Clever but Cranky

Just published in Clocks Magazine is my article on William Schoof.

Researching Schoof led me to read about Schleswig-Holstein, for the first time since my days at grammar school - rather a long time ago nowadays!  Schoof was born in Flensburg located in that state, but came to London in 1856.  He then established himself as a watchmaker and built a considerable reputation over a forty year career.  He sought to innovate with a 10 tooth chronometer lever escapement and in promoting his ideas became thought of as somewhat cantankerous by his trade peers.  In the obituary published by The Horological Journal, Schoof was characterised thus:

He was a remarkably clever man but he had imbibed some peculiar views as to the principles underlying the construction of mechanism(s) which were not generally accepted, and though genial and good-hearted, would press his theories somewhat offensively, and in so doing often gave offence.  In fact those who knew him and respected him found it the best plan not to argue with him at all on his favourite subject.

The article also covers Schoof's two brushes with the law - first his inadvertent involvement in a terrorist plot in which a large stash of weapons was discovered on his premises.  Later, Schoof was far from blameless, being accused of false imprisonment.

The May 2022 issue of Clocks Magazine is available here.

James Pyott, Unassuming Chronometer Maker

James Davidson Pyott was born on 10 August 1825.  His eighteen year old father, also James, was a watchmaker, born in Dundee.  The 1841 Census found them at Ramsgate Street in Stockton-on-Tees, and it appears that son was apprenticed to father, perhaps informally.  Ten years later the family had relocated to London, living in Long Acre, near Covent Garden.

An advertisement in the Clerkenwell News, 6 February 1858, is intriguing in that it may have been placed by either man.  Young James’s life and work is the much more completely documented, but he was never associated with this address, so it is perhaps likely that this was his father’s pitch for work:

 Fig.1. © The British Library Board

On the other hand, Pyott Jr gave his occupation as the seemingly matching, “Watchmaker Compensation balance maker,” for the 1861 Census return, domiciled by then at 2 Cumming Street, Pentonville with his wife of two years, Alice, and their infant daughter, Emma.  At the same date Pyott’s business was listed in Collinson’s Directory with premises at 49 Spencer Street.  Through the 1860s Pyott consolidated a good reputation in watchmaking trade circles, becoming a member of the British Horological Institute and, from 1868 to 1876, responsible for auditing the Institute’s accounts.

The 1871 Census recorded the Pyott family at 9 Pentonville Road – by now James and Alice had three daughters and one son, Arthur.  As to the business, from the following year Pyott’s trading address was 7 Jamaica Terrace, West India Dock Road.  As seen in the advertisement reproduced below, James took the premises over from Thomas Barclay:

Fig.2. Advertisement in the Shipping & Mercantile Gazette,

 frequently inserted, Autumn 1872/January 1873. © The British Library Board

Shown below is a 1870s example of Pyott’s work, chronometer #389:

Fig.3. Courtesy Ariescavern

Through the 1870s and to the turn of the century, Pyott was listed in directories in this road, usually at number 74, as seen on this trade label:

Fig.4. © Royal Museums Greenwich

Pyott first submitted a chronometer to the annual Greenwich Trials in 1875, placing 34^th (of 49) with movement #395.  Three years later he achieved the high distinction of coming First with #478.  Conversely, in 1894 and 1902, a Pyott chronometer was rated Last.  He entered instruments for the Trials most years between 1875 and 1904, with results summarised in the table below:

Year	Movement Number	Position/Chronometers on Trial
1875	395	34/49
1876	398	19/47
1877	458	7/35
1878	478	1/29
1880	474	30/44
1881	474	21/43
1882	488	25/46
1884	818	22/34
1885	818	23/45
1886	878 887	13/37 26/37
1887	887 878	16/52 45/52
1888	886 902	12/28 21/28
1889	886 902	36/47 44/47
1890	860 916	26/38 34/38
1891	860 914 916 862	22/51 29/51 36/51 37/51
1892	999 862	28/48 38/48
1894	960	60/60
1895	960	56/63
1896	962 958 936	44/66 53/66 61/66
1897	936 960	39/78 48/78
1901	998 964	9/51 35/51
1902	1206 964	25/31 31/31
1903	1206	17/40
1904	999 984	15/43 42/43

