What the Papers Said, Miscellany 1

A numbers game:

When researching the history of a watch or the life/work of a watchmaker, I am always hopeful that movement numbers are apparent – and now the difficult aspect – and accurate!  Very often they are not.  Incremental sequences of numbers frequently come into doubt when trying to verify against the supposed date of manufacture based on case hallmarkings, (which themselves are not always clear and may be on a later re-case).  Sometimes the numbers themselves are just too ‘big’ to be believable given the size of the maker’s business/the length of time for which it was operational.  Then there is the little matter of deliberate alteration.  As an example of this, here is an account of the activities of Andrew Springhalter, as reported in The Times, 7 April 1865: 

  Police-sergeant Evans 22G, an active plain-clothes officer, said that a few days since he saw the prisoner coming down Spencer-street, Clerkenwell, and, suspecting that all was not correct, he followed him and saw him go into a pawnbroker’s shop.  He went in and asked the prisoner what he had got there, and he said, “Nothing,” and the pawnbroker at that moment said he was making out a duplicate for a watch that the prisoner had offered in pawn.  He then took the prisoner into custody, and on going to the prisoner’s residence he found a number of duplicates relating to watches and other jewelry, and on a bench a number of watch cases quite new, and some plates of watches.  All the numbers of the watches were altered by the addition of a number, the alteration of some of some of the original numbers, and the names on some of the plates had been changed, and in some cases names had been added.  A large number of the watches had been stolen from a jeweller’s at Dudley.

  Mr. Hamilton, of Southampton-street, Pentonville, said,- I am an engraver, and do a large business for watchmakers.  I altered the figures on the seven watches produced at the direction of the prisoner.  Some of the watches have had figures added, and others have been altered.  The numbers on the silver watches 13684 have been altered to 136846, 49086 to 490861, 15237 to 452571, 15385 to 145383, 15978 to 459781 and 15962 to 459641.  On one the name of “Neal, Wandsworth,” has been added, and on the others the following names have been added, “Alfred Gold, Islington;” “S. Morris, Notting-hill, London;” “John Jones, 338, Strand;” and “Henshaw, High Holborn.”  Some of the names belong to legitimate makers, and the others are mere fancy names.  The prisoner has not before engaged me in similar work.

  Cross-examined by Mr. Pater. – I did not think that it was unusual when I was asked to alter these numbers.  I do not know that it is usual to put a good name in bad watches so that they may sell better.  I have been an engraver for 20 years.  I have often put names on watches where there have not been any before.  I received all the watches together, and altered them the same day.  I altered them the day previous to the police sergeant calling for them.  I have known the prisoner as a working jeweller for the past six months, and I have always found him an honest, respectable man.

Depreciation:

Whilst high-end wristwatches seem to hold their value quite well nowadays, many expensive motor cars certainly do not.  But there’s nothing new under sun.  From The Times, 9 December 1826, an eye watering 41% depreciation rate on a watch for which you’d be paying a fortune in 2015:

A BARGAIN. – GOLD REPEATER, by an eminent London maker, the real property of a Gentleman. – A GOLD REPEATER, strikes the hours, quarters, and half quarters, has a rich chased double bottomed gold case, gold dial, the movement duplex, with seconds, and jewelled in 5 holes, ruby cylinder, cost 85 guineas, to be SOLD for 50 guineas, nearly new.  Apply to Mr. Jarman, dealer in articles of curiosity, 30, St.James-street.

Thomas Wagstaffe:

There is a substantial entry in Baillie for Wagstaffe: London (Carey St. and Gracechurch St.)  1756-93.  Livery Merchant Taylors Co.  Watches M.M.A. and Den. Coll.  cyl. watches Ilbert coll. l.c. clock Virginia M. and br. Clock 

Looking at the quality of this example of his products, it’s not surprising that he had ‘visitors’, as related in The Public Advertiser in March 1758:

 

Thomas Wagstaffe, London, No. 6526. Circa 1760

 Silver quarter repeating pair-cased pocket watch

Courtesy of Lacote des Montres.com 

  A Gold Watch, STOLEN on Tuesday Night or early Yesterday Morning, the 15^th instant, out of the Shop of Thomas Wagstaffe, Watch-maker at the Ship and Crown in Gracechurch-street, the following Watches, viz.

