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.

Another missed

Further to previous posts - 2019 and 2015 - another Alexander Hare Pocket Watch was included in the Jones & Horan sale, 2nd June, described:

The watch sold for $1,800. It's another that I feel I've 'missed,' (because I was overly-focused on the Alexander Watkins Chronometer in the same sale.) But I'm intent on acquiring a timepiece by Hare and will keep looking.  Meanwhile - courtesy of Jones & Horan - here are some photographs of #406:

George Margetts (1748-1804)

I wrote an extensive article last year on George Margetts. His life and work are intriguing – with technical/craft skills contradictions, biographical uncertainties, business vicissitudes, possible deceptions, but, nevertheless, endeavour across a range of horological and scientific disciplines.

Margetts’s output includes decorative, multi-function watches, Marine Chronometers, clocks and watches with astronomical functions, calculating instruments and published writing based on complex arithmetical calculations.

Here is an example of an extant verge:

© Trustees of the British Museum

Number	Date	Description	Notes
Unknown	c1778	Astronomical, gold-consular cased verge.  Diameter – 55.2mm.	The dial shows the positions of the sun and the moon in the zodiac throughout the year, the stars visible each night, the age of the moon and the times of high tide at various ports around Great Britain. The whole dial rotates clockwise once per day, together with the solar and lunar indicators, but over the course of a year both solar and lunar hands regress at different rates to show the position of the sun and moon in the zodiac. Effectively, the dial rotates once in a sidereal day - 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds - and the solar and lunar hands rotate once in a solar and lunar day.  In the collection of The British Museum

The article includes a table with details/illustrations of 27 extant horological pieces attributed to Margetts.

Margetts’s story involves innovation contrasting with the more mundane.  His ultimate potential seems to have been unfulfilled and I wonder if his lack of success stemmed from technical shortcomings, lack of commercial focus or a paucity of ability to present himself and his ideas effectively - for example in his dealings with the Board of Longitude.  But, whatever might have been possible, there can be no denying that his Astronomical Watches were very expertly designed, are nicely evocative of his period and remain aesthetically triumphant.

Another Innovator

A recurring interest of mine is in watchmakers who acquired the expensive habit of wanting to innovate rather than manufacture readily marketable conventional timepieces.  Time and again this led to the maker having more substantial references in the Bankruptcy Notices section of such as The Gazette than in the horological records published by Britten, Baillie and Loomes.  Sigismund Rentzsch is a bit different: the novelty of some of his technology was a factor in his achieving the accolade, ‘King’s Clock and Watch-maker in ordinary’, and his business was sufficiently profitable to support a personal ‘productivity’ which resulted in a family that included no less than fifteen children!  However, his second wife, Mary, who bore eleven of the offspring, continuing the business (at 13 Regent’s Street) after Sigismund’s death, did find herself obliged to make a bankruptcy assignment in September 1848.

After a good deal of research I am finalising a full article on Rentzsch’s life and work.  Meanwhile, I notice that David Penney has a nice-looking cylinder for sale on his Antique Watch Store website:

Charles Hanson - Part 1

In researching watchmakers of the Georgian and early Victorian era, threads of information often come to a shuddering halt, especially because of the lack/non-comprehensiveness of information in publicly accessible records, censuses for example.  As a result I sometimes discover horological ‘stories’ in which something previously unknown can be inferred, but not substantiated.  This of course is true for anyone researching and writing about any historical subject.

Here I thought I’d let my imagination run free and, rather than avoid speculation, positively indulge in it.  The resulting account satisfies my preference for a narrative in which ‘human interest’ calls the tune rather than certainty of fact.  Primarily I hope it will engage readers’ keen interest, but I’d also stress my willingness to accept informed feedback: if any of my deductions/inferences are known to be incorrect, I’m very ready to edit and update the ‘story’.

My first knowledge of Charles Hanson was an entry in an excellent and quirky book, ‘The Watch Collection of Stanley H Burton; Warts and all’.  On pages 110 – 111 a watch is illustrated and described:

Hanson, Huddersfield. B. 1859.  Hallmark Chester 1860.  Spring detent escapement, 3.2mm between plates. No.134.