Whilst most makers sought to capitalise commercially by referring to Trials results and the Maker to the Admiralty boast, Pyott apparently did not, since he mainly made movements for other ‘makers’ and retailers, his name/signature very rarely appearing on dials/movement plates.  Tony Mercer referred to this in letters submitted to the Antiquarian Horology Journal:

Another group were the dedicated craftsmen/makers who seldom, if ever, put their own name on the dial but made for other, more commercially minded makers, such names as Lawson, J. Smith, E. Sills, Pyott, Hammersely and Cogden are but a few.^{Antiquarian Horology, volume 18, no.2, p95}

(Concerning a thousand chronometers sold by Kelvin Bottomley & Baird, (and related firms)) . . .they were made by Kullberg, Poole, Pyott, Mercer, Johannson, Usher & Cole, Dodd and Gardener.^{Antiquarian Horology, volume 9, no.6, p100}

In the 1880-90s Pyott’s business acumen was however evident in his decision to widen his ‘stock-in-trade’ beyond timepieces, embracing the market for marine-related instruments – Sotheby’s, in 2002, for instance, selling a sextant attributed to him.  And the barometer, shown below, bears his West India Dock Road address:

Fig.5. Courtesy Mallams

Pyott became interested in local government and was nominated to stand for election in the South Ward of Limehouse in 1897.  Financially secure, he was able to begin his retirement in the affluent milieu of Mayfair, living with Emma and Arthur in Balderton Street.  He might perhaps had hoped that Arthur would carry on the watchmaking business, but his son is recorded in the 1901 Census as an actor, and his wife, Nellie, an actress.

James Pyott died a little short of his ninetieth birthday, in April, 1915.  He was by then at Keith Lodge, Allknutts Estate, Epping.  Cause of death was given as senile dementia.

Jose Rodriguez Losada

Marine Chronometer #1765, by J R Losada

The January 2020 issue of Clocks Magazine features my article on the watch and clockmaking businesses founded in the eighteen thirties in London by Spaniard, Jose Rodriguez Losada.  It is a convoluted saga, with many aspects of interest, and one that continued through to the century’s closing decade.

Losada and his nephews had a modern approach to marketing and exploited a range of means by which their products would be seen as being of high quality – for example by trading from prestige location premises, (Regent Street), illustrated press advertising, participation in international exhibitions and endorsement by government/military authorities.

This latter consideration was sought by many makers throughout the nineteenth century by entering their chronometers into annual trials conducted at Greenwich Observatory.  These trials tested the accuracy of submitted timepieces over a period of seven or eight months and in varying ambient temperatures.  Originally instituted in 1822, after a break in the mid-eighteen thirties, the trials were held each year through to the outbreak of the First World War.  The results formed the basis on which the Admiralty made purchasing decisions for the marine chronometer requirements of the Navy’s ships.  When a chronometer was thus selected, its maker greatly valued the consequence that they could then inscribe, ‘Maker to the Admiralty’ on the plates of their movements and use the accolade in their advertising.

The number of makers/instruments submitted to the trials varied considerably over the years.  As few as 17 chronometers were tested in 1852, while the count was up to 58 in 1861.  The low number may well reflect makers’ alternative focus on preparing for their participation in the Great Exhibition of 1851, and it is perhaps relevant to note that the number dipped from the 1861 high to 36 in 1862 – the year of the International Exhibition.  Most makers submitted two chronometers and in many instances, year after year.  The average number tested in the 1840s was 38, in the 1850s, 23, and in the 1860s, 51.

Losada was atypical in his approach to the Greenwich Trials.  He submitted his #1417 in 1849, and it was placed 20^th of 31 in terms of accuracy.  I think he viewed this result as potentially counter-productive – that if he couldn’t achieve a top-ten result by participating he was risking having his products seen as inferior to those of several of his competitors.  So he did not submit again.  If this left him missing a potential product feature he could advertise – ‘Maker to the Admiralty’ – his later deal with the Spanish Government to supply 38 chronometers, will have compensated.

