I ran across this fusee the other day in New York. I did some research, and it resembles some Swiss movements I found online. The movement is marked "Poulin" or "Coulin" London. The only mark on the inside of the case is "1837", and there may be a smaller mark but I can't make it out. It has a bulls eye crystal. I don't think it was pair cased. The bow is rather loose, and it seems like it was soldered together. Any guesses as to its maker and age?

Sorry for the poor cell phone photos.

Movement

Case

Dial close-up

I think Swiss as well. 1820-1840.

Continental, probably French or Swiss, from around 1780-1810.

I agree. I did more research online and found more than a few watches, some very similar to mine, that were made in that era by a Jacques Coulin in Geneva.

I agree with david moss for the age,because of the square posts.early 1800's they went to round posts..

I'd say David Moss is on target, right about
1790, these usually had colorful paintings on
them. I have one similar by Romilly @ Paris.

Thanks for the observations. I am troubled by the screw protruding through the dial at the upper left. I think this was added at one point, perhaps to secure the dial? Any ideas? What would the best way be to correct the situation?

I forgot to add that I bought the watch, and it runs! Love that verge rhythm.

Museum curators are of two schools of thought. One says that everything should be "restored" to it's original pristine, "as new" condition. The other says that everything should be mainatined "as found", with all signs of wear, old repairs, etc.

I am of the second school; I believe old repairs, wear, etc., are "honestly come by". That said, I cannot abide the statement by some that (for example) old furniture brasses "have Patina". What they are calling "patina" is dirt. Brass pulls, key escutcheons and the like were a sign of wealth in the 18th century, and would have been kept clean and polished.

So, I guess what I am saying is, if the watch is clean and functional with the screw in the dial, I'd be inclined to leave it. Obviously, there is no way to ramove it, fill the hole, and renew the dial without destroying what is left of the original. I think that would be worse than merely keeping it as is, and calling the screw "proof of age".

Also, I have a suspicion that screw may be original, but I doubt it is holding the dial on.

Thanks for the comment. Do you have any idea what function that screw would serve? It comes out between the plates very close to one of the pillars.

And I also had a (very) basic question. This watch has a domed dial. I know that on my other early watches the flat dials are held in place by taper pins. Can anyone give me an idea how this dial is secured?

I am fairly new o the watch game, but I'd be surprised if that dial is not attached the same as flat ones; with tapered pins through the dial feet. I seem to remember somewhere seeing a curved dial that was flat on the back, and curved on the face, but maybe I dreamed it.

That screw may have something to do with aligning the dial, or it may have a spring wrapped around it. I have seen European clocks made with a screw like that, that has a shoulder that acts as a stop against the p[late, and the rest of the screw sticks up to serve as a pivot. Removing the dial would probably make the screws purpose visible.

unusual this verge. there was a Coulin Jacques in Paris and others in Geneva.
This is French, at least the case has French hallmarks
regards enrico

a lot of times the repeater dials on the old verge watches were only held on with one scew like that.they never had the dial feet like the normal watches had.you should maybe take the dial off and see if it is a complicated movement under the dial.that might have something to do with the loose crown etc...you may have a repeater there and not know it....can you press down on the crown and stem and does it move at all?