Milled & engine turned silver case, 48mm diam.  Lunette glass.  White enamel dial, 44.6mm diam. Marked ‘Patent Chronometer’.  Roman chapters, gilt fleur de lys hands, secs. 10-60. 3-arm, flat, steel balance.  Straight stepped wedge cock.  Turned pillars.  Diamond endplate, hinged dome.  Key size 6.  Regulator: S-F on cock.  Going.  Rapid beat.

  

Charles Hanson was born in Huddersfield in 1801.  With his wife, Mary Ann, Charles had three sons, William, Alfred and Charles.  The family lived at Buxton Road in the 1840s, Chapel Hill in the 1850/60s and Stables Street subsequently.  Alfred – ‘Fred’ – followed his father’s trade, working as a watchmaker.  Charles died in 1880.

Directory listings for Charles’s Huddersfield clock and watchmaking business include Cloth Hall Street (1830) and 100 Northgate (1834/5).  Such was Hanson's ambition and success that he also maintained premises in High Holborn, London, 1835-42.  Later, in the early 1860s, Hanson was in partnership with Theophilus Murcott at 68 Haymarket, London.

Hanson’s main claim to horological eminence stems from his acquisition of three patents in 1845, 1859 and 1875.  The first of these, #10876, has three elements, summarised as follows:

A new type of cylindrical detent vertically housed between the top and bottom plates

A flat plate detent with central notch and pivots with support bearings

A spring bearing on the verge shaft in place of a rigid pallet

Chronometer Movement #28©

 Trustees of the British Museum

Shown above is an example of Hanson’s pivoted detent in the collection of The British Museum.  This is an uncased movement, numbered 28 and dated to 1839-45; but note that within the same catalogue description a later date of circa 1860 is attributed by Anthony Randall; he also relates this movement to patent # 1950, (27 August 1859).  In the introduction to this patent, Hanson says, (with some tautology):

This invention is intended to simplify the chronometer escapement of a watch, and to dispense with the two springs usually employed at that part of the movement.  The Invention consists in the employment of a pivoted detent acting upon the escape wheel, which is made elastic in such a manner and with such power as to dispense with the use of the two springs ordinarily employed as above mentioned in chronometers of the usual construction.

The patent is illustrated with the diagram below:

The third horological patent, registered in the United States in 1875, was concerned with a means of equalising mainspring power by means alternative to the more troublesome fusee.

To be continued. . .

The Bracebridges

The Bracebridges were watchmakers active in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth centuries.  Traditional horological reference resources – Britten’s , Baillie’s and Loomes – list three makers with this name, but I have identified five, in three generations.

The line begins with Edward.  Britten’s records working dates of 1799–1818, with the address, 8 Red Lion Street, Clerkenwell.  Baillie adds that Edward was in partnership with William Pleace.  There is little more than can be said about Edward.  The earliest possible reference to him is October 1766, when an Edward Bracebridge gave evidence in an Old Bailey trial concerning a larceny in Clerkenwell.  Given the locality and that the profession of a fellow witness, James Upjohn, is given as a watchmaker, it is likely that this is ‘our’ Bracebridge.  Certainly relevant is a Sun Life Insurance record from 1787 which refers to cover for the beer copper of one Alex. Ruff, ‘at Mr Bracebridge’s Watchmaker opp., the small pox hospital in Cold Bath Fields’, (an area close to the Mount Pleasant Royal Mail centre).  The Hospital was demolished and replaced by a prison which opened in 1794.  This institution, incidentally, represents a link to one of Edward’s sons in the early nineteenth century.

I believe Edward had two sons, James and Edward Charles.  James would have been born circa 1788-92 and died circa 1849.  This documentary reference to James is from the Sussex Advertiser, 27 March 1826:

Cornelius Muzzell’s Affairs: Notice is hereby Given, that Cornelius Muzzell, of Horsham, in the county of Sussex, Clock and Silversmith, hath, by indenture bearing date the 5^th day of November, 1825, assigned all his Estate and Effects to James Troup, of Cheapside, in the city of London, Silversmith; James Bracebridge of Red Lion Street, Clerkenwell, in the county of Middlesex, Watchmaker and Edward Walker, of Red Lion Street, Clerkenwell aforesaid, Ironmonger, in trust for themselves, and such other Creditors of the said Cornelius Muzzell, as shall, on or before the 5^th day of May next, agree to accept the Dividend or Composition arising under the trusts of the said Assignment, in full of their respective debts, - And further Notice is hereby given, that the said Deed of Assignment is left at our Office for the inspection and signature of the Creditors.  Sheppard, Thomas and Lepard.  Cloak Lane, London, 18^th March 1826.

