The Liverpool Runner.

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi All- I like Liverpool Runner´s-do you? Do you have one, and if so could you please post a few photographs of your Liverpool Runner. A Liverpool Runner is when the fusee is? put you own description by your watch so that we all know what you are talking about.
My idea is to find out roughly when the first Liverpool Runner´s were made.I would be very pleased to here from you.

Best Wishes,

Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

This is what I call a Liverpool runner.HM London 1835. by John Harrison Liverpool. Anyone have one earier?

Best,

Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

Very nice watch Allan!!!.............As for state side here, many of us are in American
cases with bogus hallmarks at best. A bit of a challenge you might say. As you know
the movements were being shipped over and cased in the US in 1820's & 30's.

I love them myself and I look forward to seeing those with true hallmarks like yours.

Keith R...

 

[Keith R...]

Well can't let the well go dry............Here's a late one, 1861.

Hope you don't mind Allan.

Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Well can't let the well go dry............Here's a late one, 1861.

Hi Keith- Every one of these watches counts. in fact your Tobias is a fine example and PL could write a book about it. Notice the balance wheel is Swiss.
Anyone with a Liverpool Runner can post here. Quote " from Anthony G. Randall and Richard Good-In a normal reversed fusee the normal planting of the fusee is reversed. The purpose is to put more of the pivot thrust resulting from the pull of the chain on to the fusee pivots rather than the centre pivots" So now you know what it is, and why people call it a Liverpool runner. Best. Allan.

PS: Reversed Fusee - very dull?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Allan,

Quote " from Anthony G. Randall and Richard Good-In a normal reversed fusee the normal planting of the fusee is reversed. The purpose is to put more of the pivot thrust resulting from the pull of the chain on to the fusee pivots rather than the centre pivots" So now you know what it is, and why people call it a Liverpool runner.

These two images are from Wikipedia. The first one is a conventional fusee with the chain running from the fusee to the same side of the barrel.



This picture is of a reverse fusee with the chain crossing over between the fusee and the barrel, and is what I believe Anthony and Richard are referring to. It's more commonly found in clocks and marine chronometers than watches and does have exactly the effect quoted, of equallising the pivot thrusts.



In Britten's Handbook Dictionary & Guide, the Reverse Fusee is described as follows:

"A fusee whose normal direction of rotation is reversed so that the thrust due to the pull of the fusee chain is divided between the arbors of the centre wheel and the fusee, greatly reducing the friction of the latter in its pivot holes and therefore reducing wear."

The entry goes on to say:

"Also known as the left-handed fusee, although this term is only correct when the fusee is not planted on the reverse side of the barrel but merely has its direction of rotation reversed."

I think it's clear that this has nothing to do with the placement of the click on the top plate, or indeed how the train is planted.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Allan,

The Johnson #6370 is an example of a Liverpool Runner that does not have a reverse fusee ...

John



Edit:

I have just re-read Kemp's discussion on 'Liverpool Runner' and while at the beginning of his discussion he says 'Recognition is simply a matter of spotting .... spring click ... has been brought into view on the top plate. At the end of the description he has 'Finally it might be added that the "hidden runner" may occur, where the mainspring ratchet in in the usual site with however a reversed train.'

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Thank you Graham- that is very clear, and I have to say I have read all of the above. The point here is not how a reversed fusee is made, though very interesting, and to answer John if the click cannot be seen, then there is little point
in calling it a Liverpool runner, no one is going to take a watch apart in the hope it is a reverse fusee-(You can see that through the plates) it is just a fact that it could happen. From the very begining of my enquiries in the Johnson thread was, when were these Liverpool Runners first made, and I now ask why the name was used by the trade. In fact if we listen to Glasgow and Beckett, the only good way to make a English fusee pocket watch, was to use a reverse Fusee, has they called it, a left hand fusee. So at one time between 1827 and 1850 the Liverpool trade were making the best fusee pocket watch in England. Glasgow pages 68-69. for those who don´t have Glasgow see below. Best Allan.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Allan,

Glasgow's reporting of the excellence of the reverse fusee is perfectly reasonable, and I have no argument with it, as it applies to this specific feature.

However, I continue to be puzzled by your conflation of reverse fusees with Liverpool Runners, which are, I maintain, quite separate and un-related subjects.

