newport. Isle of Wight. 1814.


Clark (E) John. (Primrose Street ) CC 1788. Watch case maker.

I have put this here to help further research. It is very uncertain just who Richard Clark (E) was.

Allan

 

[Incroyable]

I guess that all gold watches are "impractical bling", since gold is an inferior case material in a variety of ways.

An upper-class gentleman's watch-and-chain is 50% a timepiece and the other 50% a social statement. Looked at in that way, a gold watch is not automatically bling.

After all, gold is an inferior material for jewelry in a variety of ways... none of which really matter since people like the way gold looks.

Ethan's watch, specifically, is hardly over-the-top in its ornamentation anyway.

Yes gold cased pocket chronometers are always slightly curious.

If they were intended as working watches wouldn't silver be more practical?