Losada’s nephew, Jose del Riego, entered his chronometer, #3890, to the trials in 1882.  Unfortunately, his result was much worse than Losada’s – 46^th of 46.  Not surprising therefore that no further Riego chronometers found their way to Greenwich in subsequent years!

Birchall Father and Son, Chronometer Makers

Peter Birchall was born in 1799.  It is thought that his parents were William and Ellen, then living in Widnes.  A record exists of the marriage of William Birchall to Ellen Yates at Prescot in September 1789.  There were multiple associations of the Birchall name with watch and clock making in North West England in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  According to Britten’s, George Birchall was a Warrington watchmaker, c. 1793-1820, and he may have been the junior partner in a firm, Birchall & Son, 1770. ^{Ed. Baillie, Ilbert and Clutton, Britten’s Old Clocks & Watches and their Makers, (London: Bloomsbury Books)}  There was a William born in 1749 who died in 1820, but his sons were named William and Steven.  Another ‘possible William,’ a watchmaker of Wellington Street, St Lukes, died in 1842, but, again, a son named Peter does not appear in his will.^{One of the sons, James, also a watchmaker, committed suicide in February 1847}  Holden’s Directory for 1802 lists a William Birchall, watchmaker, at 11 Kirby Street, Hatton Garden.  The location, Burton Crescent, a little to the east of Clerkenwell, near St Pancras, is also associated with the Birchall name in the 1820s.

There is no record of an apprenticeship having been served by Peter, and it is likely that he was trained by his father.  Whatever the facts of that, his horological ability was such that by 1840 he was confident enough to be submitting two of his chronometers to the Greenwich Trials.  Furthermore, one of them, #281, was good enough to be placed seventh of twenty-eight, and thus his work was out-performing that of such illustrious names as, Pennington, Parkinson & Frodsham and Santiago French.  This chronometer also did better than two made by R & H Molyneaux.  The latter business occupied premises at 30 Southampton Row, which, two years later, were taken over by Birchall and his friend/partner, Henry Appleton.  The 1841 Census shows Henry, then sixty three years old, living at 50, Myddleton Square with Peter, Peter’s wife, Winnie, and their son John, just one year old.  Appleton was renowned for the quality of his work, making him a key employee for several years in the Molyneaux firm.  Given this, and his twenty years seniority, he may well have played the role of a mentor and greatly contributed to the success achieved by Peter in the early Greenwich Trials which are summarised in the table below:

Fig.1. Peter Birchall’s Chronometers on Greenwich Trials

This chronometer, #880 is c.1865:

Fig.2. Chronometer #880  Courtesy of WorthPoint

Peter had married Winnie Hitch in 1826.  Their son, William Peter, was born in 1838, and he too would eventually make chronometers which would be proved excellent at Greenwich.  The couple had another son, John, who also worked in the family watchmaking business until his death in 1871.  The family’s means enabled the employment of a servant at each of the addresses recorded by successive censuses: 1851 – 6 Middle Brunswick Terrace; 1861 – 2 Amwell Terrace; 1871 and 1881 – 12a Stonefield Street.^{Amwell Terrace was merged with Great Percy St in the 1860s and the Birchall’s house became number 65} 

Age twenty three in 1861, William Peter was described in the Census as a ‘watch maker’s finisher,’ (as was younger brother, John).  At this stage he had already begun to make a reputation of his own, having entered a chronometer - #1 – to the 1860 Greenwich Trial, and this was rated second only to the #642 of his father’s manufacture. The following year his #9 was rated 7^th.  In 1862 he was elected to the Council of the Horological Institute.  As a further indication of qualified status, his own listing began to appear in directories in addition to those for his father.  William Peter’s Greenwich Trials results are summarised in the table below:

Fig.3. William Peter Birchall’s Chronometers on Greenwich Trials

William Peter married Eliza King in April 1864.  They lived with Peter and John at Stonefield Street, the 1871 Census recording them there together with their sons, Peter, Alfred and John.  (Another son, Herbert, was born in 1873.)  William Peter died, age forty, in 1878, from a subdural effusion of the brain, possibly a rare complication of meningitis.  His father, Peter, was considerably longer-lived, dying in October 1885.