Another reference is of much greater horological significance.  When Pierre-Frederick Ingold attempted to set up industrialised watch production in 1842 he encountered staunch opposition from London’s traditional watchmaking trade.  Rather than seeing Ingold’s British Watch & Clock Company as an important element in combating the insurgent Swiss and American industries, the Trade perceived it as a further threat and petitioned Parliament for legislation to deny Ingold’s right to raise capital for the new company.

James took a prominent part in a meeting of the Clockmakers, as reported in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 2 April 1843.  The previous Tuesday over 2,000 tradespeople met at the Crown and Anchor, “to take into consideration the best means to be adopted in reference to a bill now lying before Parliament to incorporate a new company calling themselves The British Watch & Clock-making Company . . “  He opened the meeting and seconded the resolution, which was to oppose the establishment of the proposed new company – this posture being maintained and Ingold’s initiative eventually defeated.

Edward Charles was born circa 1790, evidenced by a record of admission to St Paul’s School in 1800, his age being shown as ten.  At the age of twenty Edward Charles attained the Freedom of London, a privilege passed on to him by convention as a result of his father’s entitlement to the honour.

Edward Charles’s name appears on a list of jurors for a very significant London trial in 1820.  His suitability to sit on the jury was successfully challenged by the Crown and he therefore took no part in the proceedings.  However, this trial, (of the ‘Cato Street conspirators’), is of general interest as it resulted in the last instance of men found guilty of treason being subject to an execution in which they were hanged and beheaded, (a diminution of the ‘hanged, drawn and quartered’ punishment which had originated in the reign of Henry III).  They had been confined in the Cold Bath prison mentioned above in connection with Edward.

That Edward Charles – in partnership with brother James - was occupying the familiar Red Lion Street premises is confirmed by an entry in the 1825 issue of Pigot’s Directory.  That he was prospering is perhaps suggested by his having his – and his wife, Philippa’s – portrait painted in 1839 by John Samuel Agar, an artist of moderate repute and for a time President of the Society of Engravers.

The business, styled as Edward Charles Bracebridge & Co is evident in various directories with the dates 1851-81.  The primary address remained 8 Red Lion Street, in 1862 a shop was trading at 119 New Bond Street, managed by Charles Roe.  The family residence was 6 Barnsbury Villas, Liverpool Road, Islington.

Edward Charles and Philippa had two sons, James (James II), circa 1823-92, and Edward Gilbert, 1822-99.  James II proved to be the more high profile outside the family business itself – he served as Treasurer to the Watch and Clockmakers Benevolent Institute and was this body’s representative at the funeral of Charles Frodsham in 1871.

James himself eventually found his health failing and in the 1 August 1891 issue of The Watchmaker, Jeweller and Silversmith it was reported:

. . . Mr. James Bracebridge is retiring from the business which he has carried on for many years as watch manufacturer in Clerkenwell, under the style of E. C. Bracebridge and Co.  Mr. Bracebridge has appointed his nephew, Mr. F. Bracebridge Mills, to settle his affairs. There is, we believe, some likelihood that Mr. T. D. Wright, who for many years has held the post of manager to Mr. Bracebridge, will continue the business, and in this event there is no doubt that the reputation the firm has long enjoyed will be fully maintained in Mr. Wright's hands.

Edward Gilbert’s role in the business is not clear.  One of the few references to him is a record of a donation of £10.10s. to the North London Consumption Hospital in 1896, so one might conclude that he, or a close family member suffered with this condition which was all too prevalent in late nineteenth century London.

Thomas Wright formed a partnership with William Craighead to carry on the business at Red Lion Street from 1891.  Wright became very well known in wider horological circles and it was his proposal for the format of British Summer Time clocks adjustment that we use to this day.