However, this is your thread and you will, I'm sure, pursue it in whatever direction you wish.

Regards,

Graham

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Three more watches of interest with left hand fusee. Thomas Wright of London, going by the high number this would be Thomas Wright working London from 1825 to 1881.In my oppinion
the watch is c1850-60. The one with the dial is signed John & Lewis Daniel 9 St. GeorgesCrescent Liverpool, though I cannot find a referance in Loomes. On the dial is written Patent Improved Lever,
and is of course a Massey. Though I don´t think it is early, could also be c1850. The other by Richard Hornby 2 can be dated late 1840´s not long before is death in 1849. I would loved to have see the Hornby
in all it´s Glory. A Really nice Liverpool Runner. Best, Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

owever, I continue to be puzzled by your conflation of reverse fusees with Liverpool Runners, which are, I maintain, quite separate and un-related subjects.

Hi Graham- The last thung I want is for you to leave this thread, we all value your opinions-as to a conflation, I am not trying to make something into another-call it the left hand fusee, or a Liverpool Runner matters not.
My questions remain the same, when did the liverpool watch trade make their first runner, and when or who, gave it the name a Liverpool Runner. In the end the click, the jewelles, the high class engraving made it look like something very special,
which made it a watch that people wanted. It all boils down to a trick of the trade. One last point for John, Kemps two books were written in 1979 and 1981 and he was then using the phrase Liverpool runner from his friends in the Liverpool watch trade
he only lived down the road, and spent his spare time collecting in that area, where I should think everyone knew what a Liverpool runner was. It would be nice to know you were concentrating your efforts to answer my questions, I have answered many of yours.Best Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

Great job Graham......................!!!!!!!!!!

Keith R... PS.............Oliver Gerrish 1850, Portland Maine. Hallmarks, little
cursive m. Also kudos to John M. Graham, I think I started this thread
with #2165.

 

[John Matthews]

Allan,

I am rather confused.

I have seen various definitions of a Liverpool Runner and how to identify it. I believe we all agree, that however it is recognised, we are describing a train that is reversed; by which we mean that the third wheel is planted next to the barrel. This does not require a reverse fusee. As Graham says they are not the same, i.e. you can have a reverse train without having a reverse fusee.

Might it be, that what you are trying to establish, irrespective of the label 'Liverpool Windows', is the earliest example of an Liverpool ébauche with the mainspring tension setting prawl exposed on the top plate? Which, as you seem to be implying in your last post, can often result, when combined with Liverpool Windows and high quality engraving, in 'something very special'. This is a sentiment that I suspect many of us share. I certainly do.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Plain and simple John, when I see the click on the top plate and the watch is signed Liverpool- it´s a Liverpool Runner. Allan.

PS: I am not allowed to tell you what I would like to-but I have informed Oliver, and I think you be pleased with the information.

 

[PapaLouies]

Hi All,

The earliest " Liverpool Runner " I know of is an M.I. Tobias & Co. #20632 put on the board by Ray's Post #1 at Thread: M I Tobias & Co.
As large and prolific as the Tobias house was, I doubt they would be far behind the curve of a new innovation like the " Liverpool Runner ".
According to Edidin's graph #20632 would be C. 1837-38.

I think the Moncas watch at Thread: Moncas watch photos, was the subject of a narrow balance cock and needs a good deal more investigation because it is likewise a " Liverpool Runner ". The Moncas watch #6728 is case dated 1827. I have my doubts about 1827 because the watch is so like the Tobias Runners of the early 1840s.

A few words about Allan's John Harrison #5863. A more in depth photo study would be required to support an 1835 date. Such photos as the inside of the front and back of the case. Also the dial and a full view of the cased watch showing the pendant and bow.

At this point there is little evidence that Josh Johnson #7046 is C. 1825. I would say more likely 1840-1850.

Regards, PL

 

[Tom McIntyre]

So, is there a consensus on whether or not a "Liverpool Runner" requires the train (not the fusee) to be reversed? Or, does it only require an exposed barrel click?

Must the regulation scale be engraved on the plate? How about the arrows on the regulator scale? The first time I saw one about 30 years ago, the click and the engraving were pointed out as the distinguishing features. The backward planted train is new information for me.

