Reuben Squire

The town of Bideford lies on the River Torridge near the North Devon coast, between the bigger town of Barnstaple to the north and Hartland Point to the south.  Six miles south of Bideford is the small village of Buckland Brewer and it was here in the 1840s that Robert Squire changed his occupation from that of a Glazier (as was his father, John,) to a Watch and Clock Maker.  Robert and his wife, Harriett, had seven children, the second of whom, Reuben, was born in 1847.  Both Reuben and his elder brother, Leigh, followed Robert into the watchmaking trade. 

Given his rural location and lack of horological heritage and experience, it is likely that Robert’s work was unremarkable and largely amounted to simple finishing of ‘raw’ ébauche movements sourced from the wholesale trade manufacturing communities of Prescot and Coventry.  Robert and Leigh traded initially as ‘Squire & Son’ from 12, High Street, Bideford from the 1860s.  Their partnership was dissolved in 1882, but Leigh carried on at the same premises until circa 1902.  This example of their work, based on a Rotherhams ébauche and dated 1879, is from the Dennis Bacon-Max Cutmore Collection:

Fig.1. Squire & Son movement #138408.  Courtesy of Leigh Extence. www.extence.co.uk

Probably because the business was not of sufficient scale to gainfully employ father and both sons, Reuben did not remain at home and sought training and experience elsewhere.  The 1871 Census found him in Taunton, a considerably larger town located the other side of Exmoor; at 29 Fore Street, Reuben was employed as assistant to Charles Haddon, Silversmith and Master Watchmaker. 

But however much bigger Taunton was than Bideford, Reuben had ambition which drew him towards London and the possibilities there of building a substantial watchmaking business.  So December 1880 saw him registering the trademark of his newly-found enterprise, The London Watch Company, which he styled, ‘Watch Manufacturer English & Foreign Watches & Clocks.’  Based at 35 Myddleton Square, products were marked thus:

Fig.2. LWC Trademark. Courtesy of Thomas Hodkin/Google Books

The Census of the following year noted that Reuben was, ‘employing 1 man and 1 boy constantly.’  For the next fourteen years Reuben’s horological activities were at their height.  Early in the period he repeatedly sought election to the Council of the British Horological Institute, but without success. 

1884 proved to be an especially significant year for Reuben.  In September of that year he applied for two British Patents:

Fig.3. Patent Applications, listed in The Horological Journal, August 1885

The November 1884 issue of The Horological Journal featured a letter from Reuben extolling the virtues of his innovations in obviating the complications for the watchmaker in the replacement of a mainspring.  He wrote in conclusion with considerable confidence: 

The cost of production is perfectly nil in the hands of a movement maker, and probably would not alter the price of a watch, so it is for the watchmakers themselves to say how soon they will have it in their future purchases, and how long they will suffer the inconvenience of existing barrels. 

So he must have found it dispiriting to see in the following month’s issue two critical letters:

Fig.4. Letters in The Horological Journal, December 1884

Undeterred, and while the patents application process took its course, Reuben prepared exhibits for the International Inventions Exhibition, held in South Kensington, May to October, 1885.  His presentation was reported in the June 1885 issue of The Horological Journal thus: 

R Squire has a little case with his specialities, including a watertight watch immersed in a glass globe full of water, and movements showing his removable barrel, and adjustable, or, as he terms it, isochronal balance spring stud, which may be shifted in any direction to accommodate the outer end of the balance spring, so that the latter is not forced or strained. 

Squire’s advertisement referring to the Exhibition and his receipt of its medal, provided a head-on challenge to his competitor, Bensons, and its ‘Ludgate’ model, about which the Journal’s Exhibition report said: 

J W Benson makes a speciality of his Ludgate watch, with dust-tight band enclosing the movement. 

This is the Squire’s advertisement:

Fig. 5. Squire Advertisement, 1885

Despite the advertisement’s copy claiming Squire’s competitiveness with the Benson product, it is instructive to note that the Ludgate firm secured the Exhibition’s gold medal, ‘for improvements in machine made watches,’ whereas Squire’s was the lesser, bronze, award, and was noted with the somewhat disparaging citation, ‘for improvements in cheap watches.’ 

In February 1885 Squire’s response to the Heden and ‘Jobber’ criticisms appeared in The Horological Journal:

Fig.6. The Horological Journal, February 1885

But it was not long before Reuben was once again under attack in print, this time from Joseph Player of Coventry: 

Removable Barrel – With reference to Mr Squire’s observations respecting the removable barrel . . . I wish to say that the model now at the International Exhibition was executed months before his letter appeared in February last; and there is little doubt, I think, but the same arrangement must have suggested itself before now to many watchmakers.  With regard to his criticisms upon my ratchet work, I think a glance at the model in question will satisfy any one of its soundness and practicality.

Meanwhile, the patent applications took their course, being sealed eventually in August 1885.  Nevertheless, at this point Squire seems to have become decidedly tetchy, going into print to (possibly prematurely) pour scorn on fellow maker, Richard Thorneloe.  I have researched and written about Thorneloe previously and did not find anything of substance relating to a patent application dispute: he is mainly known for his difficulties with his ‘ownership’ of the notorious John Forrest brand. 

Fig.7. The Horological Journal, November 1885

For the next few years Reuben persisted with his efforts to expand his business, trading with The London Watch Company name.  But, despite what such a name implied, his enterprise could not achieve the growth, increased scale and consequent costs-containment of mass production which would have allowed his products to be price-competitive with those of the bigger British firms, let alone with the ubiquitous timepieces of Swiss and American origin.  By September 1895, the business was no longer viable, and an extraordinary meeting resolved that it should be wound-up, leading to the publication of this notice:

Fig.8. The Gazette, 25 October 1895

Reuben himself was not in straightened circumstances and enjoyed a lengthy period of retirement, moving back to Devon.  Remaining of active mind, he found the time to pursue his interest in innovation, one result of which was the securing in 1909 of a patent for shoe heel savers!  He lived in his home village of Buckland Brewer until around 1914, when he relocated to Westcroft Terrace in Bideford, where he died in March 1934. He left £2,456 16s. – in the region of £800,000 in present-day wealth terms.