Community Stories

Calling all Pocket Watch Buffs

CBM1590
Posts
948
Likes
3,578
Canuck Canuck
-John Bent, London, 1734, listed in Baillie.

-John Bent, Garbaldisham, (pronounced Garboldsham), Norfolk, 1836-1846, listed in Loomes.

The watch is a verge with fusee, pair case, key wind, key set. Regarding originality? I suspect the inner case would be original, but there is no way to know for certain. The outer case? Likewise. When you get it, you might consider removing the case papers, carefully, and comparing hallmarks, standard marks, date letters, and case maker trade marks on the cases. Also, look for serial numbers inside both cases. This information will answer a lot of questions. I have Phillip Priestley’s excellent book on English watch case maker’s trade marks. Give us a good picture of those marks, and we should be able to tell you a lot.

By 1836-46 (see above), most English watches had evolved to the English lever escapement, and the pair case had gone the way of the dodo bird. I suspect your watch is likely from circa the 1734 date. But the hallmarks in the case(s) may either confirm, or tell a different story. Let us know what you find out.

What might silver scrap sell for nowadays? Not very much, I fear.
1734! You never cease to amaze with your information, Canuck! Great work! Fantastic watch @Duracuir1 ! The detail is phenomenal. Great find! I can’t wait to see your pics upon arrival.
 
Canuck
Posts
14,379
Likes
41,411
CBM1590 CBM1590
1734! You never cease to amaze with your information, Canuck! Great work! Fantastic watch @Duracuir1 ! The detail is phenomenal. Great find! I can’t wait to see your pics upon arrival.

Thanks! It’s called BOOKS! No need to know everything when you know where to FIND it! By the way, when @Duracuir gets the watch and answers the questions I asked, that date will probably not be correct. The date letter and hallmarks in the two cases will likely be more accurate.
 
ghce
Posts
3,833
Likes
37,015
Were it me I would be extremely cautious when it comes to removing the paper, it being close to 300 years old and having been subject to heat / cold and oil vapors for all that time I would say its integrity is vanishingly delicate to say the least.
Were it in the care of a museum or similar they would if they had concerns to it viability on removal probably do an X-ray to determine any case markings.
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
QUOTE="ghce, post: 2273601, member: 53123"]Were it me I would be extremely cautious when it comes to removing the paper, it being close to 300 years old and having been subject to heat / cold and oil vapors for all that time I would say its integrity is vanishingly delicate to say the least.
Were it in the care of a museum or similar they would if they had concerns to it viability on removal probably do an X-ray to determine any case markings.[/QUOTE]

Good advice. And it reminded me of this thread…


https://omegaforums.net/threads/i-s...-ray-machine-edit-i-have-a-speedy-now.133947/
 
CBM1590
Posts
948
Likes
3,578
Duracuir1 Duracuir1
QUOTE="ghce, post: 2273601, member: 53123"]Were it me I would be extremely cautious when it comes to removing the paper, it being close to 300 years old and having been subject to heat / cold and oil vapors for all that time I would say its integrity is vanishingly delicate to say the least.
Were it in the care of a museum or similar they would if they had concerns to it viability on removal probably do an X-ray to determine any case markings.

Good advice. And it reminded me of this thread…


https://omegaforums.net/threads/i-s...-ray-machine-edit-i-have-a-speedy-now.133947/[/QUOTE]
Cool finds in that revived thread, for sure Steve! I love pilfering through old stuff. The salient question for me though is what was beauty of a knife was found in that Spyderco box on the shelf??
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
CBM1590 CBM1590
Good advice. And it reminded me of this thread…


https://omegaforums.net/threads/i-s...-ray-machine-edit-i-have-a-speedy-now.133947/
Cool finds in that revived thread, for sure Steve! I love pilfering through old stuff. The salient question for me though is what was beauty of a knife was found in that Spyderco box on the shelf??[/QUOTE]


The Spyderco…. A good friend who I supervised for years, who also happens to be a Lt. Colonel in our Armed Forces (with 2 tours of Afghanistan and one in Kuwait) asked me to be his best man. He called me less than 24 hours before the wedding! I’m not sure how I went without a knife before he gave it to me as a gift. I use it everyday, but not to open watch cases…
 
CBM1590
Posts
948
Likes
3,578
Duracuir1 Duracuir1
Cool finds in that revived thread, for sure Steve! I love pilfering through old stuff. The salient question for me though is what was beauty of a knife was found in that Spyderco box on the shelf??


