Finally succumb to the pocket watch

[AndyHull]

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.

[oldhippy]

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. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

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. 

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. 

[Marc]

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.

[Neverenoughwatches]

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 .

Edited May 3, 2022 by Neverenoughwatches

[Marc]

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.

[Neverenoughwatches]

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. 

[AndyHull]

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.

[JohnR725]

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

 

 

[AndyHull]

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

 

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 May 4, 2022 by AndyHull

[Neverenoughwatches]

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.
 

 

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 .

[Neverenoughwatches]

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.
 

 

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 ?

[AndyHull]

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?

[Neverenoughwatches]

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.

[Neverenoughwatches]

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

[Randy55]

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

[Randy55]

3 hours ago, Randy55 said:

 

Now I'm thinking it's not that close to the "O" ......

[AndyHull]

7 hours ago, Randy55 said:

Now I'm thinking it's not that close to the "O" ......

It is a little bit tricky to decipher.

[Neverenoughwatches]

12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

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

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 ?

 

12 hours ago, Randy55 said:

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

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 ?

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 .

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

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

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.

[AndyHull]

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).

 

 

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 May 22, 2022 by AndyHull

[Neverenoughwatches]

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).

 

 

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.

[RichardHarris123]

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).

 

 

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. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

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

[RichardHarris123]

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. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

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

Haha. I wont but it pays for the watch addiction. Xmas is coming later this week. Lol