I have traced eleven extant Bracebridge watches.  Attribution to specific members of the family is difficult because of some missing movement numbers, some re-cases and un hallmarked cases.  At least three sets of 4 digit movement numbers seem to have been used, with an apparently relatively consistent range between 1823 - #5882 and 1850 - #8935.  A five digit #38931 is dated to 1865 and another, #12741, is in a silver case hallmarked for 1892.

Perhaps the most attractive is #5882, a repeater in 18ct Gold Case made by Louis Comtesse:

Courtesy of Matthew Barton Ltd

The British Museum holds a Bracebridge movement.  Circa1865, this features a Savage-two-pin lever escapement and utilises a keyless winding mechanism:

© Trustees of the British Museum

Of Orbits and Tangents

Tangents are a hazard – actually a great source of pleasure – for anyone researching the history of horology. 

Looking in detail into the Ellicott dynasty, I was especially struck by the beauty of the dial of John Jnr’s Equation of Time watch, circa 1747:

 

© Trustees of the British Museum

Equation of Time ? WHAT is that; I thought I knew, but the dial confused me, so I looked it up:

 

Tangent! 

Two factors cause the true length of a day on Earth to vary: 

·         The path of Earth’s orbit around the Sun is elliptical

·         Earth’s axis is slanted  

As a result, it is sometimes more, and sometimes less, than 24 hours between successive noons.  Surprisingly, it is only exactly 24 hours four times a year: 15 April; 14 June; 1 September; 24 December. 

In considering this, the following terms are used: 

·         Mean Time – time measured by a man-made device and expressed consistently – i.e. a day is always 24 hours long

·         Solar Time – a solar day is the variable length of time between noon on day-one and noon on day-two

·         Sidereal Time – the same principle as solar time, but the measurement is made relative to the position of a specific star on two successive days 

A Solar Time day can be as much as approximately 14 minutes more or less than 24 hours Mean Time. 

The ‘Equation of Time’ on any given day is the value – i.e. number of minutes, plus or minus – to apply to the Mean Time in order to ‘read’ Solar Time. 

A practical benefit – admittedly more relevant in the eighteenth century – is that an Equation of Time clock or watch can be set by reference to a sun dial. 

Because the variances – and the four ’24 hour’ day dates – are the same every year, a mechanical complication can be added to a clock or watch to provide an indication of the Equation of Time.  The indicating hand is driven by a once-a-year revolving cam. 

To me a complication like this is just something to be enjoyed for its technical and aesthetic attributes, although some people seem to be overly concerned with what practical use it might have.  In the eighteenth century, as watches with this feature began to appear, ownership would surely have been a serious status indicator. 

Equally, the capability to make such a watch would have been a powerful achievement to boast, raising the maker’s reputation and ability to command higher prices for his products.  It’s not surprising therefore that John Ellicott Jnr was keen to have his name on Equation of Time watches.  Whilst his father had begun the firm and made it one of high standing, John Jnr greatly enhanced its reputation and profitability through innovation.  For instance, he introduced cylinder escapement watches to the Ellicott catalogue and ensured that it also included repeaters and chronographs.  Alongside his flair for commerciality, John Jnr was also innovative in developing temperature compensation solutions. 

But . . . the question has to be asked: did Ellicott actually have the in-house capability to make an Equation of Time watch? 

Tangent! 

Antiquarian Horology published two extensive surveys of the Ellicott firm:  by R.K. Foulkes, September 1960 and by David Thompson, June/September 1997.  In the latter a list of ‘known’ watches is appended.  At its heading it includes an abbreviation reference of ‘eq’ for an ‘equation watch’.  Interestingly, the list – of no less than 199 watches - does not feature a single one of the ‘eq’ type. 

David Thompson writes that three Ellicott Equation of Time watches are extant.  Further: 

Each of the three watches has a high quality movement with cylinder escapement and all are furnished with bolt and shutter maintaining power.  It is possible they represent the earliest examples of a watch with any form of maintaining power. 

