Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

the Inside is amazing to watch.

They are fascinating. If you watch those videos all the way through, you should get a good feel for their construction and how they operate. Pocket watches are generally a bit larger than modern watches, so they are arguably easier to deal with, but you do need to be careful letting down the power, careful with the fusee chain, and careful reassembling the winding works.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Oh heck I missed this one. It is definitely English and as you know its a fusee and it also has maintaining power which means when you wind it up the power is not lost. It also is quite late as the pillars are very plain, early ones had very fine piercing which made them most decorative. The hall marks on the case will date it very closely to when the movement was made.  Instead of having the makers name all you have are the initials which I have circled in red. So if you can work that out you will have what you want. I'm hopeless at that sort of thing so don't ask me. 

20220502_184211.jpg.b5640207c3b62a9bb018f6b0d642ee2a.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Oh heck I missed this one. It is definitely English and as you know its a fusee and it also has maintaining power which means when you wind it up the power is not lost. It also is quite late as the pillars are very plain, early ones had very fine piercing which made them most decorative. The hall marks on the case will date it very closely to when the movement was made.  Instead of having the makers name all you have are the initials which I have circled in red. So if you can work that out you will have what you want. I'm hopeless at that sort of thing so don't ask me. 

20220502_184211.jpg.b5640207c3b62a9bb018f6b0d642ee2a.jpg

Hi OH. I've manage to date the case and location to 1876 and London. Also a makers stamp of WC silversmith possibly  a William Carter . The initials on the movement I will need to workout. That will be this evenings task. 

Posted
59 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I've manage to date the case and location to 1876 and London

According to this the date letter for 1876 London is a capital "A". You have a lower case "d" which would put it at 1899.

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Marc said:

According to this the date letter for 1876 London is a capital "A". You have a lower case "d" which would put it at 1899.

Thats wierd I was just checking that . Look very closely  I think it is actually a lower case a which is 1856. I misread the chart and was looking at a different  set of dates. It's 20 years older than I thought.

16 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Thats wierd I was just checking that . Look very closely  I think it is actually a lower case a which is 1856. 

I'll get a better photo and let me know what you think . Look at the small arm top left coming down onto the top of the round of the a. It's quite  script.  The d doesn't have that and is more italic .

20220503_141854.jpg

20220503_141817.jpg

Edited by Neverenoughwatches
Posted
4 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Look at the small arm top left coming down onto the top of the round of the a

What a difference a photo makes!!!!  I almost went for 1856 too as I couldn't see that downward diagonal stroke but it's now quite clear. Also the shape of the ground is much clearer. I would agree, 1856. Hope this helps with the maker ID.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Marc said:

What a difference a photo makes!!!!  I almost went for 1856 too as I couldn't see that downward diagonal stroke but it's now quite clear. Also the shape of the ground is much clearer. I would agree, 1856. Hope this helps with the maker ID.

Thanks Marc I appreciate your input and confirmation. Im stuck on the initials on the movement though next to the serial number. 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Im stuck on the initials on the movement though next to the serial number. 

Can you get some better pictures of the initials, I'm still in two minds about them.

Posted
20 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Thats wierd I was just checking that . Look very closely  I think it is actually a lower case a which is 1856. I misread the chart and was looking at a different  set of dates. It's 20 years older than I thought.

I found another link to date codes and this one is nice in that if you click on the image to make things bigger much easier to see.. Then I snipped out the relevant date.. It's also important to remember when you're looking at the symbols  that the background outline has to also match.

https://silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Dates/London.html

 

 

London 1856 date Mark.JPG

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

There is a strange similarity between the mark on your fusee movement and the one on the orphaned movement I posted about here.
 

 

BingleyMark.jpg.c1a3337bb94a84a025262ace64c044c6.jpg

FuseeMark.jpg.333d99b179928cc2a4c7da970088917b.jpg

Could be purely coincidence, of course, and I can't make head nor tail of either of them.