  A Gold Watch, Name Tho. Wagstaffe, London, No.969: a Gold Cylinder Watch, Name Fohn Frymelksham (John Fry, Melksham); a Silver Repeater, Name David Le Sturgeon; a Silver Repeater, Name Tho. Wagstaffe, London, No.1343; a Silver Horizontal with the Cylinder broke, No. 335 or 353, Name Tho. Wagstaffe, London; a Silver capped and jewelled Watch, Name Tho. Wagstaff, No. 1560; a Silver jewelled Watch, Name ditto No.1651; Ditto ditto, No. 1590; a plain Silver Watch, Name ditto, Number forgot; two ditto, Name ditto, No. 1714 and 1715; two ditto, Name ditto, No. 2 and 1692; one ditto Engine turned Case, Name ditto; two ditto, Name Tho. Wagstaffe, London, No. 1682 or 3, Number of the other forgot; one ditto, ditto, Name forgot; one ditto, Metal, green Shagreen, No. 16!8; one ditto, Name Tho. Wagstaffe, London, No. forgot; two ditto in Boxes without Cases; four ditto, Name James Cole, Norwich, No. forgot; one ditto, Name John Gilks, Shipston, No. 1760; one ditto, Name Charles Reynolds, London, No. 1681; one ditto, Name ditto, No. 1722; three ditto, Name Walbank, No.187, 188, 189; one ditto, Tompion, Gold Box, in a Tortoiseshell Case; four Silver ditto, Name Reynolds, No. forgot; one ditto, Name Finch, No. 1753; one Silver Chain, sundry Seals, Stone Buttons.

  Whoever will give such Information to John Fielding, Esq; so that any Part of the Goods may be had again, and the Offender brought to Justice, shall receive twenty Guineas Reward on Conviction.

 

As can be seen from the subsequent notice, Wagstaffe’s loss is put at £250 – about £40,000 in current value:

Whitehall, March 21, 1758

   House of Thomas Wagstaffe, Watchmaker, in GracechurchjWhereas it has been humbly represented to the King, that in the Night of the 14^th and 15^th instant, the Shop and Compting House of Thomas Wagstaffe, Watchmaker, in Gracechurch-street, London, were broke open and robbed of Watches and other Goods to the Value of £250 his Majesty, in order for the apprehending and brining to Justice the Person or Persons who committed the said Robbery, is pleased to promise his most gracious Pardon to any one who was concerned therein, who shall discover his or her Accomplice therein, so that he, she, or they may be apprehended and convicted thereof.

W.PITT

  And as a farther Encouragement, I the said Thomas Wagstaffe do hereby promise to pay a Reward of Twenty Guineas, to any Person making such Discovery as aforesaid, to be paid upon the Conviction of any one or more of the said Robbers.

THO. WAGSTAFFE

Fifth columnist:

In the recent update – A Man of Contradictions - concerning Sir John Bennett, mention was made of the crucial watchmaking issue of the nineteenth century – the massive growth in the volume of watches imported from Switzerland at the expense of the English watchmaking industry.

 

Whilst far too many complacent English makers ignored the situation, unwilling to change their working practice, at least one enterprising man was ready to capitalise:

HENRY CAPT’S GENEVA WATCHES. Henry Capt is the only Watch Manufacturer of Geneva having a branch retail house in London, Specialist of Repeaters, Chronographs, and other high-class Watches.  Workmen from Geneva fro repairs,- London Branch, 151, Regent-street.  

 

This was his advertisement in The Times, 4 June 1879. 

He certainly was not complacent.  Having established a market advantage, he continued to seek innovation, including, for instance, being the pioneer Swiss maker to submit his products to The King’s Observatory for validation as a ‘chronometer’.