The question of authorship of these watches was the subject of an article by Anthony Turner and Andrew Crisford in Antiquarian Horology in 1977.  The characteristics in the design and construction of the movements leave little doubt that they are the work of Thomas Mudge. 

The Turner/Crisford article relates the story of an Equation of Time watch signed by Ellicott and supplied to Ferdinand VI of Spain which became in need of repair.  When it emerged that the Ellicott firm itself could not undertake this, the King’s clockmaker, Irishman, Michael Smith, identified Thomas Mudge as the actual maker. 

My view of this is that whilst Mudge was the more technically accomplished, Ellicott was the more successful marketeer, able to penetrate niche markets and capture high profile clients.

A Dodgy Turpin? - Surely Not

In 2014 Daniel Alexander QC heard an appeal concerning a dispute involving trade marks.  Two companies operating in the food wholesaling sector had been at loggerheads over the use of very similar corporate I.D. logos.  The fact that one of the companies was run by the uncle of the other’s owner only seemed to make the conflict all the more bitter.  In denying the appeal, Mr Alexander cited a ‘common ancestor’ precedent, ‘the most well-known example of this being the 1861 case of Dent v Turpin.  Edward Dent had two clock shops in London and had bequeathed one each to his two stepsons.  Both traded legitimately as ‘Dent’, and it is clear that neither could have brought an action to stop the other.  Either or both was entitled to bring an action to stop a third party, Mr Turpin, from using the Dent name.’  The Times on 24 April 1861 reported:

The defendants, Henry and George Turpin, were watchmakers at 62 Banner-street, St. Luke’s, Middlesex, and had been in the habit of placing the words “Dent, London,” upon watches manufactured by them.  These watches were sold by Turpin Brothers to the other defendants, who carried on business as general export merchants, and had exported several of the watches to the Cape of Good Hope. 

The Dent name was a byword for quality and integrity and embraced a watchmaking dynasty which excelled throughout the nineteenth century.  For the first 54 years, the main business, founded by Edward, was managed by himself and members of his family.  Subsequently trading under various ownerships – and until the 1920s as two enterprises: ‘E. Dent’ and ‘M.F. Dent’ - the business has maintained a continuous commercial presence through to the present day.  A comprehensive summary of the company’s history is set out at http://www.dentlondon.com/about/history.php  

Notice of the injunction, (in this instance on behalf of the M.F. ‘branch’ of the business), was published in The Times, for example on 19 July 1861:

 

DENT’s CHRONOMETERS, Watches, and Clocks – Caution – Her Majesty’s High Court of Chancery, on the 11^th of July, 1861, granted a perpetual INJUNCTION, restraining Henry William Turpin, George Hathaway Turpin and Adolphe Mosenthal respectively, from manufacturing any watches marked with the name of “Dent,” and from selling or exporting, or causing to be sold or exported for sale, any watches made and marked with the name of “Dent” by them or by their order or direction.  Manufacturers and others are hereby cautioned against using the name or trade mark of “Dent.”

TUCKER and NEW, 25 Clement’s-lane, city, Solicitors for M.F. Dent, 33 and 34 Cockspur-street, Charing-cross, London.

With the Dent v Turpin action in mind, let’s consider why the Dent name would be one the defendants thought worth ‘borrowing’ in order to enhance the value of their products.  Dent began working as an apprentice to his cousin, Richard Rippon.  The early years of his career were especially important in establishing his credentials in the top quality sector of the Trade – he worked for two of the best: Vulliamy & Son and Barraud & Son, and with both he was a specialist in complications and chronometer movements.  This built a reputation good enough to induce the highly regarded John Arnold to take Dent into partnership.  Thus, from 1830, as half of Arnold & Dent, Edward was associated with the very best quality chronometers being made in England – and, therefore, the world.  The key elements of Dent’s prestige standing in the early Victorian era are summarised in the table below:

 

The Turpin business was begun by Benjamin around 1817 at 62 Banner Street, which runs parallel with and just south of Old Street in the St Luke’s area of London.  Benjamin was born circa 1791, within a year or two of Edward Dent.  Although Benjamin’s country of origin is unknown, it is notable that his sons sought Naturalisation in 1854, in the process of which their Jewish faith was recorded. 

