Trying to determine age of this verge pocket watch

[sharkeye]

Hi
This pocket watch has been in the drawer for some time after I got annoyed trying to figure out the age of it...

If I look at it quickly I think I would have guessed it to somewhere around 1740 or so because of pillars, worm-screw, dial and shape of the pair cases.
But two things (or maybe more that I haven´t noticed!) stands out...

First is the markings in the cases...a big E seems to be for either 1720 or 1800.
1720 feels a bit early...and the shape of the shield is also not correct. But 1800 feels to late, and it is also missing the duty mark, which I guess it should have had 1800.

Secondly the champleve dial I would have placed in the early 1700s on a London-watch, but it is not the 2/3-parts dial I have on other champleve dials...
It sits very good in the brass-fitting underneath, and no extra holes are done indicating a change of dials.

Stephen Gibbs seems to have worked mid 1700s, but not as late as 1800 what I have found.

I would be thankful for some advice on this watch

Kind regards
Matthias

 

[gmorse]

Hi Matthias,

I suspect that dial with its brass edge is a relatively modern replacement, I agree it's nothing like an early 18th century champlevé dial. If it was 1720, it would look more like this one from around 1710, which does have a separate central reserve. It would probably also have a case bolt made in one piece with its spring, and the small nib poking through the dial at VI, as here. This one has three feet by the way, not four.



The style of the movement seems about right for Steven Gibbs to have made it, (working middle years of the 18th century), and I believe that the case is an 1800/01 replacement, but still much older than that dial.

Regards,

Graham

 

[sharkeye]

Thank you Graham for your comments. Interesting mix of parts in this watch...I always wonder about the history and why these things happened during the years...but usually it remains a mystery. Why go through the trouble and make that dial with correct engraving even...it can not have changed the value that much of the watch

Kind regards
Matthias

 

[Incroyable]

Unless an owner did it themself having a dial like that made up must have cost quite a bit.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Matthias,

Looking at this again, the brass edge would not necessarily have been replaced, it's quite easy to mark the positions for the posts on the back of the dial. Another thing about that dial is the coarseness of the matting.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Are we certain this is English?

Let's play devil's advocate.

Convince me it isn't a Swiss movement fitted with the original dial having 4 feet and cased on the continent in an English case by Job William Palmer, with genuine London hallmarks for1800/01.

John

 

[sharkeye]

Good question John! What I see in it points to it being of English origin... But I have added some more pictures here for a second opinion I am curious which material the dial is made of...it is extremely shiny underneath while more matte on top.

 

[gmorse]

Hi Matthias,

The dial should be gold, although I would be very surprised if this one turned out to be. I suspect it could be plated brass. It has a mechanical look to the engraving; however good the engraver, there are always very slight differences detectable between the same numerals, especially in the 2s, 3s and 5s. Apart from its design anomalies, the back has been extensively scraped, (hence the shine), and so has the inside of the case over the hallmarks.

The earliest registration in Priestley for Job William Palmer is on 21st July 1798. He changed his cartouche from rectangular with rounded corners, as here, to rectangular with cut corners in 1809.

The winding hole in the box has encroached on the date letter, although the marks do look the same in both the box and the case. This is sometimes an indication of a re-case, which the date discrepancies have already suggested. However, there doesn't appear to be any sign of an earlier winding hole being filled in.

The opening in the case to accommodate the pendant, (the 'gout'), seems to be too large, which suggests that either the pendant has been replaced, (not an unusual occurrence), or the two cases didn't originally belong together despite being apparently by the same case maker.

The cases appear in the pictures to be gold in colour but they bear silver hallmarks, is this an effect of lighting or are they really gold coloured?

Regarding your query about the duty mark, it was only required in watch cases between 1784 and 1798.

Leaving aside the issue of the dial, I share John's evident unease about the origin of this movement, but the clues are subtle and sometimes just a feeling.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Yes, as Graham infers I do have some doubts.

Firstly the box. If there is no evidence of previous use and it only has features consistent with the current movement, I interpret the (poorly made vs damaged?) winding hole cutting the assay mark to probably mean that the case was sent to assay prior to an initial fitting of the movement. This is often a 'feature' of cases where the watch has other features that might be interpreted as being inconsistent with its apparent origin, e.g. on cases exported and fitted with a continental movement.

Incidentally, I think the cartouche surrounding the maker's mark probably has round rather than cut corners, i.e. it is the 1798 registered mark and is therefore consistent with the date letter.

The outer case, as Graham has indicated appears in the photograph to have been made for a larger diameter pendant. I would like to see a close-up of the pendant and its fitting. The cases might have been made as a pair but without a pendant.