A little extra care is needed when considering ‘Henry Capt’ watches/history.  There are many references to the very high quality products of the early nineteenth century.  These included all sorts of complication, including musical features and they were often beautifully decorative.  By the time of the advertisement shown above, Capt’s products were much more mainstream, though still noted as being of good quality.  By that time the firm was directed by the original Henry’s nephew, also ‘Henry’.  Things are also complicated by variations in the spelling of the first name, Henry/Henri, and by the succession of partnerships.  I have created this basic summary to provide, I hope, better clarity: 

·         Founder, Henry Daniel, born 1773, Chenit, Switzerland.  (Baillie spells him ‘Henri’)

·         Henry marries Henriette Piguet and is in partnership with her family’s firm (no children from the marriage)

·         Working partnership with Piguet (Isaac) 1802-11

·         Worked alone until 1830

·         1830-79 in partnership with Aubert & Son; (various Aubert firm iterations, 1820-67, listed in Britten’s, Baillie and Loomes and with premises at 252 Regent Street, but these do not record ‘Aubert & Capt’)

·         Trading as Aubert & Capt until 1879

·         Henry Daniel dies in 1841

·         Henry Samuel takes over

·         Company purchased in 1880 by Gallopin and named, ‘H.Capt Horologer, Maison Gallopin Successeurs’

·         I believe that this Henry Capt ‘dynasty’ is unrelated to the Nicole & Capt partnership

 

For more on Capt have a look at - http://horologicaladventures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/henry-capt.html

The Richard Websters – Persistence Pays Off

Four generations of watchmakers carried the Christian name and the business: 

1        Richard I c1760 (Britten’s 1779 (became free))-1807

2        Richard II c1785 (Britten’s 1800) - 1849

3        Richard III c1820 (Britten’s 1834-82) - 1882

4        Richard Godfrey c1840 - 1904 (end of succession)

5        Webster Co/R Webster Ltd to 1914 

There were ups and downs, from multiple bankruptcies to award-winning in the Royal Observatory trials: persistence certainly paid off for ‘Richard Webster’. 

Richard I

Son of the eminent watchmaker, William Webster, who became Master of the Clockmakers Company in 1755.  Richard I was admitted to the Company in 1779.  His premises were at 26 Exchange Alley.  The business failed, partly because of gambling debts, in 1802. 

Richard II

Son of Richard I.  Took over the business in 1802. He retained the premises at 26 Exchange Alley until 1813, then at 43 Cornhill until 1836.  At 3 Birchin Lane 1840-43, and 74 Cornhill from 1839.  Maker to the Admiralty and noted for chronometers of excellence which won prizes in the 1830s in the Royal Observatory trials.

 

 Watch paper (pre-1836)

(© Trustees of the British Museum)

 

Webster suffered bankruptcies in October 1829, November 1836 and February 1849.  Below is one of several relevant notices which appeared in The London Gazette, (18 May 1886): 

This is to give notice, that the Court acting in the prosecution of a Fiat in Bankruptcy, awarded and issued forth on the 20^th day of February, 1849, against Richard Webster and Richard Webster the younger, of No. 74, Cornhill, in the city of London, Chronometer Makers and Watch and Clock Manufacturers, will sit on the 24^th day of June, 1886, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon precisely, at Bankruptcy-buildings, 84, Lincoln’s –inn-fields, in the county of Middlesex, in order to make a Dividend of the joint estate and effects of the said Bankrupts, when and where the creditors who have not already proved their debts are to come prepared to prove the same, or they will be excluded the benefit of the said Dividend; and all claims not then proved will be disallowed. 

(That is one sentence, and ‘Bankruptcy-buildings' is surely from the pen of Spike Milligan!).

In February 2016 I discovered that Richard (II) was in partnership with William Hunter prior to the 1836 bankruptcy.  A notice in The Times, 26 May 1837, advised that business would continue at the 43 Cornhill premises under the name W. H. Hunter & Co.

An example of his work is included in the collection of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers:

 

#404 Richard Webster, England, c1820.  Movement only.  Enamel dial signed ‘Webster 3384.’  Subsidiary seconds dial.  Gold spade hands.  Bi-metallic compensation curb.  Plain brass balance.  Signed ‘R^d Webster. Change Alley London no 3384’.  This must be the Richard Webster who took over from his father, Richard, in 1802, at the age of 17.  See Antiquarian Horology, September 1955, p109.  Diameter 46mm.  Presented by A. & J. Smith, Dublin, 1934 

As described by Bonhams, this is also by Richard II:

 

Courtesy of Bonhams

An early 19th century 18ct gold quarter repeating open face pocket watch

London hallmark for 1808.  Gilt full plate cylinder movement with flat gilt 3-arm balance and diamond end stone, round pillars, two polished hammers striking on a bell held in the back of the case, enamel dial with black Roman numerals and outer five minute divisions, gilt spade hands, subsidiary seconds at 6, pierced and engraved inner case sides, held within polished round hinged outer, push repeat via the stem, strike-silent button in the band, dial signed and numbered 3369, movement signed and numbered 3370.  55mm.