 

Benjamin’s output does not seem to have been noteworthy and I have been unable to find any extant examples.  He died in 1842, and his widow, Susannah, carried on the business to 1849.  His sons, George (1826-76) and Henry (1827-85) then took over, trading as Turpin Bros.  The Business was listed at Banner Street through to the 1880s, for example in the category, ‘Watch Manufacturers to the Trade’, in Collinson’s Directory of 1861.  Britten’s notes that they exported full plate watches, including a model called ‘Railway Timekeeper’, to America.  This ‘type’ is generic – it was applied to relatively cheap/simple timepieces, often of Swiss/Austrian origin.  Bearing in mind the Dent injunction, it’s fair to say that Turpin Bros could be seen as again indulging in a spot of deception because, as with most of these ‘Railway Timekeepers,’ there was an implied superior standard of accuracy, (associated with the idea that the railways then were very well and punctually operated), which the movement was not in fact good enough to deliver. 

This is a gold hunter – date unknown – by Turpin Brothers:

 

 

And this open face lever, #13029, dates from 1874:

 

 

Neither, I’m afraid bears comparison with a Dent watch!  No wonder the Dent companies were keen to ensure that their name didn’t appear on such mediocre timepieces.

The Watch Derby

Time and again in the coverage of horology in Victorian newspapers, the demise of the English trade stemming from the Swiss ‘invasions’ was a matter of lamentation.  For example, in The Times, 16 December 1886, a meeting at the Board of Trade the previous day was reported as an initiative to stop imported timepieces being passed off as being ‘English’.  A deputation of English makers, led by Captain Penton, MP for Finsbury and Vice President of The London Watchmakers Association, asked for measures ‘to prevent the sale in England of foreign made watches bearing the English hall-mark and to prohibit the putting of foreign movements into English hall-marked cases’: 

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, M.P., put the case of the deputation before his lordship.  He said there was great depression in the English watch trade, and the causes were not far to seek.  The result of a conference, presided over by Captain Penton, at Clerkenwell was that the English watchmaker was confident of his own work, and he did not in the slightest degree fear competition.  This was no question of free trade, fair trade, or protection, but simply one of protection against injustice and fraud.  The Committee of the House of Commons in 1879 on Hall-marking had already found the facts upon which the deputation wished the Government to legislate.  That report stated:- “The chief complaint against the operation of the existing law comes from the manufacturers of watches and watch cases.  They have established by evidence that within the last few years a practice has sprung up, and is rapidly increasing, under which foreign-made watch cases are sent to this country to be marked with the British hall-mark, and afterwards fitted with foreign movements, and are then not infrequently sold and dealt in as British-made watches.”  To show the increase of the deceit practised upon the British public, when that report was issued it was estimated at only 10 per cent., and now it was 29 per cent.; and no less than 37,000 watches were hall-marked last year which were fitted with foreign works, and which ultimately ran the risk, according to the report of the Select Committee of 1879, of being sold and dealt with fraudulently as English-made goods.  They asked, not that any one should be prevented from buying foreign watches with all their faults, but that they should be protected against having them passed off as English-made goods.  The very principle upon which the Fraudulent Trade Marks Bill was established was to keep up the trade reputation of the country and to protect English workmen from injustice.

The oft-repeated received wisdom which held that Swiss and American quality was inferior to that achieved by the home producers emerged in this report in the passage where the Deputation had asked, ‘not that anyone should be prevented from buying foreign watches with all their faults but that they should be protected against having them passed off as English-made goods. 

This reliance on the notion that the English watch was technically superior was misplaced, and, as time went by, the reputation for Swiss quality grew as did the sales volumes.  This is readily illustrated by the next article, from The Times, 7 June 1881.  Here it was seen that on objective measurement the products of Switzerland were marginally superior to those of England, albeit the Americans had some ground to make up.  The evaluations are described as a sort of ‘Watch Derby’ with the best watch invariably coming in first, ‘which is not always the case with the best horse’: 