Here are some of my 'feelings' as Graham puts it. The dial I suspect is Swiss, what is it made of? The front of the pillar plate, beneath the dial, just doesn't look English in design to me. Not sure about the finish quality of the pillars, difficult to be certain from photographs. The crown wheel plug supporting the outer pivot is possibly of atypical design, from what I can see. There is something about the teeth profile of the fusee great wheel that doesn't look right, but I cannot put my finger on what it is. The 'jolly' face mask at the base of the cock table is not frequently seen. Difficult to definitively judge the quality of the cock table work from the photograph, which may not be doing it justice. Tompion regulator dial markings have either been re-done or were done badly initially.

Having said all that - are there any initials on the inside of the cap? If there are and they are known, that might throw a spanner in the works!

John

 

[sharkeye]

John & Graham, thank you both for your excellent analyses of this strange watch

Both cases are gold-colored / gilded as you say Graham, and yes the inside of the outer case has been heavily scratched down to the silver underneath. I assume an owner at some time hoped it was solid gold...

The cases fit quite well, although the outer case will not close with a tight fit...damaged or perhaps a sign of them not being an original pair...

The small "thing" / star below the silver-stamps, is that a journey-mark? I have read about it somewhere but don´t remember if that makes sense...

Anyway, I think I will accept that this watch is of both questionable origin and with some anachronisms, and might have to give up its space in the collection for something more reliable

 

[John Matthews]

Are there any marks on the inside of the cap? If so can you please take a photograph.

It looks as if the hinge may be the cause of the outer not closing - is that the true?

John

 

[sharkeye]

No marks at all inside the cap.

And you are right about the outer case...it is something with the hinge I think. I tried to close it without the inner case inside, and it is the same thing.

On the brass fitting for the dial something is inscribed, but almost impossible to see...Pilvir Schver or similar...but very faint... Finisher or from a service perhaps.

 

[sharkeye]

I found these two other Gibbs-movements/watches which seem to be in the same style with face and pillars.

Watchmaker: Stephen Gibbs | Pair-case watch and key | British, London | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

<strong>Signature:</strong> Signed on the backplate: Stepn Gibbs London 735<br/><br/>Signed on the dust cover: Stepn Gibbs/London/No 735<br/><br/><strong>Marking:</strong> On the interior of the inner and outer cases:<br/>[1] leopard's head (London assay office mark)<br/>[2] p (London date...

www.metmuseum.org

Pocket watch: important, very early English Gold/enamel double case-Spindeluhr with matching Chatelaine, made in the style of George Michael Moser, Stephen Gibbs, London, 1742 — catalog 174. Auction: High quality wrist watches and pocket watches, fin

Pocket watch: important, very early English Gold/enamel double case-Spindeluhr with matching Chatelaine, made in the style of George Michael Moser, Stephen Gibbs, London, 1742 — buy design, poster or download a high-quality photo ✓ reasonable price ✓ special thematic interior design. #Photo...

veryimportantlot.com

If assuming they are "real", I could almost assume that the movement is an actual English one, but the case and (probably) the dial is later additions. This cutout in the inner case for the movement also looks like it has been repurposed...I have not noticed that on other watches before.

Any thoughts on that?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Matthias,

The small "thing" / star below the silver-stamps, is that a journey-mark? I have read about it somewhere but don´t remember if that makes sense...

Probably a jointer's mark, the person who made the hinges and fitted the case together.

On the brass fitting for the dial something is inscribed, but almost impossible to see...Pilvir Schver or similar...but very faint... Finisher or from a service perhaps.

The motion work maker traditionally made and fitted the brass edge, and this signature could well be for that person.

Regards,

Graham

 

[John Matthews]

Matthias

I believe that movement #735 in the Met is a genuine English example - the photographs are sharp and the detail of the engraving is of the quality I would expect to see. Worth comparing this with your example, also the style and detail of the signature, the position of the 'n', may be a distinctive feature.

(Met photographs can be used freely)

John

 

[Incroyable]

I have a similar star shaped jointer's mark in a much later solid gold pocket chronometer case.

I wonder if jointers all used a star shaped mark?

 

[gmorse]

Hi Jeffrey,

I wonder if jointers all used a star shaped mark?

If they did, how would they be identified and distinguished from each other, which was the whole point of the mark?

Regards,

Graham

 

[Incroyable]

Hi Jeffrey,


If they did, how would they be identified and distinguished from each other, which was the whole point of the mark?