The Spyderco…. A good friend who I supervised for years, who also happens to be a Lt. Colonel in our Armed Forces (with 2 tours of Afghanistan and one in Kuwait) asked me to be his best man. He called me less than 24 hours before the wedding! I’m not sure how I went without a knife before he gave it to me as a gift. I use it everyday, but not to open watch cases…[/QUOTE]
I have carried a knife every day since I was in the 5th grade. Growing up on a farm meant it was going to get used every day. I still carry and use one every day….and it usually is a Spyderco. Just got a shipment in from them yesterday with a matching set for me and my grown sons, although it probably won’t see the pocket time of those in my daily rotation.
 
DrmexicoII
Posts
607
Likes
911
It beggars belief that you can acquire an intricate piece of watchmaking from the 18th century for around CAD 125!
 
Canuck
Posts
14,379
Likes
41,411
As to whether to remove the case papers or not. @Duracuir1 was questioning whether the case(s) were original to the watch. Only one way to find out, to my way of thinking. If the hallmarks, date letters, case serial numbers, and case makers marks could be compared, that comparison might be necessary. Otherwise, those marks inside the outer cover which are not hidden by the case papers are all he has to work with. His watch, his decision.
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
Canuck Canuck
As to whether to remove the case papers or not. @Duracuir1 was questioning whether the case(s) were original to the watch. Only one way to find out, to my way of thinking. If the hallmarks, date letters, case serial numbers, and case makers marks could be compared, that comparison might be necessary. Otherwise, those marks inside the outer cover which are not hidden by the case papers are all he has to work with. His watch, his decision.
Here is one last photo that I thought I had posted. Certainly a good fit of the inner and outer cases.
IMG_7331.jpeg


A bit of a blur caused by the outer case glass. I can pick it up tomorrow or Saturday. The hour drive on busy Highway 401 will be easier on Saturday… but am I able to wait that long? Will see if all my leather work is caught up before I decide.
 
Canuck
Posts
14,379
Likes
41,411
Duracuir1 Duracuir1
Here is one last photo that I thought I had posted. Certainly a good fit of the inner and outer cases.
IMG_7331.jpeg


A bit of a blur caused by the outer case glass. I can pick it up tomorrow or Saturday. The hour drive on busy Highway 401 will be easier on Saturday… but am I able to wait that long? Will see if all my leather work is caught up before I decide.

I’d say original. When the watch is at hand, a picture of the stampings inside the outer case back will likely tell enough. We wait!
 
SpeedyPhill
Posts
6,277
Likes
11,608
86400 an important number in all kinds of time calculations
(Photo: MoonwatchUniverse)
.
86400_MoonwatchUniverse.jpg
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
I picked up the old watch this morning. Here are photos. I used a large stitching needle to remove the paper. Some photos may be redundant.

The outer case is a perfect match to the inner case.

Have a look.
IMG_7375.jpeg IMG_7376.jpeg IMG_7377.jpeg IMG_7378.jpeg IMG_7379.jpeg IMG_7380.jpeg
My Smiths is only to show how thick the old one is.
IMG_7381.jpeg IMG_7382.jpeg IMG_7383.jpeg IMG_7384.jpeg IMG_7385.jpeg IMG_7386.jpeg IMG_7387.jpeg IMG_7388.jpeg IMG_7389.jpeg IMG_7390.jpeg IMG_7391.jpeg IMG_7392.jpeg IMG_7393.jpeg IMG_7394.jpeg IMG_7395.jpeg IMG_7396.jpeg IMG_7397.jpeg IMG_7399.jpeg IMG_7400.jpeg IMG_7401.jpeg IMG_7402.jpeg IMG_7403.jpeg IMG_7404.jpeg IMG_7406.jpeg IMG_7407.jpeg IMG_7408.jpeg IMG_7409.jpeg IMG_7410.jpeg IMG_7411.jpeg IMG_7412.jpeg IMG_7413.jpeg
The watch reminds me of this movie…
IMG_7415.jpeg
I should have perhaps taken shots of the inner and outer cases side by side. In my photos above the inner case has the key hole.

