# Information Requested On This Pocket Watch....



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

My girlfriend's Dad showed us a pocket watch he owns, and we would be really grateful for any information you guys can give us about it.

He said it's been in the family for 3 generations, and estimates it to be at least 100 years old. I'm pretty sure it's not particularly valuable because the face has no manufacturer's markings, and the case is slightly damaged, but he would love to find out more about it. I haven't attempted to wind it (I assume it won't work) and I haven't cleaned it either, so it is just as he found it in a drawer.

Anyway, here are a few pics, starting with a complete view including the key, which appears to be tied on with fishing line...:










Next is a view of the damaged case:










This one shows the open case, which has a paper lining inside:










Here's a close up view of the paper lining:










This one shows the watch face, which appears to be in remarkable condition:










And this one shows the mechanism inside:










If anyone out there can shed any light on this watch and it's history, plus maybe estimate an approximate value, or provide any other information, my girlfriend's Dad would be thrilled.

Thanks very much in advance :thumbup:


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

A couple more pics, first one showing a better view of the paper lining:










And one of the rear of the watch:










And the other side of the key, which has a 7 for some reason?....:










I can take pics of anything else if required


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

I don't know agreat deal about early English pocket watches, but the watch is what is called a pair cased watch. The outer case was designed to prevent damage to the silver cased watch, which judging by it's appearance it seems to have done it's job. I would say that the watch is over 150 years old and we would have a better idea if the we could see the silver assay marks on the inside of the rear cover of the watch. At the moment they are covered by the piece of paper or I should say pieces of paper that are tucked inside the rear cover. These are called watch papers and were put there by a watchmaker or repairer when he serviced the watch. It was an early version of trade advertising. The vast majority were thrown away, so you are lucky to still have them. Treat them very carefully, they are an important part of the history of the watch. So if you carefully remove the watch papers you might find some writing on the back of them giving repair dates. The one that is visible seems to have the surname of the name on the watch:- Kleiser. There were a number of watchmakers in Guildford named Kleiser, I noted that there was a Matthias, a William and a Percy, probably all related, father and sons maybe. If you can take a photo of the Silver hallmarks that should be under the papers we could at least find out when the case was made and maybe who made it. There may be other marks scratched into the rear cover. These would be servicing marks and are sometimes difficult to read as the watchmakers seemed to use their own type of coding.

The number 7 on the key is the key size and it should fit the watch through the keyhole, plus it should also fit the winding boss in the centre of the hands to adjust the time.

The large decorative piece on the watch movement is called a hand pierced balance **** that is designed to protect the balance wheel and the chain that you can see hanging from the side of the movement is fusee chain which appears to be broken so do not attempt to wind the watch with the key as you may do further damage to the movement

The four **** is a way that the forum prevents us from using rude words. They stand for the letter C followed by the letter O followed by the letter C and the letter K.

That's about all I can tell you, but I'm sure some others on the forum can add more.

Shiner


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply mate, that is exactly the sort of information I was looking for, and all very interesting. I will take a few more pics of the bits you asked for and post them on here later.

Cheers :notworthy:


----------



## luckywatch (Feb 2, 2013)

Well I enjoyed that, thanks to Davey and Shiner.

:yes:


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

So, here are the markings underneath the watch papers inside the rear cover:










And here are the markings on the back of the watch:










There were 4 papers inside, this is the reverse side of the top one that was visible:










Followed by these 2 (the top one was blank on both sides):










This is the reverse side of the lower one in the previous pic:










And this was the bottom one of the 4 (the reverse side had some writing, but it was illegible):










I hope that gives a few more clues.

Any other information would be gratefully received, cheers :thumbup:


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

The watchcase has the London Assay marks for 1875 and the makers mark is for Alfred Moss Jacobs of Cross Street, Hatton Garden, London who registered his mark in 1874. Initially I thought it might have been a little older, but like I said English Watches are not my strong point. So the case is 138 years old. Maybe someone can come up with a date for the watch?

Looks like that first paper gives a service date of February 1892 with a charge of 3/6:- 3 shillings and sixpence(17.5 pence)

The next paper shows a date of 7 years earlier:- February 1885

The next paper is that of Matthias Kleister.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

That is amazing mate, thank you so much :notworthy:


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Well, my girlfriend spoke to her Dad on the phone this evening and gave him all the information you so kindly provided, and he was chuffed to bits. The link to Guildford made sense because there are family connections to that area, so that was really interesting. We are still trying to work out who the original owner was (more digging required!).

One quick question: You said the case is 138 years old, but it sounds like you suspect the watch is a different age - Is that correct? I would have thought the watch and case would be made at the same time, or is it normal to have a case made separately? This is all new to me, I don't normally look at anything that's not battery powered! :lol:

If anyone out there can add more information, I will pass it on to him.

Thanks again to Shiner for all your help so far, much appreciated mate :thumbup:


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

I've been looking through a couple of my reference books and the watch style and appearance is very similar to those made around 1840/50 which was my initial thoughts when I first saw the photos. So it's possible that the watch is maybe 30 years older than the case, that's why I hoped someone with more knowledge of English watches would be able to come up with a more informed opinion.

