# Inherited pocket watch from great, great, great grandfather - 1779 (?)



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

I wonder if anyone could help me to find out a little more about a watch that has come to me through the family? It has an interesting story attached which explains its current, appalling state, having seemingly been passed carefully through the family for generations until it was spotted by two naughty uncles... who basically destroyed it...



http://imgur.com/CjLV7WN


My maternal uncle in Australia was moving house and getting rid of various bits and bobs, and he posted over some family heirlooms, among which was this badly damaged old pocket watch once owned by his father, which turns out to have belonged to my great, great, great grandfather. All my uncle knew about its origins was that it had the inscription 'James Walters 1842' - not a family name - although he did have this story/confession to tell:



http://imgur.com/gSlSsdm


*Your uncle Paul and myself built ourselves a trolley and found the watch in father's desk - it seemed like a perfect speedometer to fit to the dashboard of our creation. Naturally it suffered somewhat in its new role! Boy did we cop it! So I felt I had in some-way earned the right to own it, at least for a while. I'm not sure whether it could ever be made to work again, it would no doubt cost a lot to fix, but it does have history!*



http://imgur.com/LiDWMar


The watch really is badly damaged, as you can see from the pictures. However, I did do some digging and found out a few things. Firstly, the engraving on the nicely decorated movement: 'Ja.s Hinksman Brosley No. 188'. The town of 'Brosley' was also frequently spelled: 'Broseley.'



http://imgur.com/ncLTpTC


Loomes Watchmakers and Clockmakers of the World. 21st Cent. Edt. lists two watchmakers of interest:
HINKSMAN. __ Madeley (Shropshire) c.1750.
HINKSMAN, J.A. Broseley (Shropshire) early 19c?

Loomes goes on to state that the second Hinksman had worked with the first at Madeley, a village on the opposite side of the Ironbridge gorge. The village of Broseley is considered by some to be the true birthplace of the industrial revolution, Thomas Telford is reputed to have had his first iron smelting works in the village, apparently not at the nearby town of 'Ironbridge' which lays claim to the title.



http://imgur.com/Rpy02PV


Secondly, I have managed to establish the original family link between the inscribed James Walters and my mother's Burton family name. Having researched the family tree on ancestry.co.uk, I found a Mary Ann Walters, who married my ancestor James Burton (1814-1885) in 1834 at Sedgely, Staffordshire. Their first child, Uriah Burton, was born in 1848. Mary's father is recorded as a James Walters (matching the inscription), so it seems likely that Mary Ann inherited her father's watch, which has now been passed down to me. Assuming the watch originated with her father, then my mum's great grandfather, Uriah Burton (1848-1920) was the maternal grandchild of James Walters, the original owner of the watch. So the watch belonged to my great, great, great grandfather.

James Walters (the name on the watch) > Mary Ann Walters (married James Burton) > Uriah Burton > John Burton (b.1878) > Leslie Burton (1906-1961) > my mother > me

Having communicated my findings to my uncle back in Oz, he replied: *One thing puzzles me - how come someone so poor could afford such a thing? Presumably, before the days of cheap, mass-produced watches, a silver cased pocket watch, with such an ornate movement, would not have been cheap. I recall my father saying that either his grandfather, Uriah (wonderful Black-country name!) or great-grandfather, John, started work down a coal mine aged 11 but was then promoted topside to mind a beam engine. The first Burton engineer! As such the family cannot have been even moderately well to do. Maybe Mary Ann married beneath her station?*

This peeked my interest. Having originally assumed the watch to have been produced circa 1842 (as per the inscription), I had a look at hallmarks and have ascertained that it was probably made quite a bit earlier than that. Either 1737, 1779 or 1819.



http://imgur.com/YPpqiLC




http://imgur.com/ZEFpBJU


I have no idea if the watch could ever be repaired, or how that might cost, but I have sent the details to this company: https://www.weclarkwatchrepairs.co.uk/home-4/ and look forward to hearing back from them. I am unsure whether repair / restoration is the right thing to do even if possible, and would be interested in what people here might think about that too.

I hope you have found this story interesting. If anyone here has any information about the kind of watch, the maker, or anything else of interest, it would be lovely to hear from you.

I forgot to add after this: 'This peeked my interest. Having originally assumed the watch to have been produced circa 1842 (as per the inscription), I had a look at hallmarks and have ascertained that it was probably made quite a bit earlier than that. Either 1737, 1779 or 1819.'

Perhaps my ancestor was able to afford the watch as it was obsolete technology by the time he acquired it in 1842, and so potentially much cheaper on the secondary market (as these watches appear to be today too).

Apologies, I've now worked out how to upload pics directly but am unable to edit this post to fix.


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

I believe that the silver case of your watch probably bears the sponsor's mark of James Marsh, a case maker at Clerkenwell Green, London. His mark was registered in 1814, which ties in with the latest date letter 'd' that you propose for your watch case, 1819.


----------



## spinynorman (Apr 2, 2014)

Problem of asking in two places. there's people on WUS making a case for 1779 and casemaker James Mason, Prince Street, Moorfields from 13 June 1775. One of the two Hinksman would fit either hypothesis. I do wonder why the 1842 inscription would be on so much earlier a watch, unless James Walters wasn't the first owner. Really need @Karrusel to take a look at those hallmarks. Here's embedded pics to make it easier.


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

Thanks for the pic embedding spinynorman.