The key is not a match by the way, so maybe it can be wound. Do the guts look good? The little bicycle chain looks pretty cool.
 
IMG_7398.jpeg
UncleBuck
Posts
3,469
Likes
7,977
Just stunning!
Steve, please keep us informed and a sincere "thank you" for presenting such a unique, ancient piece of horology.
I'll remember this one.
 
noelekal
Posts
5,982
Likes
43,815
Yea Steve!

Thank you for sharing your find and thank you for honoring the watch by acquiring it in order to preserve it.
 
Canuck
Posts
14,379
Likes
41,411
The hallmark is London, the date letter C in that cartouche appears to be 1798-99. What appears to be the case maker’s mark (IB or IH, incuse) could be any one of about half a dozen case makers. If it is IH incuse, it could be John Hadley, 10 St. James Buildings, Rosomans Row (London?), reg’d 1789. If it is IB incuse, it could be John Bullocke, 40 Ironmonger Row, Old St. (London?), reg’d 1782. My initial guess of circa 1734, based on the Baillie listing for this watchmaker, was way early. But English maker’s names were often used for decades after the death of the scion, as these businesses often remained in the family. Unfortunately, the case maker’s stamp is not well defined. Thanks to Steve for daring to remove the case papers. These papers alone, often tell a story.
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
Canuck Canuck
The hallmark is London, the date letter C in that cartouche appears to be 1798-99. What appears to be the case maker’s mark (IB or IH, incuse) could be any one of about half a dozen case makers. If it is IH incuse, it could be John Hadley, 10 St. James Buildings, Rosomans Row (London?), reg’d 1789. If it is IB incuse, it could be John Bullocke, 40 Ironmonger Row, Old St. (London?), reg’d 1782. My initial guess of circa 1734, based on the Baillie listing for this watchmaker, was way early. But English maker’s names were often used for decades after the death of the scion, as these businesses often remained in the family. Unfortunately, the case maker’s stamp is not well defined. Thanks to Steve for daring to remove the case papers. These papers alone, often tell a story.
Thank you so much for your research sir. Proud to have the old watch and hope it lives on for many more years.
 
Canuck
Posts
14,379
Likes
41,411
Wearing my scarce Hamilton grade 952, 16-size, lever set, 19-jewel version of the venerable Hamilton grade 950. I’ve owned this watch for lo about 45 years. In that time, I have seen them aspire to a position of some status in collectors guides. Proved to be a watch that is fairly scare, today. Any that I have seen have been in this same Keystone model case with hinged back, hinged cuvette, and hinged bezel. Made circa 1909, so 115 years old. There were three versions of the grade 952 movement over the years. Mine is the earliest. Initially, the 952 was made with a one-piece barrel bridge, four dial feet, and two screws on the crown wheel, (see mine). The next version was made with a two-piece barrel bridge to make changing the mainspring simpler. The newest version has 3-dial feet, a single screw on the crown wheel, and it returns to the one-piece barrel bridge. Love this watch.

IMG_1992.jpeg IMG_1993.jpeg IMG_1994.jpeg IMG_1995.jpeg
Edited:
 
Duracuir1
Posts
2,774
Likes
29,591
A few more photos of the printed paper or fabric in the old watch. The inner case also has what I think is a watchmaker’s etching. I see “Johnson” and “18??”
IMG_7438.jpeg IMG_7441.jpeg IMG_7442.jpeg IMG_7443.jpeg IMG_7446.jpeg IMG_7447.jpeg IMG_7454.jpeg


And I don’t think they used Super Luminova back then!

IMG_7463.jpeg
 
1571 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...