Watch movements were often recased due to damage and wear and tear over the years, so it would be no surprise if the watch has been recased.

If someone has a Bailey's or Loomes Clockmakers of the World book they should be able to find the working dates of Matthias Kleister and pin the date of the watch down to within a few years.

Your local library should have one of these books in the Reference Section.

Shiner


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Thanks once again mate, that is really useful information :notworthy:


----------



## AVO (Nov 18, 2012)

A real tour-de-force, Shiner! :thumbup:

Does the forum really block the word *SEE-OH-SEE-KAY?*

My real question: I've often seen pictures of old PW movements with these beautifully decorated *"Roosters". *At what point did the said* "chickens of masculine gender"* evolve into the bridges we see on, say, late Victorian watches and early trench watches? :buba:


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

From what I can gather it seems the finely hand pierced balance **** started to be replaced on English watches by the plain dust cover from about 1850, but some makers refused to give them up and in some cases they were still seen into the late 1800's. So I suppose you could say generally the late Victorian period. Maybe someone can come up with a more exact date.


----------



## bowie (Mar 12, 2005)

I have enjoyed reading this post thanks to Davey P,and Shiner for all the info.

bowie


----------



## Roger the Dodger (Oct 5, 2009)

AVO said:


> A real tour-de-force, Shiner! :thumbup:
> 
> Does the forum really block the word *SEE-OH-SEE-KAY?*
> 
> My real question: I've often seen pictures of old PW movements with these beautifully decorated *"Roosters". *At what point did the said* "chickens of masculine gender"* evolve into the bridges we see on, say, late Victorian watches and early trench watches? :buba:


There is a mechanism in place that blocks so called 'rude' words...a pretty common feature on a lot of fora...you can get round it with a little lateral thinking....eg.balance c0ck


----------



## AVO (Nov 18, 2012)

Thanks, Roger - not a bad thing!

True story: some years ago, before filtering got clever, one of my classes was working in the ICT suite, making a poster in French of "the dining room table" by adding pictures, word-art etc.

Suddenly this girl lets out a shriek of horror..."Sir, Sir, my Google Image screen is full of naked women!" Poor child nearly in tears, thinking she would get into trouble.

"What did you Google, Amy?"

"Jugs, sir!"

:buba:


----------



## Roger the Dodger (Oct 5, 2009)

AVO said:


> Thanks, Roger - not a bad thing!
> 
> True story: some years ago, before filtering got clever, one of my classes was working in the ICT suite, making a poster in French of "the dining room table" by adding pictures, word-art etc.
> 
> ...


Nice story AVO, and I feel for the young lady you mentioned....however, just looking at the keyboard will give you some ideas how to get round the auto censor...for instance the word 'crap'may be deleted, but if you use '[email protected]', it will probably be allowed. Using the dollar sign is another useful ruse....**** may not be allowed, but $hit will probably get through, and if you're really determined $h1t will get you there. Other examples include 8ollocks, @r$e, [email protected] etc...use your imagination...you're a language teacher for goodness sake! :lol: :lol: :lol: And I must add that I don't condone swearing on any forum.... :lol:

Edit: see how the original ess aitch eye tee was edited out, but the 'doctored' ones got through?


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

In an effort to get this one back on topic, can anyone else out there shed any light on Shiner's theory that the watch and it's case are different ages...? Also, what does the "5582" on the watch and "582" on the case mean?


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

Hi Davey,

I'm not saying that the case and movement are different ages. They may well have started out life together. I was initially surprised that the style of the watch, in my inexperienced eyes (regarding old English watches) was of an earlier style, but I also mentioned that this style of movement was favoured by some watchmakers and that they continued to make them in this older style for much longer than other makers.

So the watchmaker may have originally housed his movement in this case.

If we could find out when the maker of this watch was working then it would become much clearer.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

OK mate, I must have misunderstood your original point. I did wonder how the hell a new case could have been made to fit an existing watch, unless maybe they are a standard size & shape? I don't know anything about these things (as you can tell! ), if it's not got a battery inside I'm not normally interested :lol: I did think the 5582 and 582 might have referred to a matching case type, or size, but that is just a guess. No doubt someone out there will know what it all means....

On a separate note, Since this is unlikely to ever get repaired, I was thinking about somehow displaying the open watch, and wondered if anyone had done something similar? Any ideas gratefully received.


----------



## Shiner (Mar 2, 2011)

Davey,

I must admit I missed the numbers on the movement and the case until you just pointed it out. In fact on the inner case the number is 5582 which exactly matches the one on the movement so I think we can safely say that the two belong together.

You mentioned that you wondered how the hell a new case could have been made to fit an existing watch. Well they did!

The English and American watch industry used the 'Lancashire Guage' for sizing watches. For instance, a 0 size watch had a diameter of 1 and 6/30ths of an inch across the pillar plate. Every size above that increased by 1/30th, so a 1 size was 1 inch and 7/30ths and so on up to an 18 size which was 1 inch and 23/30ths.