I have always loved Kullberg's reverse fusee watches and had never noticed the feature on these Liverpool watches. I will be looking for it now.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Tom-I think has this thread moves along we are going to see planty more-just sit back and wait. The photographs below are for PL.

 

[PapaLouies]

Hi Tom,

All the " Liverpool Runners " in my opinion have, the third wheel planted near the barrel, the set-up on the barrel bridge, the regulator scale either engraved in the plate or an applied metal scale and of course the rosette on the on the balance cock, which is typical of most Liverpool watches,

Regards, PL

 

[Omexa]

Guess who?

 

[PapaLouies]

Looks like Allan missed a photo of the back case cover inside.

Regards, PL

 

[Keith R...]

PL, left to right from the top, should be photo #9 in post #17. Not sure how clear it is though.
Back inside should be pic #7.

Keith R...

PS, I found another John Harrison with a documented site, showing a
circa 1835 (5xxx) date.

 

[PapaLouies]

Hi Keith, that's inside the case proper not the inside of the back cover.
Is (5xxx) a Liverpool Runner?
Regards, PL

 

[Keith R...]

Yes..............Keith R...

 

[Jerry Treiman]

It seems to me that is is difficult to share and discuss “Liverpool runners” if we do not have a clear definition of what the term means ... and we do appear to have different perceptions. In post #7 John Matthews has quoted Kemp -

... I have just re-read Kemp's discussion on 'Liverpool Runner' and while at the beginning of his discussion he says 'Recognition is simply a matter of spotting .... spring click ... has been brought into view on the top plate. At the end of the description he has 'Finally it might be added that the "hidden runner" may occur, where the mainspring ratchet in in the usual site with however a reversed train.'

This seems in accord with a reference I found in Antiquarian Horology (v.3, no.11, p.322: June 1962) where Vaudrey Mercer says “... a "Liverpool Runner", by which I understand one in which the pallets are to the left of the escape wheel and not to the right as is the usual. Most Liverpool Runners have the barrel ratchet on the top plate.” Both Kemp and Mercer appear to imply that it is the reversed train (as reiterated by John in post #13), and not a reversed fusee, that is the key element and that, although a pawl for setting up the mainspring is often a feature of the Liverpool Runner, this is not a requirement.

A later quote from Antiquarian Horology (v.21, no.4, p.324: June 1994) is from a summary by Philip Priestley of a talk on “Watchmaking in Liverpool” by Roger Carrington. Philip says “... 'Liverpool Runner', a term used to describe a Liverpool ebauche with the mainspring tension setting pawl exposed on the top plate and with the train reversed (possibly to reduce friction). The origin of this sobriquet was debated - Rodney Law opined that perhaps he was responsible forty years ago for mentioning the term after discussion with a Mr Mortimer of Ripon, who had been in the trade during the early twentieth century.” Philip put some emphasis on the visible pawl, but also reinforced the requirement of a reversed train. He also shed some possible light on the origin of the term.

I think Kemp’s reference to a “hidden runner”, where the ratchet wheel is not visible, lends some authority to the secondary importance of that aspect. Like Graham, I do not see how the reversed fusee is a critical element at all.

So, is there a consensus on whether or not a "Liverpool Runner" requires the train (not the fusee) to be reversed? Or, does it only require an exposed barrel click? ...

Tom - I think the history of the term, as well as I have been able to trace it, supports the former.

 

[John Matthews]

Jerry - thank you for the clarity of your excellent summary.

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

I agree with the comments above and have done so since post one. I have also read the points over the many years, that have been quoted and point to the mechanical
way a Liverpool Runner is made. Going back to post one, and the original question, it is I have to say of little use. All I am looking for, and I know of others who are interested,
is when were the Runners first produced. There is on the big auction house at the moment a complete fake made by a Liverpool maker you know has JJ. They claim it was HM in 1827.
The case it´s in was not made before 1855. LW case maker London. So thank you all again, and the question remains "When and where, were Liverpool Runners first made" Best Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Keith-Has you said a lot of runners were sent to America as movements only, and were then cased by American casemakers. You were right to point this
out. I have taken some time to go through one of my photographic files of liverpool watches, many of which are Liverpool Runners. Many of the photographs were taken
from auctions and such, and it was of no surprise to find they were indeed sold has Liverpool Runners. Though I would like to start with a pocket chronometer No. 800
by Richard Hornby.