 

One of his chronometers as described below by Christies is shown at:

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/a-mid-victorian-mahogany-eight-day-richard-webster-2090687-details.aspx?intObjectID=2090687  

No. 458. Circa 1850.  The silvered dial signed Richard Webster, Cornhill, No. 458, Roman hour numerals, outer minute chapter with Arabic five-minute intermarkers 60-5-10 etc, subsidiary seconds and up-and-down dials, blued steel hands, Earnshaw escapement, main frame assembly carrying remainder of the train and escapement, cut bimetallic balance with segmental heat compensation weights, blued steel helical balance spring, spring foot detent with jewelled locking stone, brass bowl and gimbal (possibly later), three-tier plain mahogany box, the middle section inset with bone disc (unsigned), external brass drop handles.  105mm. dial diam., box 178mm.sq.

Richard III

Son of Richard II.  Finished his apprenticeship to his father in 1844.  He ran an additional business in Paris.  He occupied premises at the newly-developed 5 Queen Victoria Street from 1872.  In the 1881 Census he is recorded as at 57 Marquess Road, Islington, widowed and living with his three daughters and two sons, (and two servants).  He died in 1882.  Here, below, is a mid-nineteenth century Webster advertisement typical of the kind he took in The Times: 

WEBSTER – WATCHES, Chronometers, and Clocks, by R. WEBSTER, chronometer maker to the Lords of the Admiralty, the East India Company, &c., at as low a price as is consistent with maintaining that character for superiority of workmanship which has distinguished his house for a century and a half.  The prizes given by Government for the best performing chronometers were awarded to R. Webster three years in succession.  Established A.D. 1711 – 74, Cornhill.

Richard Godfrey Webster

Son of Richard III.  He is recorded as a chronometer maker at 5 Queen Victoria Street from 1876.  It seems likely that he allowed non-commercial interests to distract his attention from the business itself.  For example, he was a notably active Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.  Also, he frequently contributed writings under the name ‘Cornhill’ to the journal of the British Horological Institute.  In an attempt to save the ailing company, his wife took over in 1904, ending the long father>son succession.  The business continued until 1914, trading as Webster Co/R. Webster Ltd.

English Watch Work (BHI Exhibition, 1873)

 

ENGLISH WATCH WORK

An interesting, though small, Exhibition of English watch work has been on view during the past week, and will remain on view until the 22^nd inst. Between the hours of 11 a.m. and 9 p.m., at 39 Northampton-square, the house of the British Horological Institute.  It is, perhaps, necessary to say that Northampton-square is in Clerkenwell, between St. John-street and the Goswell-road and a few minutes’ walk from the Farringdon-street station of the Metropolitan Railway.  The British Horological Institute is a society which has been formed for the purpose of maintaining the old pre-eminence of British watchmaking, and of assisting British watchmakers to hold their own against foreign competition.  It is under the presidency of Mr. E.B. Denison, Q.C., and its operations have been the establishment of a monthly horological journal, of classes for the technical education of apprentices to the trade, and of Exhibitions, of which the present is the first, of specimens of watch work of the highest quality.

  

Here, above, is the introduction to an article printed in The Times on 18 November 1873. 

The British Horological Institute had been founded fifteen years earlier.  Its purpose was primarily to support English makers in their endeavours to hold their own against the increasingly successful activities of ‘foreign competition’.  By the 1870s the situation had become dire.  In a context of extreme conservatism, the English trade had made no significant progress in improving productivity and cost effectiveness since the failure in 1845 of Pierre Frederic Ingold’s initiative to introduce ‘industrial’ manufacturing with the British Watch and Clockmaking Company.  Meanwhile, the Swiss and American makers had been taking more and more of the British market with their cheaper products. 

The exhibition was mounted as a demonstration of the excellence of English craft/workmanship.  This, in part, was intended as a counter-measure to the perceived marginalisation of the makers by the retailers in the commercial relationship with the paying consumer. 

