# Gold Hallmark Anomaly



## Philip07 (Sep 7, 2016)

Hello

My name is Philip and I am the 2xgreat grandson of William Bent Watchmaker 1823-1917.
I have spent many years collecting photos and compiling details of any William Bent pocket watches which still exist across the World today.
These I have recorded in a blog - William Bent Watchmaker 1823-1917.
Most recently, I received details and photos of William Bent serial number #15063 from Douglas in San Francisco.










A beautiful full-hunter, 18ct solid gold, keyless, sweep centre seconds chronograph. Discovered after spending the last 70 years in a drawer.

However, this watch hides a mystery and I hope you will be able to help with an explanation to solve this enigma.










<










The first photo shows what was expected. The second photo shows what is on the watch.

According to my records, all William Bent watches were hallmarked in London.

Serial number 15063 (which appears on both case and movement) lies between #13506 (hallmarked with date letter for 1874) and #16581 (hallmarked with date letter for 1879). Therefore it is not surprising to see the capital "A" date letter (for 1876). Except, The capital "A" on this watch is the wrong font. It is not a font used by London, but in fact the Chester Assay Office???

The city hallmark on this watch is for the Chester Assay Office. (never before seen on a William Bent watch).

If you refer to the Chester hallmark chart, this particular font does not represent 1876. So now I am really confused.

Any light you can throw on this one would be greatly appreciated.

Philip


----------



## bridgeman (Dec 9, 2008)

Have had a quick look on line ,without result, we do have some members more knowledgeable who may be able help, I assume you have checked import markings if the cases were from USA for example, markings would be different

welcome by the way.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2016)

Maybe the case was swapped at some point in it's history.


----------



## Philip07 (Sep 7, 2016)

bridgeman said:


> Have had a quick look on line ,without result, we do have some members more knowledgeable who may be able help, I assume you have checked import markings if the cases were from USA for example, markings would be different
> 
> welcome by the way.


 Thanks for the welcome bridgeman.

Nice thought (that hallmarks may be foreign), but these marks are definitely British and consistent with Chester.

The quandary remains...

All other William Bent pocket watches are hallmarked London. Why is this one Chester?

Regards

Philip


----------



## Philip07 (Sep 7, 2016)

Horlogerie said:


> Maybe the case was swapped at some point in it's history.


 This is a valid point Horlogerie.

If the serial number on the case was different to the serial number on the movement, I'd say you were right.

This watch has the same serial number appearing on both the case and the movement.

However, I suppose if the movement was sent to a case maker in Chester, it could follow that the finished case was hallmarked in Chester.

The case maker would have copied the serial number from the movement and stamped it on the case.

It's possible?

Although, every other William Bent watch is hallmarked London.

I'm confused?

Thanks for your input

Philip


----------



## bridgeman (Dec 9, 2008)

have you checked records at the London assay office to see if there were any problems in 1876 which might have meant their work was passed to other offices? It does seem there were coinage problems at the London mint in copper coins which meant more produced in n Birmingham.

if you could find the number of articles assayed in each year in London and see if 1876 had an unusually low or high number ?


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Philip07 said:



> According to my records, all William Bent watches were hallmarked in London.
> 
> Although, every other William Bent watch is hallmarked London.


 Is it possible that, whilst most William Bent watches were hallmarked in London, a few were hallmarked elsewhere and this is perhaps just the first one you've discovered? Whatever the case (if you'll pardon the groan-worthy pun) it's a beautiful watch.


----------



## Philip07 (Sep 7, 2016)

The following seems to be a likely explanation...

The watch movement (by its serial number) was made in 1876. 
It may, or may not, have originally been housed in a gold case.
Perhaps the original case became damaged?
In 1901 a new gold case was made for this movement in Chester.
The Chester case maker, stamped the case with the same serial number as the movement. (Because it was made for that movement).
The finished case was then assayed in Chester.

This would explain the Chester hallmarks for 1901.

Thank you all so much for your help. Well done team!
Regards
Philip

loved the pun rhaythorne


----------



## Robden (Apr 2, 2016)

Is it definately a William Bent movement? Any markings on the movement?

The reason I ask is that obviously the hands are wrong and have been replaced so just wondering if the dial belongs to that movement.

Rob....


----------



## Philip07 (Sep 7, 2016)

Thanks for your comment Rob,

You are right! those hands are not original and must have at some time been replaced.

The movement and the dial is signed William Bent, London.

The movement is also signed, William Bent Chronometer Maker London and bears the serial number 15063.

This is typical of signatures on his other movements, so I am comfortable in saying the movement is definitely William Bent.

Philip


----------

