Help with hallmarks in pocket watch case?

[CGaudet]

Hi all,

I'm researching a gold pocketwatch that is supposedly an Eardley Norton, London, but has a date letter that appears to be 1815. This would be quite remarkable, as Norton died in 1792. I have not been able to track down the maker's mark in any of the literature yet and I'm hoping maybe someone on here can help me with it. It appears on both the inner and outer case. It's AC or AG with what looks like a strange little three point crown over it.

The mark on the outer case, interestingly is accompanied by a lion passant, which is strange because both the inner and outer cases appear to be gold (I thought lion passant was a sterling silver indicator?). Any town or assay marks have been obliterated beyond any recognition, but there is a faded duty stamp. Attached are all the clearest photos I've been able to take. If anyone has any idea about this, I'd be most grateful! i'm going to post this in the watch section as well, (admin edit - see Posting Requirements ) but thought I'd try my luck here, seeing as it is gold.

Many thanks!

Best,
Connor

[dognose]

Hi Conner,

Welcome to the Forum.

Just to assure you that we are not ignoring you. I think we are having a problem getting our heads around this one.

My initial thoughts are that the case is 22ct gold, made between 1786 and 1798, but by whom and where is the problem.

Trev.

[CGaudet]

Hi Trev,

Thanks, I appreciate the note. It has me stumped as well! I have a theory, but I don't know how plausible it is because I know very little about historical hallmarks and the practices of plate workers. Was it common for a craftsman to have more than one registered (or I suppose unregistered) sponsor mark?

There are two marks that caught my eye in a book of marks by William Chaffers. If you go to page 188 on this link (it's actually page 196 in the PDF): http://www.silver2treasure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/A-History-Of-English-Silversmiths-Goldsmiths-And-Plateworkers.pdf, there are marks for Anthony Calame and J.A. Calame, both of Exeter Change, both registered in 1764. One of these is a simple "AC" while the other is IAC under a crude crown. I am thinking these are both the same person who, for some reason, registered two different marks. Although I suppose it could be a father & son? The mark on my watch seems to be a combination of these both - an AC under a crude crown. I didn't pick up on this when I saw it in the Jackson book, because the crown is illustrated very differently there, much more regal looking.

Is it possible that this Anthony Calame may have, at some point, had a third mark, and that is what I am seeing in this watch? Would it have been unusual for a father/son workshop to have two different marks? It's just a theory - or really, just a series of questions that might lead to a theory. I'd love to have the benefit of your thoughts on this if you can answer any of my questions.

Also, to the administrator - sorry for the duplicate posting, and thank you for the correction!

My best,
Connor

[dognose]

Hi Connor,

Just wondering, have you established that the Eardley Norton watch is genuine? I ask because I came across an account of fake watches imported into England in 1830 that were marked with the name 'Eardley Norton'. I can add the details of the seizure of these watches if you wish.

The above jogged my memory of previously having seen the use of the date letter 'U' on other pseudo-marked watchcases:







As said, just wondering..............

Trev.

[dognose]

Details of a Customs seizure of fake Eardley Norton watches:

At a Monthly Court, held the 1st of March, 1830; The Committee formerly appointed, reported to the Court, That having received information that a number of Foreign Watches, having engraved on them English names, and “London,” had been imported at the Custom-house, London; they had examined the same, and the case being very urgent, the Committee had, on the 25th ultimo, presented the following Memorial to the Lords of the Treasury:

To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury:

The Memorial of the Master, Wardens, and Court of Assistants of the Company of Clockmakers of the City of London;

SHEWETH,

That in or about the month of December last, Three Dozen of Foreign Watches, in Silver Cases, supposed to be the property of a Russian Jew, were seized, under the provisions of the Act 6 Geo. IV. cap. 107, sec. 53, in consequence of their being engraved with an English name and place thereon, viz. “Eardley Norton, London,” in violation of the said Act, but without any marks or impressions on the Cases, purporting to be those of the Goldsmiths’ Hall; as all English Watches, Silver as well as Gold, must have the Cases assayed and marked at Goldsmiths' Hall, before the Watches can be sold, otherwise the party selling the same, are liable to a heavy penalty, and the articles destroyed.

Your Memorialists beg very respectfully to submit to your Lordships, that if these Watches are permitted to be sold at the Custom-house, as is customary with seized goods, they will eventually be resold in detail as English Watches, to the prejudice of the English Manufacture, which, from causes which it is unnecessary to refer to on the present occasion, is in a most depressed state, and a great number of industrious workmen out of employment, and consequently in great distress-themselves and families wanting the necessaries of life. Moreover, should these Watches be subsequently resold, as of English Manufacture, after having been sold at the Custom-house sale, such resale will, upon the face of the transaction, be illegal, in consequence of the Cases not bearing the marks of the Goldsmiths’ Hall, which, being of Foreign Manufacture, they cannot have; it becomes therefore very probable, that to render the Watches more saleable, false or forged marks will be applied to the Cases; thus adding a second fraud to the first.

It is further to be observed, that these Watches are of very inferior quality, and if exported, would certainly be sold for English, to the great prejudice of the character of the English work.

Your Memorialists therefore pray, that your Lordships will order these Watches not to be so sold, but that the Cases may be dealt with as with Plate seized of Foreign Manufacture, and the Movements to be destroyed.

By Order of the Court,

GEORGE ATKINS, Clerk to the Company. Cowper's-court, Cornhill,

Feb. 25th, 1830.


At a Monthly Court, held the 7th of June, 1830; The Clerk laid before the Court the following Answer he had received from the Treasury, in reply to the Memorial sent by the Committee on the 25th of February last; and reported at the Monthly Court, held the 1st of March last:

GENTLEMEN,

Having laid before the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury your Memorial, praying that a quantity of Foreign Watches which have been seized, may be destroyed; I have it in command to acquaint you, that my Lords have instructed the Commissioners of Customs to give directions that the Watch Movements may be destroyed, and the Cases rendered unfit to be used as such, and disposed of as Plate seized of Foreign Manufacture, as requested by you.

I am, GENTLEMEN,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) J. STEWART,

Treasury Chambers,
12th May, 1830.

Source: A Statement of the various Proceedings and Transactions that have taken place between the Court of Assistants of the Clockmakers' Company of the City of London, and His Majesty's Government, in relation to the Importation of foreign Clocks and Watches into these realms. - 1832


The above account of course refers to unmarked silver watchcases but does show that fake Eardley Norton watches were being produced abroad and attempts made to dump them on the English market.

Trev.

[CGaudet]

Wow, thank you for all that info Trev. That is such a fascinating document. I actually have not been able to confirm it is a genuine Norton and have actually been hard pressed to find someone able to tell me even how one might do it.

I have been beginning to think that it might be a bunch of fake hallmarks intended to confuse an unsuspecting buyer. However, I'd only heard of British names being applied to foreign-made watches for sale in foreign markets, as they would be less likely to know what a British watch looked like. I didn't realize that they were also imported to fool British markets.

The reason I was still holding out hope was that all the fake Norton's I've seen were obviously Swiss or French - the styles being so completely different with an almond or almost an eyeball-like shape around the jewel.

Like this:

They didn't bother to make the movement look British, they just wrote Eardley Norton London on it. All the collectors and horologists I've shared my watch with (mostly in forums like this) have told me it looks 100% British.
This is mine:

You can see how different the movements are. So it's interesting that the forgeries were also imported and I wonder if they were made in the English style or continental style. I don't suppose you know what the movements of any of those seized watches looks like?

Thanks again for the information. It has been like trying to solve a mystery! Whether it's genuine or not, I'm still hoping to crack the case at some point!

Best,
Connor