[Check out my website:]

Update at http://theoldwatchword.blogspot.co.uk/ with a comparison of verges by (1767) Bucktrout (London/Wakefield)) and (1834) Elliott (Ashford).

I'm especially interested if anyone has further information about Bucktrout or examples of other watches by these makers.

Lovely website. Great information. If it isn't too hard, you might want to correct this sentence about the Elliot: "The dial is simple – tumbling Roman numerals for the hours and a minute track." The numerals are Arabic.

Dear Ethan,

Thanks for your kind comment and for pointing out that silly boob! Very much appreciated.

With kind regards.

David

Nice site , English watch makers are true artists.

Thanks for your comment Kevin. Glad you share my enthusiasm for English makers. Just a shame that, as you say, such an artistic Trade, was swamped in the nineteenth century by industrial outputs from the U.S. and Switzerland.

Further update today on John Walker - http://theoldwatchword.blogspo.../08/john-walker.html

Well done lots of great info.
But no link to IHC185

Thank you Peter - don't know why I've overlooked that; will correct it today. Regards. David

As I research more of the English makers, I find more examples of men who could produce beautiful artefacts, yet were clearly not the nicest of people! In the June 2015 issue of Antiquarian Horology, Martyn Perrin writes an excellent account of John Arnold's less than excellent behaviour. I am working on an in-depth account of a London chronograph maker who indulged in bribery to protect his family's social standing and today I have updated my blog - http://theoldwatchword.blogspo...-contradictions.html - with an article about Sir John Bennett, whose moral compass apparently swung around with all the vigour of a modern Swiss precision chronometer's balance! Probably all that finger numbing fiddling with ridiculously small componentry and eye-fatiguing squinting at same couldn't help but induce serious misanthropy!

After needing to re-build my blog I've finally been able to post some new/new material. It brings together the relatively obscure Turpins and the renowned Dents.

There were many instances in the mid-Victorian era when the elite makers were finding their - hard worked-for - good name 'stolen' by mediocre watchmakers. The 'quality' name was applied to a mundane watch which was exported and sold for a price well beyond what was justifiable.

Dent resorted to litigation and obtained an injunction against the Turpin brothers. Constant vigilance was needed as there was always the possibility that a 'new' maker would transgress, but it paid off for Dent - as a brand it still enjoys a reputation for excellence.

http://theoldwatchword.blogspot.co.uk/

Hi David, we conversed on the another board
today via PM. I also enjoyed the thread on
English watch makers and as I think about it,
we did leave John Harrison out by mistake.

Hello Keith – nice to see you here.

Paradoxically, I’d never have thought to list Harrison in a ‘Hall of Fame’ even though he may well be THE best!

That’s because I don’t think of him as being akin to the other eighteenth century English watchmakers, be they the ‘stars’ like Graham, Arnold, Earnshaw, etc., or the more mundane craftsmen who never made anything other than a plain verge timepiece.

Harrison apparently worked in a completely different manner, focused on extreme attention to detail and with very few ‘outputs’ to show for all his effort. But, of course, his products were absolutely ground-breaking and inspirational.

This was a man who personified patience, an attribute surely well respected by anyone interested in horology. Along with his approach to the work itself, Harrison had to contend with the stubborn resistance demonstrated by the Board in withholding the full extent of the Prize payment to which he became entitled many years before it was eventually, (partially), forthcoming. Yes, that required patience, persistence and self-belief; no wonder if he was somewhat grumpy at times!

As debated on other threads, I find the question of legacy in the watchmaking trade of great interest. Many of the best watchmakers did not have sons; many more had sons who were simply not as good or as resourceful as their fathers. So family ‘dynasties’ are not common. Harrison was fortunate in that his son William was willing and able to carry on the work, in particular in proving the timepieces in their various trials. And then there was James, William’s son, a well-respected, more conventional horologist but with an innovative bent – he devised a detached escapement for a church clock.

With kind regards.

David

Thanks David, I look forward to many exchanges here.