ENGLISH AND SWISS WATCHES. – Our Geneva Correspondent write:- “The comments made on my letter on the Swiss watch trade (which you printed on April 13^th, as well in your columns as elsewhere, have attracted some attention in Switzerland and been the means of eliciting further details concerning the principles on which the horological prizes in the Melbourne Exhibition were awarded.  In reference to a remark of one of your correspondents, that the judgements of exhibition juries are by no means infallible, it is pointed out that, though there may well be differences of opinion as to the relative excellence of finish and outside appearance of several watches, good going is a matter of fact; and that watches sent for competition to Melbourne were tested in the observatory and their respective time-keeping qualities ascertained beyond a possibility of doubt.  The highest number of points, as I have already mentioned (500 out of a possible 500) was obtained by a Swiss watch; next comes an English watch by Kilpatrick, of London (495 points).  To them succeed the following:- A Swiss watch, 490 points; English, (Bukney), 485; Swiss 480; a German watch, 470; Swiss, 465; English (Bukney), 460; Swiss, 455; English, 450; Swiss, 445; English, 440; German, 435; American (Waltham), 430; English, 425; American (Waltham), 420; English, 415; German, 410; English, 405; English, 400.  No Swiss watch entered for competition gained less than 445 marks, no English watch fewer than 400.  The greatest number obtained by an American watch was 430, and four American watches were sent to the observatory which, because they gained fewer than 400 marks, were not classed.  It will thus be seen that, albeit Swiss watches showed a decided superiority, their English competitors ran them very close, while American watches were almost out of the running.  If the system of official testing which obtains in Geneva were established in England it could hardly fail to have a beneficial effect on British watch-making.  Geneva horologists can send their watches to the observatory here to be thoroughly tested, and the results of the annual competition are awaited with eager interest.  It is a sort of watch Derby, with the difference that the best watch invariably comes in first, which is not always the case with the best horse.  A few days ago M. Plantamour, the eminent astronomer, head of the observatory here, in a lecture to the industrial class of the Society of Arts, gave some details concerning the watch competition of 1880 which possess a special interest, inasmuch as he has introduced several new tests that took effect for the first time last year.  The principal modification is that, whereas the watches sent in for competition used only to be placed in the refrigerator and stove 24 hours respectively, and errors of compensation are compared as well with the extremes of temperature in these two receptacles (about 5 deg. To 30 deg. Centigrade) as with the temperature of the room (from 15 deg. To 17 deg.)  The successful watches, which it is hardly necessary to say are chronometer watches, are divided into two classes – ‘satisfactory’ and ‘very satisfactory’.  No watch can rank as ‘very satisfactory’ unless it reaches this standard; its diurnal variation for 40 days must be no more than three-quarters of a second; its maximum variation between one position and another must not exceed 2½ seconds nor more than one-fifth of a second, on the average, for each degree of temperature.  Of the 333 watches sent in for competition 117 answered to these conditions.  It is considered a very remarkable result that 78 watches exceeded the minimum of excellence laid down by the observatory.  Their mean performances being for the first test (diurnal variation), 0.474; for the second (position test), 1.538; for the third (variation of temperature), 0.127 of a second.  It would seem hardly possible that horological art can be brought to greater perfection than these figures denote.  But M. Plantamour, not content with claiming a number of watches as ‘very satisfactory’, even on the very stringent conditions he has laid down, grades them by a system of points of which zero corresponds with the minimum of excellence insisted upon for the award if ‘very satisfactory,’ while 300 represents absolute perfection, a point, it is scarcely necessary to say, unattainable even by Swiss watchmakers.  Nevertheless, some of them fall not very far short even of this lofty standard – one won 192, another 191, and a third 189 points.  Fifteen watches were awarded more than 150, and 28 more than 140 points, and these may, perhaps, be regarded as the finest specimens of horological skill which either Switzerland or any other country has yet produced.  While on the subject of time I would mention, for the benefit of travellers in Switzerland that Geneva has three times.  Having its own observatory it insists on having its own standard of time, and, while all the rest of Switzerland follows ‘the hour of Berne,’ the clocks in this canton are set by local time.  Hence, as the Swiss and French railways, which have their termini here, work by Berne and Paris time respectively, three different times are in vogue in Geneva, a condition of things rather bewildering for the uninformed traveller and not without occasional inconvenience for residents."

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.