A panel of judges – which included the eminent Swedish-born chronometer maker, Victor Kullberg - awarded a number of prizes/commendations to exhibiting craftsmen.  The article noted that several of the winners were in the employ of Mr David Glasgow, and here we may perhaps smell a rat.  Born in 1824, in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, Glasgow worked for Jose Losada in Regent Street, London, before founding his own business in Granville Square and, subsequently, in Myddleton Square.  He specialised in watches for the Spanish market. 

The rodent odour – not too pungent – would stem from the fact that Glasgow was Vice President of the BHI and thus may possibly have had influence with the judging panel.  He certainly had an influence on the Trade in a wider context.  In his book, ‘Watch and Clock Making’, London, Cassell & Co, 1885, and various pronouncements, Glasgow consistently discounted the English trade’s vulnerability to foreign competition and the consequent need to change its business model.  Typical of the Trade’s Establishment at the time, he believed that the imported watches were of poor quality and their success would be short lived.  He was especially critical of American timepieces.  Too much so, in fact, as this attracted a law suit for libel which an embarrassed Glasgow had to settle out of court.  Here, below, is a letter printed in The Times in September 1877, in which Glasgow's attitude towards imported watches is readily demonstrated by his rather sweeping phrase, 'worthless foreign watches':

A WATCHMAKER’S GRIEVANCE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

  Sir,-The subject discussed in the meeting which you report under the above heading on Tuesday, the 11^th inst, affects the general public as much as the English watch manufacturers.  It is not a question of guarantee to the British public (as Sir John Bennett puts it in your issue of Wednesday) that a Swiss-made case should be 18-carat gold; it is conceded by all who know anything of the matter that the Swiss mark certifying the quality of the gold in a watch case is as much to be relied on as the mark of the London Goldsmiths’ Company; but the grievances of the watchmaker lies in the fact that the public, as a rule, seeing the English mark upon the case, believe the watch to be of English manufacture, and consequently of greater value.

 

  Therefore the marking of watch cases by the Goldsmiths’ Company, originally intended to protect the manufacturer as well as the public, is at present made use of to the detriment of both.  It is well known that many of our best watchmakers have suffered much loss and annoyance by having their names forged upon inferior watches (principally Swiss), which were sent into the market and sold as of their make.  I have lately had evidence of worthless foreign watches, with the name of an English maker on them, being sold in Central America at four times their value, the fraud being greatly facilitated by the well known English Hall-mark on the cases.

 

  While many watch manufacturers consider the marking of foreign-made cases by the Goldsmith’s Company to be a grievance (as it is undoubtedly a misapplication of the powers originally vested in the Company), they do not see any practicable remedy to be attained by Act of Parliament, even should Parliament adopt such a retrograde policy.

  The evil may be lessened if the public understand that the Hall mark now certifies to nothing but the quality of the metal in the case of the watch.

  I am, Sir, your obedient servant, D. GLASGOW, Vice-President, British Horological Institute.  20, Myddleton-square.

In an article written by R.F. and R.W Carrington for Antiquarian Horology, reference is made to an 1885 ‘head in the sand’ quote by Glasgow: ‘. . . it is greatly to be questioned whether the introduction of the factory system and wholesale adoption of manufacturing machinery would at all benefit the Trade in this country . . .’ 

Elsewhere, others were proposing various solutions to the productivity/costs issues, notably Sir John Bennett; he endorsed the notion of employing women on the grounds of lower pay rates; (see my article, Alexander Watkins, Innovative Chronometer Maker).  The Times article, innocently Victorian, strays into a twenty-first century minefield with the following text: 

(Women) . . . are not found to possess the combination of steadiness and delicacy of hand which is required for giving the last finish to objects of extreme minuteness. 

First Prize, £5 and a silver medal were awarded to George Abbott for the best chronometer escapement.  This was ‘old’ George Abbott, cited by one source as ‘the most famous of all the late Victorian chronometer detent makers’.  Given the threat to the English trade from across the Atlantic, it is perhaps ironic that George picked up his tools and relocated to New York.  There he worked for the chronometer maker, John Bliss & Co, winning a medal in the Paris exhibition of 1900. 

