Jump to content

James Burton watchmaker


Recommended Posts

Hi watch and clockmakers,

could someone please check out James Burton for me? As far as I understand there are books where all of the registered? watchmakers are listed. I would like to know if there was more than one James Burton and to see what do we know about him?

Best regards,

Lui

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G. H. Baillie, Watchmaker & Clockmakers of the World Vol.1. lists;

James Burton. Whitehaven. 1795. Watchmaker.

James Burton. London (Carey St.) 1805-19. Watchmaker.

James Burton. London (Bethnal Green). 1805-08. Watchmaker.

 

Brian Loomes, Watchmaker & Clockmakers of the World Vol.2. lists;

James Burton. London, Lincolns Inn Gate. 1811. Watchmaker.

James Burton. Norwich. Late 18c.

 

Edited by Marc
Additional info
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, watchweasol said:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG66495         

http://southlow.co.uk/documents/The Burton Family of Clockmakers.pdf

I found these for you   have a look if I dig up any more on him I will post the links.

I did hope that my new fusee pocket watch belongs to the James Burton from Whitehaven, but it seems that it doesnt. Thank you your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Marc said:

G. H. Baillie, Watchmaker & Clockmakers of the World Vol.1. lists;

James Burton. Whitehaven. 1795. Watchmaker.

James Burton. London (Carey St.) 1805-19. Watchmaker.

James Burton. London (Bethnal Green). 1805-08. Watchmaker.

 

Brian Loomes, Watchmaker & Clockmakers of the World Vol.2. lists;

James Burton. London, Lincolns Inn Gate. 1811. Watchmaker.

James Burton. Norwich. Late 18c.

 

So you have these books. Very good. What is the difference between the two volumes, I understand that the Baillie version was reviewed by Loomes, but the information in the Loomes is an addition or a correction? It seems that my James Burton is one of them from London:

I have not seen you page so far, I am going to check it out watchmender. 🙂

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

7.jpg

8.jpg

9.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, luiazazrambo said:

What is the difference between the two volumes

The easiest answer is simply to quote the opening paragraphs of the preface to volume 2 (Loomes), which state;

"This book is written as a supplement to the late G. H. Baillie's Watchmakers and Clockmakers of the World. Its function is to complement it, not replace it. The reader searching for facts on a maker should first of all turn to Baillie, since I have not replaced in this present book any maker already detailed in Volume one, unless new facts have since come to light.

This book contains entries of three distinct types: Firstly, makers from about 1820 to about 1875 (later in some instances) - Baillie did not attempt to extend his list beyond about 1825; Secondly, I have included any makers of any period who were men not known to Baillie; Thirdly, I have included some makers listed by Baillie where further information has since come to light that either extends the working period of the maker or occasionally corrects an error."

As you can see volume two (Loomes) extends and adds to volume one (Baillie) rather than replacing it, so you really need both.

 

Have a look at Watchmender, I hope you you find it useful, although I haven't updated it for sometime due to a whole load of issues including Covid and a family bereavement. I am getting back into my watchmaking though and hope to be updating Watchmender again soon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Post some pictures , some good close ones of the parts you've described. 
    • Ive never used epilame H only information i have read and mentally stored about it mostly from Nicklesilver here and elsewhere ( the fork horns thing ), maybe the residue powder that is removed has some grinding effect ? So probably a good idea to limit its application areas to only the absolute necessary. Yes as far as i know epilame rubs off relatively easy, the technique of running the watch to make a groove through it first in the pallet stones where the lubrication is then placed. This i understand creates the barrier for the lube to sit up to. If i can find a good balance of pros and cons of its use then thats one process i can avoid by using a thixotropic lube on the stones. The epilame i would say allows for a more fluid lubrication to be used that would increase amplitude on low beat movements. The stearic acid powder is extremely cheap, the problem is the fuming process to coat parts, is not selective , the whole part has to treated in this method. If epilame residue can cause wear then thats not good, if I remember the conclusion was not proved entirely just a general assumption between watchmakers. The thread is out there somewhere, the same discussion is also old on a facebook group. Ive never used epilame H only information i have read and mentally stored about it mostly from Nicklesilver here and elsewhere ( the fork horns thing ), maybe the residue powder that is removed has some grinding effect ? So probably a good idea to limit its application areas to only the absolute necessary. Yes as far as i know epilame rubs off relatively easy, the technique of running the watch to make a groove through it first in the pallet stones where the lubrication is then placed. This i understand creates the barrier for the lube to sit up to. If i can find a good balance of pros and cons of its use then thats one process i can avoid by using a thixotropic lube on the stones. The epilame i would say allows for a more fluid lubrication to be used that would increase amplitude on low beat movements. The stearic acid powder is extremely cheap, the problem is the fuming process to coat parts, is not selective , the whole part has to treated in this method. If epilame residue can cause wear then thats not good, if I remember the conclusion was not proved entirely just a general assumption between watchmakers. The thread is out there somewhere, the same discussion is also old on a facebook group. If its a potential problem for amateurs to use then i would prefer not to take the risk .
    • Following on from my question about identifying screws in the AS2063 movement that basically fell out of the case in bits, I’m pleased to report that I’ve got it all back together, and the movement is running pretty well.    But… There’s something wrong with the keyless works and hand setting. It’s fine in winding and quickset date position - these work - but in hand setting position winding the crown turns the whole gear train.  I don’t really understand how it’s meant to work. It doesn’t have a traditional friction fit cannon pinion.  The second wheel is unusual with a pair of smaller pinions on it, which seem to interact with the barrel and the motion works.    Could this be the problem? I must admit I just cleaned it and popped it in place when reassembling the gear train. I’ve lubricated the pivots but didn’t do anything to the extra bits on the second wheel.    Does this make sense and is anyone able to figure out what I’m doing wrong? Thanks in advance, as always.    ETA - the parts list calls it the Great Wheel, not second wheel. 
    • You're thinking metal to jewel in general I guess. Maybe it would be a good idea to peg the pallet staff jewel hole on the main plate after the epilame treatment. I think that could work as it is my impression that the epilame doesn't sit very hard, but I could be wrong about that so feel free to educate me. I didn't remember that 9501 was thixotropic (thanks for the link). That would mean it's even runnier during impact (lower viscosity) so perhaps it's time I get some fresh grease as mine seems a bit too runny. What I have seen is a whitish surface after washing but it goes away if I scrub the surface with a brush in a degreaser (Horosolv). I don't think it embeds itself in the metal but sticks very hard to the metal. I don't worry too much about the cleaning solution. I just want perfectly clean parts and my solution can be replaced for little money (ELMA RED 1:9). Anyway, I quite often need "to strip back and rebuild" and scrubbing parts by hand isn't exactly the most stimulating part of a service. Just got confirmation that Moebius 9501 has a lower viscosity (68 cSt at 20° C) than 9504 (305 cSt at 20°). The viscosity of Molykote DX is 285-315 cSt at -25° to +125° C. I was surprised to see that the viscosity of Moebius 9010 (thin oil!) is higher (150 cSt at 20°) than my 9501 grease!
    • I’ve had a couple movements where it is clear the previous watchmaker was diligent with lubrication but the old epilam had turned to a fine white powder covering the pallet fork and keyless parts, which can’t be good for parts. I’m spare with epi since I don’t know how long it takes to degrade to that state…
×
×
  • Create New...