The early English watch industry was very much a cottage industry where workers, who mainly worked on the land in those days used to supplement there poor wages by making parts for watches. So after toiling in the fields all day the workers would return to their cottages and spend the evenings making a specific part for a watch. They would make them in batches that were then sent to an assembly point where the watches were made up and then sold on to jewellers and watchmakers who would would put the finishing touches them, and inscribe them with their name and serial number.

So the cottage worker would be told to make a certain number of parts for a certain size of movement and maybe another batch for a different size of movement. The parts were all hand made so it was a slow and tedious job, and because they were hand made, each part was slightly different from the other. When the parts reached the assembly point they would need to be 'fettled' to fit to produce a working watch. These assembly points would be just larger buildings as opposed to factories as no parts were made at the assembly points.

Watch cases were made by specialist case makers. They were generally silversmiths as most English cases were made of silver so it is always easy to date a silver case by the hallmarks and the identity of the maker by the makers mark that was lodged at the assay office. There would usually be the case makers serial number stamped into the case.

The movement would be delivered to the Jeweller/Watchmakers premises and he would then house it in a case made to the same standard size as the watch.

These sizes were used for a great number of years, so for example, a 16 size watch made in 1890 could be housed in a 16 size case made in 1940 and vice versa.

A great many pocket watches were re-cased in their lifetime and it is very difficult to say for certain that a watch and case started out life together but in the case of your watch I think they did. I think that when the jeweller/watchmaker engraved his name on the watch he adopted the casemakers serial number to identify that this watch belongs to this case.

With the English watch it is difficult to prove the exact age of the movement, but quite easy to prove the age of the silver case.

The exact opposite is true in the case of the American pocket watch.

When the American Watch Industry became totally mechanised it proved to be the demise of the English watch. The English watch, being hand built was slow and expensive and difficult to repair because the part had to be hand made to fit.

The American watch was totally machine made. The machines could churn out thousands of identical parts in a very short time making them much cheaper to produce and much quicker and cheaper to repair.

Companies such as Waltham and Elgin made over sixty million watches between them, but the vast bulk of them were movements only. They didn't make cases. These they left to the specialist case making companies

The problem we have with the American watches is the movement makers were pretty meticulous with their serial numbering of the movements and today it is quite easy to date the them through the serial number, but the same cannot be said about the casemakers. In fact it seems that very little information regarding dating of cases is available. The Americans had no specific hall marking system like the English system. Watch cases were a fashion accessory so the style of a case can indicate a 'period' when a case would have been used.

One way of identifying if a movement is not original to the case is the presence of other movement screwmarks on the retaining edge of the case.

The biggest problem today is that there is far more case switching going on. Years ago it was used as a means of prolonging the life of a good old pocket watch.

Now we face the problem of the 'scrappers'. Gold and silver cases are being melted at an alarming rate, so we are left with thousands of movements and no cases. I can understand a badly damaged or worn case being scrapped, but I have seen dozens of superb highly decorated gold cases going to the melters. I've even managed to save a few personally.

Many of the 'melters' are very approachable and are quite happy to sell you a gold or silver case at the going rate. In fact one melter that I deal with is even happier to sell the whole watch for the weight of the metal plus 10% for the movement. In many instances this can be a very good buy if the movement is of a very high calibre.

When I asked this particular guy about a silver case I needed he produced two carrier bags full for me to search through. A few days later they went to the melters.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Once again, thanks very much for taking the time to provide such useful information mate, it is very much appreciated :thumbup:

Nice to see that the watch and it's case belong together, and are the same age. Seems a shame to scrap them, obviously, but I will mention that option to the old boy and see what he says. Personally, I don't think the watch is worth enough to justify him spending a lot to get it restored, but I think the movement is a work of art so I'd love to somehow display it. I'll post on here what happens anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Well, having said I don't think the watch is worth much, I've just seen a very similar one on ebay, and current bidding is up to Â£320 with 5 hours remaining... :lol:

Item number is 400442132753 if anyone is interested. Movement looks almost identical to me (different watch maker, but basically the same parts I think) and the style & size seem to be pretty much identical apart from a slightly different design on the face.

Interesting.....


----------



## saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

Dear forum members, I need some help with a watch I've got from my Grandfather. Don't want to start a new topic. Please take a look.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Er, probably best to start a new topic matey. Forum etiquette and all that :yes:

Welcome to RLT by the way


----------



## Will Fly (Apr 10, 2012)

Looks like a Swiss movement (Tavannes) made for the Ottoman/Turkish market, by the style of the dial.


----------



## saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

Davey P said:


> Er, probably best to start a new topic matey. Forum etiquette and all that :yes:
> 
> Welcome to RLT by the way


Thank you! I think it is to late already 



Will Fly said:


> Looks like a Swiss movement (Tavannes) made for the Ottoman/Turkish market, by the style of the dial.


I thought so, but why is it named "Blumenthal Brothers watch"? Not "Tavannes"? Is it normal like this, or it was made for some one with the reason?

Thank you for your answers.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

:lol:


----------