Regards,

Graham

Is there a directory of jointer marks?

Perhaps they were stipulated to have a generalized star shape at some point in time.

 

[John Matthews]

I have no reference to a study of these 'case worker' 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 additional 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

 

[John Matthews]

I have start a thread here to discuss and record these 'subsidiary marks'.

John

 

[jboger]

Not much to add, but the scraping on the back of the dial that Graham notes above is almost certainly an indication that this is a replaced dial. This scraping was most likely done because the replaced dial was making contact with the motion work, which I highly doubt would have been the situation with the original dial. Metal was removed from the dial in order to fit. (I've also seen plates scraped to lower the motion work.) In other words, the movement already existed, and the dial and movement were not originally made for each other.

Furthermore, the three feet on the dial plate look like later additions to the dial plate so that this dial plate could then fit the movement. That is to say, I don't think this dial plate is original to the movement, although old. I do think, however, the dial is original to the dial plate given the four holes for the four dial feet. So in short, I think this dial and its plate started life together on the same watch and were then together fitted to this movement. If the name Pilver Schver is anything close to what the scratcher intended, then this indicates a Continental origin, at least for the dial and it's plate.

Based on this, I think I might agree with Sharkeye above, viz. this was an already existing English movement fitted with both a dial and dial plate from a Continental watch then recased sometime around the time the date letter indicates. I think this is what the data indicates. If so, this is a more or less period "fix" and makes for an interesting history even if not all parts originated together.

One last thing. I think all this work was done at the same time and in England given the hallmarks on the case. So, long ago an English watchmaker paired the dial and its plate to a spare movement. Being this occurred in England, the greater likelihood was the spare movement was of English make and not Continental.

John

 

[John Matthews]

Metal was removed from the dial in order to fit

To fit the brass edge?

The brass edge has been relieved to accommodate the heads of the screws on the front of the pillar plate. I can see no evidence this work is not original.

Neither can I see any evidence on the front face of the brass edge that the three feet are later additions.

John

Edit - in fact I would go further this is one of the least 'messed about' brass edges that I can recall.

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

I agree, this brass edge is unmolested, down to the little bit of mercury gilding visible, but where it was made is another matter.

Regards,

Graham

 

[jboger]

I wrote a lengthy response, then, upon further consideration I deleted it. I thought I had an opinion, but now don't.

Graham, in post #8, refers to scratches that make the back of the dial shiny. I don't think these were to test the metal, rather were made to retrofit a non-original dial to the movement so the dial cleared the minute wheel, which I surmise it was rubbing against. One could check that by seeing if the scratch marks are opposite the minute wheel. I thought that was strong evidence for a replaced dial. Now I'm not sure even of that.

My apologies for the red herring.

John

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

I thought that was strong evidence for a replaced dial. Now I'm not sure even of that.

I'm pretty sure that the dial is a much later replacement, based solely on its design which seems to me to be a modern pastiche.

Regards,

Graham

 

[gmorse]

Hi John,

Champlevé dials in silver or gold are typically quite thin, since some of the design was hammered out from the back, like repoussé work, and many are slightly convex, I believe simply for aesthetic reasons since the brass edge provides the clearance for the motion work.

Regards,

Graham

 

[jboger]

John, Graham:

Yes, to everything you write, but still I wonder if the replaced dial may have been too flat for the movement despite the brass dial plate providing some clearance. The motion work may still be slightly elevated above the dial plate when in place,* which, not a problem for a convex dial, but perhaps so for a replaced dial. The pinion for the minute wheel could be the culprit. So a quick and dirty solution would be to remove some metal from the back of the dial. Of course, if the scratches are not opposite the minute wheel, then all bets are off. I thought the scratches might be evidence in addition to stylistic consideration why we have a replaced dial.

*Just want to be clear that by "dial plate" I do not refer to the movement's pillar plate but the brass plate to which the dial is pinned

John

 

[Allan C. Purcell]

Hi, Sharkeye, I think it would be easier if you were to look for Stephen Gibbs, London (Lombard Street) a. 1773. CC1748-64.

In London, there were three Gibbs, Joshua, (All born in the 17 century) was apprenticed through the Clockmakers Company in December 1689 to Thomas Gibbs and made free in July 1700. Thomas Gibbs was born in about 1659. Then there was Walter Gibbs born about 1626. All three could have been the father of Stephen. Though Thomas would be my favourite.

There is more information in Brian Loomes' book "Clockmakers of Britain 1286-1700.

There is little doubt the movement was made in the UK, what happened over the next 300 years I cannot help you with.

Best Wishes,

Allan.