For what its worth, Harrogate and Bingley are only about 16 miles apart.

Edited by AndyHull
  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 5/4/2022 at 11:07 AM, AndyHull said:

There is a strange similarity between the mark on your fusee movement and the one on the orphaned movement I posted about here.
 

 

BingleyMark.jpg.c1a3337bb94a84a025262ace64c044c6.jpg

FuseeMark.jpg.333d99b179928cc2a4c7da970088917b.jpg

Could be purely coincidence, of course, and I can't make head nor tail of either of them.

For what its worth, Harrogate and Bingley are only about 16 miles apart.

There are some similarities in the signatures. Although the  caseless one being Swiss made and mine I'm given to understand is English. I'm curious as to how far back the words fast and slow would have been used in foreign made movements. I suppose this would help identify if it was purely made for export or not .

Posted
On 5/4/2022 at 11:07 AM, AndyHull said:

There is a strange similarity between the mark on your fusee movement and the one on the orphaned movement I posted about here.
 

 

BingleyMark.jpg.c1a3337bb94a84a025262ace64c044c6.jpg

FuseeMark.jpg.333d99b179928cc2a4c7da970088917b.jpg

Could be purely coincidence, of course, and I can't make head nor tail of either of them.

For what its worth, Harrogate and Bingley are only about 16 miles apart.

Andy take a look at this I found on ebay I think the initials are the same as on yours but different maker and location https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265678657100?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=T8JCtEZ4Raa&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=tBiLZaCfRb2&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

4 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Andy take a look at this I found on ebay I think the initials are the same as on yours but different maker and location https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265678657100?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=T8JCtEZ4Raa&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=tBiLZaCfRb2&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

I'm starting to think it's just a N and a o. Indicating just No.  Serial number ?

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I'm starting to think it's just a N and a o. Indicating just No.  Serial number ?

Good call. I think you are right. It does however beg the question, since the script style is so similar, were they all produced by the same manufacturer, and if so, who produced them?

Posted
2 hours ago, AndyHull said:

Good call. I think you are right. It does however beg the question, since the script style is so similar, were they all produced by the same manufacturer, and if so, who produced them?

The No. Was my initial thought with it being next to the serial no itself. If there is a makers name already on there why initial it as well ? Mine doesn't have a name at all which is why I was trying to decipher some initials from it. You may be right,  all come from just a handful of makers and then supplied to various distributers to be named inside and badged up outside. 150 year old ebauches but unamed  by the actual maker. The only telltale sign of the genuine maker being the script writing of the serial no. ? Who doesn't do that these days with anything you buy.

Posted
8 hours ago, AndyHull said:

Good call. I think you are right. It does however beg the question, since the script style is so similar, were they all produced by the same manufacturer, and if so, who produced them?

I'm pretty sure that's what it is now. A traditional abbreviation for number was No with a line under a small raised o. Or Nø with the letter o raised again. Both yours and the one with the ebay link are both like that. And mine is definitely a letter N though the letter o is slightly different.  Phew 🥵

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

The hand script just before the  number looks very much like the Old English "O" on this sheet ?

old english script.png

Elements of it look similar, except the left curl up from the bottom is not there on mine.

12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

The hand script just before the  number looks very much like the Old English "O" on this sheet ?

old english script.png

 

12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

The hand script just before the  number looks very much like the Old English "O" on this sheet ?

old english script.png

Its definitely not a letter N

12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

The hand script just before the  number looks very much like the Old English "O" on this sheet ?

old english script.png

I think both mine and the one andy has posted are the same letter. But im still leaning towards No. Because  of the small letter o with the line through this is still a common abbreviation now. I just cant figure the N as its nothing like an OE letter N

On 5/3/2022 at 2:11 PM, Neverenoughwatches said:

Thats wierd I was just checking that . Look very closely  I think it is actually a lower case a which is 1856. I misread the chart and was looking at a different  set of dates. It's 20 years older than I thought.