Pocketing £3 for a lever escapement of great merit was Richard Bridgman.  Bridgman had some elite employers – McCabe, Charles Frodsham and Nicole Nielsen.  For the latter, circa 1890, he devised a half plate movement which featured a ‘hanging barrel’.  This involved pivoting of the mainspring barrel on the bottom plate only – allowing a further reduction in the overall depth of the movement/watch, an increasingly fashionable feature of the time; equally, it facilitated the incorporation of a wider/more resilient mainspring.  Examples of Bridgman’s Nicole Nielsen movements can be seen on David Penney’s excellent Antique Watch Store site: http://www.antiquewatchstore.com/, item numbers: 11267, 16715 and 65624. 

Thinking further about the underlying issues challenging the Trade at the time, real significance can be attached to Bridgman’s work – his sort of innovation enabled English products to be made with more attractive appearance attributes and served as an embodiment of superior craft skills. 

William Borthwick Smith received an Honourable Mention.  He too is highly relevant to possible solutions to the English trade’s turmoil.  One such could have been for makers to diversify, utilising transferable precision expertise/skills in manufacturing other kinds of ‘technological’ products less vulnerable to foreign competition. 

In 1867 and 1869 Smith patented a number of watch and chronometer improvements.  He is recorded as a maker initially in Leamington Spa and, subsequently, (1870s), at Junction Street, Coventry.  While based in Coventry, Smith went into partnership with James Starley.  Trading as Smith, Starley & Co, they manufactured a line of acclaimed sewing machines, notable the Europa, Little Europa and Queen of Hearts models. 

The enterprise was initially successful, winning medals at international exhibitions in the early 1870s.  At the same time diversification into cycles and roller skates boosted profitability.  But, possibly, a lack of focus set in and in 1877 the company failed.  An excellent information resource on this business/industry can be found at: http://www.sewalot.com/starley_sewing_machines.htm 

The Times article records some good intentions and provides us with the names of some highly accomplished craftsmen.  The malaise undermining the English trade, however, continued, unabated.  One hundred years later a similar degradation –and eventual eclipse – would affect the British motorcycle and car manufacturing industries.

(March 2016): Special thanks are due to David H Grace who has kindly pointed out that the attribution of direct employment by John Bliss of George Abbott is probably mistaken.  The confusion stems from Bliss’s practice of obtaining movements from Victor Kullberg for finalisation/sale by the American firm.  Abbott is well-known for the work he carried out for Kullberg in London.  Tony Mercer’s index note for Abbott in Chronometer Makers of the World reads: Abbott, George.  61 Sandforth Ave, Eldon Rd, Wood Green, N, 1870-1933.  Famous detent maker.  He worked for V. Kullberg and was awarded a bronze medal at the Paris exhibition in 1900 as a collaborator.  He also made complete chronometer escapements.
 

 

A Watch To Die For

The name Earnshaw is very well known in horological circles.  Thomas Earnshaw, (1749-1829), was primarily concerned with the development of the chronometer, especially through two innovations: the first use in England of the detached detent escapement and the bimetallic compensation balance.  His results were significant enough for the Board of Longitude to grant him an award of £2,500 in 1805.  The Earnshaw business, located at 119 High Holborn, flourished through to the latter half of the nineteenth century, son and grandson, also both ‘Thomas’, successively taking the helm.  In October 1802 another son, William, was working in the shop.  That day he dealt with a man seeking a chronometer that proved, literally, to be ‘to die for’.

At the trial of that man – Francis Finlay – Earnshaw gave an account of the fraud with which Finlay was charged.  It was sufficiently clear, and well corroborated by other witnesses, to lead to a ‘guilty’ verdict.  Finlay did not deny his guilt and sought mercy only on the grounds that he had been insane when the offence had been committed. 
 

Francis Finlay had been born in Boston, Lincolnshire in 1776.  Well brought up and provided for, Finlay obtained an Army officer’s commission and achieved promotion to the rank of Lieutenant.  However, in his personal life things went amiss – he became, in the contemporary parlance, a libertine, and this meant that there were many bills to pay for ‘entertainments’.  He raised some money by selling his commission, but, with a wife and young daughter to support, things became desperate.  As a solution he set about obtaining one of Thomas Earnshaw’s highly acclaimed gold chronometers, intending to sell it on without ceremony. 
 

