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.

Three Follow-ups

I posted about Alexander Watkins and his very fine 1851 Pocket Chronometer in April 2016. As noted in my Clocks Magazine article about Watkins, this watch changed hands in a Sotheby's sale in 2004 for £51,000 - this has always seemed to me a meagre amount for such an attractive and historically-significant timepiece.  So I shall be very interested to see what it makes when it comes up again this summer.  This will be Jones & Horan's sale on Sunday 2nd June - for further details see here. In my experience this is an auction house which really knows its stuff, and their team has in the past been very friendly and helpful to me in my horological researches.

More recently, Isaac Court's 'Patent Time Repeater' featured here.  Rich Newman kindly got in touch from Chicago to let me know about other applications of this fascinating invention - covered in his article:

I've done it again!  Back in November 2015 I was bemoaning missing out on an Alexander Hare pocket watch.  Even more regrettable this time, in the recent sale at Canterbury Auction Galleries.  This was a good example of how much value can be obtained in terms of character and complication if precious metal case material is not so important to a collector:

Courtesy of Canterbury Auction Galleries

To my eye this is a very attractive verge (#386), and not expensive at a hammer price of  £1,900; ah well.

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.

Function or Fashion?

The original draft of my article on John Grant of Fleet Street, published in the February 2016 issue of Clocks Magazine, included some extensive narrative about and depiction of Benjamin Webb’s Patent Polar Watches.  During the editing process a good deal of this was removed, mainly because of some difficulties experienced with the copyright holders for the images I had intended to use for illustrative purposes.  Subsequently the issue has been resolved – not just in regard to the specific material, but as a broad principle.  As a matter of policy, the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford has now decided to allow images available on its website to be freely downloadable for use by academic publications with a low print-run.

John Grant’s business was distinguished by an innovative approach both to manufacturing and retailing.  This latter aspect was well evidenced by the offering of Webb’s Polar Watches.  These dual-purpose instruments are certainly interesting in their own right.  They are an example of a favourite ‘branch’ of watchmaking of mine: multi-functionality – a trend that emerged in the late 18^th/early 19^th centuries, including Coach Watches – with four or five time metrics – Chronographs, and such as the Watch-Pedometers of Ralph Gout and Polar Watches of Benjamin Webb. 

I’d like to reproduce here the ‘look’ of the Polar Watches and the related promotional material as I believe it represents the period extremely well:

The Times 9-10-1799

 

 

© Museum of the History of Science, University of Oxford

 

Sotheby’s offered a Polar Watch, #81, at their sale, ‘Important Watches, Clocks and Automata’, 20 October 2009, New York, with an estimate of $5,000-$7,000:

 

Courtesy of Sotheby’s

 

This is #146, sold by Sotheby’s in 2002 for £1,292:

 

 

Courtesy of Sotheby’s

#45 can be seen on the Antiquorum website.  It is very similar to #81. 
 

#123 – movement only, is held at The British Museum and further examples are in the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers’ collection, (#129) and York Castle Museum.  According to Paul Tuck, in his ‘Horology Under the Hammer’, Antiquarian Horology, Vol 21, #2, 1993, the Polar Watch featured a Duplex escapement. 
 

Although Webb liked to feature, ‘The King’s Patent’, prominently, it was not his own.  The reference is to Patent #2280, December 1798, in the name of John Randall Peckham of Bermondsey.

 

Webb was amongst the Makers quoted in a 1798 Parliamentary Report on the petitions for repeal of the Duties on Clocks and Watches Act 1797.  Webb summarized his loss of business with the following data:

 

	1796	1797	1798	Decrease from 1st July to 31st December:
From January 1st to June 30th	1,220	1,088
July 1st to December 31st	1,990	565
Total	2,410	1,653		625
In the last Four Months				Decrease in:
November	231	123		November  108
December	126	53		December    73
January	101	125	47	January       78
February	249	267	6	February    261   Total         520

Webb stated that he had been in business for 27 years and had never before seen such a sudden fluctuation in business volume.  He added that it had become very common to substitute silver/base metal for gold in the making of cases.

 

Evidence from John Grant was also heard in regard to the Act. 
 

The Polar Watches are usually ascribed to the dates, circa 1800-05, and evidence of Webb’s subsequent prosperity is lacking.  The British Museum notes him as active up to 1811.  Although the trading title, Benjamin Webb & Son was in use at the time of the marketing of the Polar Watches, little is known about his offspring, James.  Baillie lists him: London (St John’s Sq) 1799.  There is also a Robert with St John’s Sq given as location, and dates 1815-25.

 

Although the Polar Watch concept and its marketability were unproven, just in case it was about to become highly sought after, the commercially vigilant Swiss were not slow to create similar – though less elegant – similar instruments, this for example:

 

Courtesy Cogs & Pieces 

 

The theoretical ‘need’ for Webb’s creation was probably not sustained by practical experience.  The carrying of a compass would not have been especially onerous for a mariner or explorer, used to working with one in any event.  Equally, a relatively small compass housed in tandem with a timepiece would be unlikely to offer the accuracy/stability of a stand-alone instrument.  No doubt there was an initial talking-point value whereby the flourishing of his Polar Watch emphasised the trendiness of a young Gentleman about Town.  However, as the new century got into its stride the underlying quality and elegance of form implied by the term ‘Chronometer’ probably soon attracted the fashion-conscious watch buyer’s attention, at the expense of a ‘novelty’ such as Webb’s.