Considering the success of both Peter’s and William Peter’s chronometers at the Greenwich Trials, it is notable that they figure only marginally in horological literature, and I have been unable to find any images of extant timepieces of their manufacture other than that of Peter’s #880, as seen above.  I would be very pleased to receive details of any in readers’ possession and/or photographs of them.

Richard Thorneloe

Anyone looking for a straightforward late-nineteenth century English pocket watch will inevitably, sooner or later, encounter one bearing the maker’s name of John Forrest.  Most will be found to have nothing to do with the man himself and many will be of mediocre quality.  But that is not to say, despite Mr Forrest’s own, spurious claim to be, “Chronometer maker to the Admiralty,” that they are necessarily any less well made than those he did make.  And, after Forrest’s death, ironically, some made by the man – arguably the only one - who had a right to use the name, were actually purchased by the Admiralty because of their very high quality.

After Forrest’s death (in 1871) the brand was sold to Richard Thorneloe for £20 in 1891.  However, in the meantime another Coventry maker, Charles John Hill (Russel House, Chapel Fields), had taken to marketing watches inscribed with the Forrest name.

Thorneloe was determined to affirm and secure the rights he believed his outlay should have brought him.  Accordingly, in 1893, he instigated an action in the High Court.  This, however, failed and ‘John Forrest’ watches continued to be made by Hill and others.

Prior to his difficulties with the John Forrest brand Thorneloe had established and developed a successful business within the Coventry watchmaking community; it was of sufficient size in 1871 to be employing 6 men and 7 boys.

Whilst the ‘original’ Forrest established a marketability based on a perception of quality and a false claim, Thorneloe achieved a reputation founded on actual quality which was verifiably endorsed by Admiralty purchase.  This is evidenced by a deck watch sold by Sotheby’s in 2016:

Courtesy of Sotheby’s

It was entered in the 1904-05 trial at Greenwich Observatory, and its accuracy was not bettered by any of the other instruments tested at the same time.  This was attributable to its well-made movement which featured a spring detent chronometer escapement and compensated balance.  Thorneloe had however gone one step further with this instrument by incorporating a karrusel, as developed and patented by the Danish maker, Bahne Bonniksen.

I have recently completed a comprehensive article on Thorneloe and anticipate publishing it later this year or in 2019.

A Man of Contradictions

In my post about John Walker (25 November 2015) I mentioned Milner & Son’s ‘thief-proof’ safes.  Now, from the watchmaker’s side of the fence I’d like to introduce you to the ‘Unstealable Watch’!  This was the ‘invention’ of Sir John Bennett, a Victorian maker/retailer with a very twenty-first century approach to marketing.  Bennett’s advertisement in The Times, 24 May 1858 reads:

Bennetts Unstealable Watches- In consequence of the number of valuable WATCHES stolen from the person by snapping off the pendant ring J BENNETT of 65 Cheapside, is prepared to apply to any watch purchased at his establishment an ingeniously contrived revolving pendant bow, by which this mode-of-theft will be rendered impossible.  Eight day Watches – J Bennett has recently completed a selection of gold watches of superior quality, at 25 guineas each which require winding up but once a week.  Bennett’s model watches, in gold, from 12 guineas; in silver, 5 guineas; Bennett’s workman’s watch 3 guineas.  Bennett’s presentation watches 1st class, in gold, 40 guineas; in silver 20 guineas;  2d class, gold, 30 guineas; silver, 15 guineas; 3d class, gold 20 guineas; silver 10 guineas.  Every watch skilfully examined, timed and its performance guaranteed.  Watches sent free and safe by post.  Post-Office orders to John Bennett, watch manufactory, 65 Cheapside. 

In the above you’ll note a super-confident attitude towards unconditional claim-making, (never mind watch-making), and a touching, (and definitely un-twenty-first century), belief in the reliability and integrity of the postal service. 

John Bennett was born in 1814.  His parents, John and Elizabeth were watchmakers, living and working in Greenwich.  John Jnr carried on after their deaths, moving to the City in 1846 with premises at 65 Cheapside.  He eventually expanded these by taking over no. 64 and also had a presence at 62 Cornhill.  The business was successful and Bennett further elevated his status by becoming a councillor in the 1860s and a sheriff in 1871.  He was knighted in 1872.