If you did not know this watch to be a chronometer, it could be taken for a Liverpool Runner. Of course the experts would know having seen the balance. Though her we do have
a pocket watch style that could have been the insperation for the Liverpool Runner. (I have to add here I don´t know when the watch was made or which Richard Hornby made it, but the indications are
c1825. See the 2 Richard Hornby´s).

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi Keith-Has you said a lot of runners were sent to America as movements only,

I have too use another frame to many photographs. To continue, you will know all the names on the watches, they are all from Liverpool, that is not to say the style of watch
was not made in Coventry and London. The two Tobias firms seem to have made,quite a lot, and Mucas, Johnson, Hornby, and many others. In the main the watches on here
were found for sale as movements only- which would tell us they more than likely had a gold case, some are recorded in gold cases made in the USA, and given a circa date.
So again we can not be sure when these watches were made.

So enough from me at the moment, there are a lot of questions here. I do though have information on some of these in American cases.

Best wishes, Allan

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Looks like Allan missed a photo of the back case cover inside.

He did not, but below two more-the case maker only stamped the rear cover with the standard mark and the date leter. Allan

 

[PapaLouies]

He did not, but below two more-the case maker only stamped the rear cover with the standard mark and the date leter. Allan

View attachment 463044 View attachment 463045

This is not a photo of inside the back cover.
PL

 

[Keith R...]

PL, use that conversation thing with Allan like we did this morning.

Allan, nice movements. I try and assist Oliver on genuine Johnson's
through photos and email. You only have one fake, but it's a nice one.
Thanks for the MI Tobias movements, (I collect them when I can).

My #7771 JJ is a runner with a tentative date of 1825. The case maker
for it's pair case is SH and F for a bogus hallmark. This same case
maker has shown up on 4 17J Runners 20 years apart and owned by
several of us on this board, including my buddy Dave Chaplain. So
Oliver started a data base and we are going by SN & style to date
the early JJ's. You have a 4 digit JJ but I can't read the SN#. If you
give me that one I'll send all your JJ SN#s to Oliver.

I notice you show a 7xxx MI Tobias runner. That's good info for me.
Here's one of mine from about 1830. I won't show the movement
as it's not a runner (unless under the plate). The SN# is 14150.

Thanks Allan...........................Keith R...
Oops, sorry, my JJ 7771 is also a Massey II, (confirmed)

PS...........I only question 11621 signature.

 

[PapaLouies]

So much for authoritative reasoning.
Most sources quoted did not have the benefit of computers.
I will stick to my definition of the " Liverpool Runner ".

Regards, PL

 

[Keith R...]

Besides #7771 of 1825, I'd also say 8122 with 17J JJ all have the table setup
(the click), so also 1825. In my opinion your 7xxx MI Tobias would be about the same
time frame as the two JJ's mentioned. I think PL has one in the early 1830's (unsure
of maker). Ray (Omex has earlier movements in JJ's) but they are under red letter
for now.

So I's say 1825 when cased in the US at New York. Movements finished in the US.
Some of these dials are works of art, so I'd defer to where with Graham, but it was
in the UK. Now there are other owners of other makers and yet to participate.

PS..............Earlier Johnson's under review with Ray's, is #6370 owned by John
Mathews, (re-cased in an 1848 case). This would be the earliest JJ at about
1824.

Keith R...

 

[Omexa]

Hi, I have just been looking in my movement Graveyard and I found these. Have I got it right Red Liverpool Runner, Green not a Liverpool Runner?? Regards Ray

 

[John Matthews]

Have I got it right Red Liverpool Runner, Green not a Liverpool Runner?? Regards Ray

Ray - Yes

John

 

[PapaLouies]

Great find!
In Allan's photo array, Post #28, the M.I. Tobias & Co. 7223 is a Liverpool Runner and moves the time-line up to 1824.

Regards, PL

 

[Keith R...]

I agree with Ray (as with John M on photos of runners). I agree with PL on Allan's
MI Tobias at 1824. I'm unsure of the other movements Allan has given us, but I'm
quite satisfied with his #7223 and 1824, (give or take a few months)..