It is possible my great, great grandmother married (a coalminer) below her station and her father was able to buy the watch new, but it might also have been that he bought the watch second hand and cheap after the watch-making technology had moved on?


----------



## Karrusel (Aug 13, 2016)

Afraid all I can do is add to the confusion?

The movement which I agree as made by Hinksman, Madeley, Shropshire. & typical of mid to late 18th century timepiece.

The case maker I am unable to determine with any certainty as the marks (presented) do not appear in any of my references, sadly.

If they being Chester marks for 1754/1779? there is a missing stamp, the additional City mark.

There is also the possibility the movement was recased at a later date, as many cases were scrapped/sold for their precious metal content?

Personally I would keep as is, a family heirloom, you may never know the full & complete history of this timepiece.

Sorry that I've been unable to give you any definitive answers.

:thumbsup:


----------



## spinynorman (Apr 2, 2014)

Calumets said:


> Thanks for the pic embedding spinynorman.
> 
> It is possible my great, great grandmother married (a coalminer) below her station and her father was able to buy the watch new, but it might also have been that he bought the watch second hand and cheap after the watch-making technology had moved on?


 I'm not sure I follow your logic. The watch (case) in 1842 belonged to James Walters. Nothing in what you've said suggests James Walters was poor, and you say his daughter married beneath her, which rather implies the opposite. The watch would most likely have been passed on through Mary Ann after her father died (you don't say when that was). There might even be mention of it in his will, if you could find that.


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

spinynorman said:


> I'm not sure I follow your logic. The watch (case) in 1842 belonged to James Walters. Nothing in what you've said suggests James Walters was poor, and you say his daughter married beneath her, which rather implies the opposite. The watch would most likely have been passed on through Mary Ann after her father died (you don't say when that was). There might even be mention of it in his will, if you could find that.


 I think we're saying the same thing. Within the family, we knew nothing of a James Walters (or a Mary Ann) until I started digging (other than the name being inscribed on the watch). However, my uncle says that his father spoke of his grandfather, Uriah (Mary Ann's son), or great grandfather John (Mary Ann's husband), being employed as a coalminer aged 11. So either her father was relatively well off, or he was able to buy the watch relatively cheaply - as he may have been if it was obsolete technology (my speculation). It certainly looks like Mary Ann didn't marry for money though, which suggests love or necessity... I will keep digging, and would love to turn up a will.


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

Karrusel said:


> The movement which I agree as made by Hinksman, Madeley, Shropshire. & typical of mid to late 18th century timepiece.
> 
> The case maker I am unable to determine with any certainty as the marks (presented) do not appear in any of my references, sadly.
> 
> ...


 This is all useful information, even if it is not definitive - thank you.

You say the movement was likely made by the first Hinksman (Madeley) despite it being inscribed Hinksman Brosley, the 2nd Hinksman. Is that because the movement seems more representative of the earlier date?

Also, do you have an image or link fothe Chester mark for 1754



Calumets said:


> Also, do you have an image or link fothe Chester mark for 1754


 I've found this now - thanks.


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

Dear @Calumets , @spinynorman, and @Karrusel, The mark for John Marsh is illustrated online at silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/London-IM-IR.html#IM

According to that site, this sponsor's mark appears on a watch case from 1816, which is very close to the later date (1819) proposed for the watch case shown here. My feeling is that Alan (Karrusel) is probably correct in his suggestion that the watch case was replaced at a later date, perhaps as a means of raising cash from a precious-metal original case.


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

Thank you Tourbillon


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

Slightly disappointed, but not surprised to hear back from the watch repairer:

'It really would be a massive restoration to complete as there are many parts missing, so it is not going to be cost effective to proceed.'

I will still enjoy having this watch, of course, but I would prefer to have it running. Ah well...


----------



## spinynorman (Apr 2, 2014)

Calumets said:


> Slightly disappointed, but not surprised to hear back from the watch repairer:
> 
> 'It really would be a massive restoration to complete as there are many parts missing, so it is not going to be cost effective to proceed.'
> 
> I will still enjoy having this watch, of course, but I would prefer to have it running. Ah well...


 That may well be true, but it's possible they just don't want the job. Otherwise, why not give you a price and let you decide? If you want a second opinion, you could try someone from the BHI repairers list - bottom right on this page. https://bhi.co.uk/repairer/


----------



## John_D (Jul 21, 2018)

This watch is so like one that I found with a metal detector and dug up, buried right next to a tree, in Epping Forest about 40 years ago. It originally would have had a very heavy silver outer case, like the one that I found....The Hallmarks date mine to 1815 London.





































Now this one is beyond saving...


----------



## Karrusel (Aug 13, 2016)

Calumets said:


> 'It really would be a massive restoration to complete as there are many parts missing, so it is not going to be cost effective to proceed.'


 It certainly would be, restoring the enamel dial alone 'professionally' would be in the low £hundreds.

Regrettably, on this occasion, I feel you have been given sound advice, IMHO.

Just keep as an memento from a former distant relative.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Calumets (Apr 11, 2019)

My uncle asked for an update on the watch, and I then realised that I hadn't updated this thread. As I added earlier, about 6 months ago, the repairer I had sent the watch to told me: 'It really would be a massive restoration to complete as there are many parts missing, so it is not going to be cost effective to proceed." When I pressed them, they told me that a restoration would cost around £2,000. That is, unfortunately, prohibitive for me, though the watch remains a precious family heirloom even in such a reduced state. Thanks for all the contributions people made.


----------