Lacking the necessary cash - £65 – Finlay had forged two bills of exchange which he tendered to William Earnshaw.  William smelt a rat and sent his assistant out straight away to have them fulfilled: they were declined and identified as forgeries. 
 

Finlay meanwhile had also raised suspicion at Birkitt’s – a pawnbroker – when he offered the chronometer for pledge.  Birkett detained Finlay until he was arrested and taken into official custody.  At his trial on 3 December 1802 Finlay was sentenced to death and subsequently hung on 9 February 1803.  To emphasise the contrast between now and then, not only in judicial values, but also in sensibilities, here is a quote from the contemporary, ‘The New Newgate Calendar, Volume 4’: 
 

No man ever behaved with more resignation and manly fortitude in such a situation.  He seemed to be in agony for the space of three minutes, after he was turned off, during which time he held a white pocket-hankerchief in his hand, but afterwards dropped it.

 

The body was cut down after it had hung the usual time, and carried to Newgate prison.  At one o’clock, a hearse attended to convey it away; but upon being inspected by the sheriffs, it was found to be still warm, though it had been cut down three hours before.

 

Site of Earnshaw’s shop and blue plaque

By Spudgun67 (Own work)

[CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

via Wikimedia Commons

 

 

One Day Marine Chronometer #509, circa 1800

© Trustees of the British Museum 

Today Thomas Earnshaw is a wristwatch brand.  Its website has an excellent page with a pictorial history of man and products - http://www.thomas-earnshaw.com/pages/thomas-earnshaw-1749-1829  

Richard Peckover – An Eminent Successor

The Royal Exchange, sandwiched between Cornhill and Threadneedle Street in the heart of the City of London, opened in 1571.  It was Thomas Gresham’s idea to provide this centre for commerce in England’s capital.

The Royal Exchange, circa 1760 by Thomas Bowles

Courtesy www.albion-prints.com 

On March 25 1748 a fire occurred around the Lombard Street side.  A good deal of damage resulted, as can be seen in the map below:

 

Courtesy of Mapco

(The building was affected by fire – much more severely – on two other occasions, the last being in October 1844).  For a comprehensive account of the Royal Exchange, see:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol1/pp494-513  

Close study of the map will reveal a great variety of trades operating in the Exchange, but there is just one watchmaker – the premises marked in yellow – Richard Peckover*.

Peckover was born in 1685, the son of John and Ursula Peckover of St. Giles Cripplegate.  He was apprenticed in 1700 to John Benson.  He took over the renowned Daniel Quare/Stephen Horseman business following the latter’s bankruptcy in 1730:

Whereas a Commission of Bankrupt is awarded against Stephen Horseman, of Exchange Alley, London, Citizen and Clockmaker, and he being declared a Bankrupt, is hereby required to surrender himself to the Commissioners on the 8^th, 15^th and 18^th Instant, at Three in the Afternoon, at Guildhall, London, and make a full Discovery of his Estate and Effects; when and where the Creditors are to come prepared to prove their Debts, and pay Contribution-Money, and at the first Sitting the Commissioners will appoint Assignees.  All Persons indebted to the said Bankrupt, or that have any of his Effects, are not to pay of deliver. . .

The London Gazette 28 November 1730

Peckover is recorded in Exchange Alley from 1733.  He continued Horseman’s movement numbering system, previous researchers saying that this was in the range: 6480 to 7377.  However, as can be deduced from the illustration below, his ultimate number would have been at least 7408. 

Records, including Baillie, show Peckover at Cornhill and Royal Exchange – he may in fact have simply retained the Quare/Horseman premises, as Exchange/Change Alley and Cornhill are feasible address variants for a location within the Royal Exchange complex. 

An opulent example of Peckover’s work is held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.  Made for the Far East export market, the case features both gold and diamonds – real eighteenth century bling!  The movement is numbered 6480:

 

Courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art

Also highly decorative is this gold quarter repeater, #7408, circa 1750:

 

Courtesy of Auktionen Dr. Crott 

Peckover was also the maker of some very fine clocks.  Examples recently seen for sale include an unusual longcase with integrated barometer, (offered for around £75,000); a brass-mounted fruitwood quarter repeating bracket clock, (sold for £12,000); a miniature gilt-brass repeating table clock, (sold for £62,000); and a wall lantern, (offered for £3,850). 