Allan, the signature shown on this JJ is typical for the 25 Church Street engraver
under Josh Johnson. Note, dust cap off to the side in the photo.

Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Well you have been busy over night. First I have to say sorry to Graham, Jerry, and John for explaining so well the mechanics of these watches, it is just that I knew all that,
but forgot that others would not have known. John you are quite right about the left handed runner under the dial, though it cannot be seen, unless you take the time to find it.
So both are Liverpool Runners. Thanks too, to Ray Great photographs. I must also add the photographs above are only on file, I do not own them. (Wish I did).

PL. You too are right that is not a photograh of the rear cover, it is the front cover, I though my photgraph (6) of the rear cover was as clear as glass, so I though you wanted to see the HM´s
on the front cover that were not so clear.

Keith, I had no idea you too are a Johnson fan, and you are quite right to say I should use the PM´s more. The above watch is a real beauty, but is that not the outer cover of a pair case?

So all in all we are down to somewhere around 1824/25 I think that is great news, if we get lower I will be suprised. We need a few more HM´s.

Best,

Allan.

 

[PapaLouies]

The photograph (6) is the inside of the watch case proper. I guess it could be described as the back cover of the watch movement.
What is not shown is the inside of the back cover of the watch case.

Regards, PL

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Right again PL. Here is the photograph of the rear cover. Allan.

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi PL. here is the photograph of the rear cover without the watch paper, is that OK for you. Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

Allan, my photo of #7771 is the watch itself in it's inner pair case. The outer pair case is
in the photo just to the bottom left, open and empty, (if I understand your question correctly)
in post #37.

Now a photo of both shown.

Keith R....

 

[Omexa]

Hi Keith, It is a really nice Pocket Watch. Regards Ray

 

[Keith R...]

Thanks Ray, coming from you sets the bar high! We have many more watches to collect together.
Call on me anytime Ray...................Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

llan, my photo of #7771 is the watch itself in it's inner pair case. The outer pair case is
in the photo just to the bottom left, open and empty, (if I understand your question correctly)
in post #37.

Hi Keith- In your post 37 you said dust cap, I had forgotten that the outer cover is sometimes called the "Dust cap". In fact I
think that is the correct wording for for the outer cover- Dust Cap. Best, Allan

 

[Keith R...]

Allan, the dust cap (cover over the movement) can be seen in the lower section
of this photo, off the watch so I could take the photo. Thanks.

So my mistake for misunderstanding my own words some several posts back.
It will not be the last mistake I ever make. I expect another today, when my
coon hound will drag my cat out in the yard, by the head around 2 o'clock
on cue, I yell, curse, scold, but tomorrow it'll do the same thing, about the same
time and I'll repeat that same mistake. However, I love the old dog for all it's
faults.

Keith R...

 

[Omexa]

Hi Keith, the Coon Hound just thinks it is doing it's Job. I finally got the Kew A Penlington; I will post photos soon. Off to the Hospital for a CT CAP Scan today and I am not in a good mood because I have to fast and I am starved. Regards Ray

 

[Keith R...]

Ray, I'm glad your getting the checkup......................As soon as you're done, go pig out on a big steak!

I'll look for your post on the Kew boss. OOPS, just saw your latest on the Kew, will read shortly.

Keith R...

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Now a photo of both shown.

The other day I got out my file on John Moncas, and of course the very good article on Moncas by Michael Paice. My file of photographs shows at least 5 Liverpool Runners by John Moncas. The one below I have chosen, because it is in an English Gold case with the Hallmarks for Liverpool 1826/27. Mocas at this time prefered the Massey II escapement, and all 5 of those in my file have this escapement.

6081 Runner Movement Only.
6284 Runner American Gold Case
6457 Runner American Gold Case
6728 See Below
7826 Runner Movement only.



Best,

Allan.

 

[Keith R...]

Nice watch Allan and great info! We have something common. #7771 is a confirmed
Massey II by Carrignan Watch repair. Nice early compensated balance wheel on this
Moncas. PL may have one of these, if I recall.

PL, please note Allan's balance cock and the parallel sides, hallmarked 1826/27.

Thanks for showing these Allan. In the Josh Johnson thread, we went back and forth
about when this type of cock began showing up. The issue was your type cock pre-1830
or post. Your examples answer the question for me.

Thanks again, Keith R...