I'll get a better photo and let me know what you think . Look at the small arm top left coming down onto the top of the round of the a. It's quite  script.  The d doesn't have that and is more italic .

20220503_141854.jpg

20220503_141817.jpg

Any thoughts on this, one of customers dug out from her draw yesterday it belonged to her father. She thought it was 1920. I think i have it at 1812

20220520_171438.jpg

20220520_171342.jpg

27 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Elements of it look similar, except the left curl up from the bottom is not there on mine.

 

Its definitely not a letter N

I think both mine and the one andy has posted are the same letter. But im still leaning towards No. Because  of the small letter o with the line through this is still a common abbreviation now. I just cant figure the N as its nothing like an OE letter N

Any thoughts on this, one of customers dug out from her draw yesterday it belonged to her father. She thought it was 1920. I think i have it at 1812

20220520_171438.jpg

20220520_171342.jpg

Her dad poor old lad, got dementia and was convinced something or someone was inside it. Ha went at it with a big screwdriver and trashed the dial. The movement may be ok, im yet to have a look.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I just dived into the rabbit hole of Paleography, and this is what I concluded.

The script is a form of "Bastarda" or a variant of "Black Letter", (similar to what is often referred to as Gothic script).

 

image.thumb.png.d1aa899374f3194a46db7669f87c6780.png

 

Above is a modern interpretation of the script (from Wikipedia, naturally), and as you can see the larger character is almost certainly the letter "N". The square letter is also almost certainly a lower case "o".

Edited by AndyHull
  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, AndyHull said:

I just dived into the rabbit hole of Paleography, and this is what I concluded.

The script is a form of "Bastarda" or a variant of "Black Letter", (similar to what is often referred to as Gothic script).

 

image.thumb.png.d1aa899374f3194a46db7669f87c6780.png

 

Above is a modern interpretation of the script (from Wikipedia, naturally), and as you can see the larger character is almost certainly the letter "N". The square letter is also almost certainly a lower case "o".

Yes i see , its not like a modern capital N . Its wrote like a large lower case n. Thats answered that then. I've seen a few other pockets watches that quite clearly have the abbreviation No. Before the serial number. I wont be able to identify the maker of my pocket watch. Thanks for your  time Andy.

Posted
22 hours ago, AndyHull said:

I just dived into the rabbit hole of Paleography, and this is what I concluded.

The script is a form of "Bastarda" or a variant of "Black Letter", (similar to what is often referred to as Gothic script).

 

image.thumb.png.d1aa899374f3194a46db7669f87c6780.png

 

Above is a modern interpretation of the script (from Wikipedia, naturally), and as you can see the larger character is almost certainly the letter "N". The square letter is also almost certainly a lower case "o".

Interesting, I've learnt something and might be able to decipher some of the script on my watches. 

Posted
50 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

Interesting, I've learnt something and might be able to decipher some of the script on my watches. 

There is so much to learn, things that I never thought were relevant. Have a good day today at work mate, I've got a kitchen to plaster out. My poor shoulder 😢

Posted
1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

There is so much to learn, things that I never thought were relevant. Have a good day today at work mate, I've got a kitchen to plaster out. My poor shoulder 😢

So true, who'd of thought we would have to learn an ancient script. Have fun plastering. 