 

Bennett’s Cheapside premises (1920s) 

Bennett’s ambitions in public life/politics were to an extent frustrated by the Establishment’s relatively negative reaction to his flamboyant style and manner.  As a response, he re-doubled his efforts in terms of commerciality, investing much energy and innovative thinking.  His advertising in newspapers/magazines was prolific and with high impact from the liberal use of illustration, (see below, left).  Having achieved Royal approval, he reiterated it to the public at every opportunity, both in print and, for example, with bold engraving on his products, see below, right). 

 

 

Note that the watch shown above proclaiming Royal patronage has a Swiss movement.  Ironic this as Sir John was one of the first high profile figures to stimulate public debate about the precarious position of the English watchmaking trade.  Complacent from a long period of technical and commercial superiority, the Trade had become uncompetitive in terms of product aesthetics, price, consequent loss of volume and erosion of profit margins.  The immediate threat was from the Swiss manufacturers.  One of the factors supporting the Swiss business model was the use of female workers, (their pay being less than that provided to men).  I am writing this in an England where last week a female lawyer caused a media frenzy over her withering riposte to a man’s compliments on the business networking website, LinkedIn, about her sexually attractive appearance.  I imagine Sir John might have experienced some of the same opprobrium if ‘Women’s Lib’ had already had a hold in the 1850s, when he advocated the employment of female watchmakers, (and, by implication, their adverse pay differential vis-à-vis their male counterparts). 

But Sir John would no doubt have shrugged that off.  Among his characteristics were: persistence, a thick skin and plenty of cunning.  Consider this extract from Raymond Lamont Brown’s book, John Brown: Queen Victoria’s Highland Servant:

Over the years many tradesmen sought to curry favour with John Brown in the hope that this would bring them to a useful connection with the Queen.  One assiduous practitioner of such flattery was Sir John Bennett, watchmaker and jeweller in London’s Cheapside from 1846 to 1889.  After showing cases of jewellery to the Queen on one occasion, although she bought nothing, Bennett was advised by an equerry that he should share his lunch, which the Queen had authorised in the Steward’s Room at Windsor Castle, with John Brown and also do a little marketing.  So Bennett invited Brown and during the meal he obsequiously expressed his love for Deeside and all things Scottish.  For his part John Brown supplied wine from the Queen’s cellars to accompany the meal and a convivial afternoon resulted.  Thereafter courtiers noted that the Queen became a good customer of Bennett’s. 

Sir John Bennett, the man who strove to defend English watchmaking yet turned profit by retailing Swiss made products was also the loving husband/father who had no less than seven children by his long term mistress.  One result of this was a revision to his will, which should have benefitted his wife and three children, but which then had to embrace his second ‘family’.  The estate was subject to an adjustment from £463 19s. 6d down to £88 9s. 6d. 

But let’s not allow these little matters of unpleasantness to detract from Bennett’s industry, commerciality and pursuit of quality.  As to quality, one of his watches is included in the prestigious collection of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers, catalogued as follows: 

499  Sir John Bennett  England  HM 1884

Gold case.  Stamped A. & 42972.  Enamel dial.  Subsidiary seconds dial.  Three-quarter plate.  Keyless wind.  Signed ‘Sir John Bennett 65 & 64 Cheapside.  London.  42972.  Diameter 48mm.  Collinson Collection. 

And here is one of his elegant pocket chronometers, #14097:

 

Courtesy of Jones and Horan 

 

52mm, 18K original HC bearing London hallmarks for 1859, maker's mark JG in oval cartouche (various possibilities), signed gold cuvette additionally marked "64 & 65 Cheapside, Maker to the Royal Observatory" with English Royal Crest above, KWKS, signed WED also marked "Chronometer," spring detent escapement with helical HS, 12-14J, gilt movement. 

Sir John died in 1897.  The business continued as a limited liability company until the 1930s.  Henry Ford bought the building itself and its external clock with its Gog and Magog figures.  It was rebuilt at Dearborn, Michigan within the Henry Ford Organisation’s Greenfield Village site.  For much more on this - https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/pic/2006/06_may.asp