I'm totally lost with the date and maker

[Adendum]

Hi people,

Newbie needs help...so what's new!

I have a verge movement pocket watch in silver with reasonable hallmarks and I know it's from London but I have no idea what date (actually I have been told 4 different dates!!) and I'd like to know who the maker was.

There are several photos on the link below that you can look at for more info, including the date mark (lowercase gothic K in a lozenge shape) just in case there is a horologist out there :)

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Adendum

Thanks in advance,

Paul

[Adendum]

Let me add that the case has all the same hallmarks except for the twiddly thing where the chain would attatch. That has two marks, one is too worn and the other is a lowercase script i....unlike the lowercase scripted K's that appear on all other parts.

Also I realise that case and movement could be separately made and the only identification marks on the movement is the number N50144. That same number is stamped on the silver case.

:)

Paul

[2209patrick]

I believe your watchcase was made by Phillip Woodman (1837-1908), London.
Original mark was registered under father's name, Benjamin Woodman & Sons.
I read the "k" date mark as 1865. The watch case was exempt from the duty mark.



Pat.

[Adendum]

Pat,

That was quick. I'm glad to hear that as 1865 was my favourite number. I had been offered 1785, 1825, 1905 and even 1925 but even I realised that there was no way the last two dates made sense.

The PW is interesting too. How do you get that info? I was searching (in all the wrong places) and the best I came up with was a Peter Walsh, a silversmith working in the first half of the 19th century..thus my favouring of 1865.

I wonder if I'll ever know who made the movement ;)

Many thanks Pat, it's appreciated.

Paul.

[2209patrick]

Hello Paul. Glad I could help.

That information comes from Philip T. Priestley's "Watch Case Makers of England".

Pat.

[buckler]

Not being used to watch case marks I am rather out of my depth on this matter but the absence of Duty Mark puzzles me a little. After the passing of the act of 1784, "the existing exemptions were retained....But rather unfairly, it would seem , exempted wares were charged with duty if they were sent voluntarily for hallmarking" (Forbes, p229) . The commas are as in the original and this may imply that the matter was not properly explained in the Act , but that Goldsmiths Hall made this their practice .

In 1854 the Gold and Silver Wares Act (17 & 18 Vict Section 3, c.96)allowed exempted GOLD wares to be submitted voluntarily for hallmarking without attracting liability for duty. Was there an unofficial relaxing to include silver as well ?

The next possible "k" in this form is 1925.

Another query is the Lion Passant, which appears to have neither the "nippled bottomed" punch of the 1756- 1896 period, nor the "bobble bottomed" punch subsequent . Did the very small marks on watchcases had a simplified punch shape?

Certainly the date letter seems to me in the 1865 style, but I would be interested to here the comments of the watchcase experts on the absence of the duty mark.

[Adendum]

Buckler,

I looked at that too and found several refernces such as tis...

"In theory, items made between 1784 and 1890 should additionally bear a portrait of the reigning monarch, testifying that a tax on silver in force between those years had been paid; but after a few years this was generally omitted on small items such as watch-cases."

That came from http://www.horologia.co.uk/hallmarks1.html

Paul

[buckler]

Thanks Adendum.
Looks as if it was an unofficial practise due to poor legislative drafting in the original Act.