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

    • just a reminder about this test is it's not a perfect test it's a quick test. In other words you can adjust the banking pins that are both the same and visually this test will pass everything looks the same but both banking pins can be in the wrong place. although the majority of time when people are playing with banking pins I don't put them in the same place. one of things have to be careful of is I believe some of the pallet fork measuring tools that actually give you the roller jewel size are actually size so that I get confused? What I mean by this is if you inserted a whatever size in and are always told to go a slightly smaller I thought that the gauge itself its number corresponded to give you the exact number. So a lot of it depends upon the gauge itself I think you do want the roller jewel slightly smaller because it does have to fit in the slot and it does have a little bit a play. But if it's too small you will lose energy so does have to be sized right. Oh other things to check is? I'm attaching an Elgin sheet on checking the escapement I've seen references in the past to making sure that the slot in the four corn is nice and smooth and apparently you can end up with a rough slot and then the recommendation is to polisher clean that up. Not sure how well that's really going to work even if it has been the recommendation of other reference materials. yes art full plate watches fun when they don't work. This is where it's nice to have another set of eyes sometimes as maybe they'll find something you didn't  although that can add other issues. The owner of the shop provides himself on his skills of so now two of my watches have relocated to his bench to solve problems both real and imaginary I'm sure that will get fixed eventually hopefully. But still sometimes another set of eyes might see something that you're not. yes this sort of thing can be quite frustrating. Also makes for an interesting problem unless of course you're the one trying to solve the problem that it's a Escapement Elgin setting up the escapement.PDF
    • I’m not to sure mate! I’ve sent a picture! The crown is off a Tissot 1853 automatic limited edition T115427 A GP19 moto go watch!   
    • For years and I'm still using it I've been using something called SeaMonkey? It's a Mozilla product Basically outscore its Firefox plus an integrated email program. But not the same problems here a lot of times when things are upgraded they tend to be now aimed at very specific browsers like Firefox so I've had to switch to Firefox to respond to any of the messages on the group. So yes they do seem to be getting more browser specific and that may be a reason for others having complications especially if whatever you using hasn't been updated. So yes the world is getting more browser specific perhaps for security reasons. Even though I use a product that is updated on a regular basis is still has problems. So whatever you using for browser should be up to date and if is not recognized it's going to be a problem.
    • I did remember to ask at work and minor complication? Well I suppose technically two separate complications. First off glass mineral glass versus Seiko's Hardlex Glass. Don't know if other companies have their own class or not and a basic class for crystals is probably not the same as window glass it would be more transparent. It becomes obvious if you're looking at a sheet of flat crystal glass versus window glass it's definitely more transparent you can see it when you look at the edges of it window glass looks green. No idea how that changes physical characteristics other than optical. Then we also have thickness like the Seiko five's there crystals are really sick compared to other things and I'm guessing that makes things different. In the first link it talks about Sapphire versus mineral glass. One other thing is bothering me though when I'm reading this is where is the source material? What I mean by this is could we end up with multiple generations of salespeople quoting the same sales tactic or information and we don't actually know because you don't have a source reference? Let me quote something off the website it's brittle oh dear I was sad? Except it's not immune to damage it can crack where shatter under extreme force or impact. So what is the definition of extreme force or impact? Then is that more or less extreme then mineral glass?  Then regarding the price difference while back I had asked the owner where the Sapphire came from and basically wherever he can get the cheapest. So typically ordered from a variety of online supply watch parts in the US and  aliexpress China.. Then yes it does make a difference because we go through a lot of glass crystals and sapphire https://thehorologylab.com/sapphire-crystal-vs-mineral-glass-which-is-best-for-your-watch#google_vignette Then I guess one is glass not glass when it goes by another name? Hardlex Looks like it's purely a Seiko product but now I wonder if other watch companies have their own special glass? I didn't remember from past experience my favorite was people exposed to welding you can find little blobs a metal stuck to the watch case the crystal still intact but there's little burnt holes were bits of metal had actually burnt into the crystal but it was still there. Okay website below starts off with Sapphire sounds good but Apparently it can shatter easier then Hardlex. https://theslenderwrist.com/hardlex-crystal/ One other thing is what I'm reading to websites would be back to I want to see the test results? Often times weren't looking for a subject will find websites where I basically called them these are better than that by the way but sometimes I'll find websites that I will call book review websites were basically the review other websites other material and don't really introduce anything new to the subject. As I said these websites look quite nice which is why I'm giving you a link but where's the test results the definition of extreme how extreme to break a sapphire versus a glass or Hardlex?  
    • What browser are you using Rich? Fine for me using Chrome 
×
×
  • Create New...