Richard married Jane Marchant in September 1721.  The couple had one child, Mary, 10/06/1723 – 12-08-1751.  As recorded in The London Chronicle, Peckover died on 28 March 1757.  Jane lived on until April 1763. 

* Although not shown on this map of The Royal Exchange, the following watchmakers are known to have worked there during the eighteenth century: James McCabe; John Ellicott; Francis Perigal & Son; Richard Webster; Robert Best; David Evans; John Cowell; Thomas Hawkins.

 

Oil or Acid – What’s the Best Watch Lubricant?

 

  Sir, - As an Englishman, will you allow me to inquire, through the medium of your truly important journal , the utility of “The Court of Requests?” whether it be instituted to protect the oppressed, or otherwise?

  From a decision given against me (defendant), at “The Court of Requests,” Guildhall, I am of opinion that a man may, ad libitum, summon whom he pleases thither; and can make the defendant pay what sum soever he may demand, and for what the defendant knows not; and this opinion originates from the following circumstance.

  Some months ago, on winding up my watch, the fusee-chain became detached, or broken; on the following morning I took it to the shop of a watchmaker who lives in the neighbourhood of Snow-hill, and distinctly directed that the chain only be repaired; that I would send for it in the morning; but when I sent, the person was told that the watch was in pieces and could not be had.  After a considerable interval, however, the watch is returned to me, accompanied by a bill for 16s. 6d.  On my way to the city the next day, I discovered the watch indicated falsely: I therefore sent it back requesting that it might be “regulated” conceiving my request to be just, and such as every honest man would tolerate.  During an interval of a few minutes I was waited on by the watch-maker, who desired me to call at his shop to view my watch , “for,” said he, “the works are rusty, and covered with an acid.”  From information I had subsequently obtained, I provided a friend; and, we saw the watch, not covered by an acid, but an oil, which he acknowledged to have applied; and not a particle of any other substance was visible, nor did the metal exhibit appearances of being acted upon by an acid.  The watch, however, is put together without my instructions, and returned to me.  I immediately sent 16s. 6d., the amount of the bill, but he refused it, stating that he had other charges to make for work which he had since done.  On this information I was struck with the disgusting attempt at imposition, and therefore refused to pay any additional charges.  Ultimately, however, I received a summons to appear at the Court of Requests; and, notwithstanding I had witnesses to swear that no acid or vapour had, or could, come into contact with my watch, and the watch produced to show that it was rendered useless by this watchmaker’s unskilful treatment, yet I was compelled to pay the unparalleled oppression, £1. 17s. 6d. for the destruction of my watch!

  From the conviction that I have not received that justice which ought to exist between man and man, “especially those who profess and call themselves Christians.”  I should esteem it an everlasting obligation if any of your readers would inform me, whether there be not a remedy which I might adopt in opposition to this decision, in order that similar impositions pass not with impunity.  I remain most respectfully, Sir, you most obedient servant. G.W. 

This reader’s letter appeared in The Times in October 1828.  So poor service was around back then to blight the watch owner, just as it is in 2015.  Today’s wristwatch forums frequently feature messages from owners complaining about poor treatment by repairers and indeed by the service arms of the most respected brand names in the Industry.  In the modern context the absorption of individual manufacturing houses into conglomerates has not helped – the high volume of transactions prevents genuine personalisation, and pride in workmanship associated with an individual brand is inevitably diluted.  I’m sure most watch enthusiasts find it disappointing that the famous names of Vacheron Constantin, Baume & Mercier, Jaeger-LeCoultre, A. Lange & Söhne, Cartier, Officine Panerai, IWC Schaffhausen and Piaget are all under a common ownership and share a service organisation.

 

Prices are often a source of dissatisfaction in their own right, regardless of the quality of work.  A service for a contemporary Speedmaster is £440 at Omega’s own facility.  Independents of good repute are likely to quote £200-£300 for the same thing. 

 

I read our Regency victim’s eventual bill as amounting to £1/17/6 – that’s about £170 in today’s terms, similar to what an independent will charge now for a Rolex timepiece. 

 

One positive benefit of a watchmaker’s service/repair in the early nineteenth century would have been the acquisition of one of his ornate papers – here are five particularly nice ones:

 

 (© Trustees of the British Museum)