I have this verge fuse on the movt it has LH Barker Framlingham(which I think is town in England)S/N 15946 KW/KS.Would anyone have any info.on this maker? Roger
Posts: 4094 | Location: Carbon, Texas in the USA | Registered: January 24, 2010
I don't recognize the maker, although Volume 2 of Watchmakers and Clockmakers of the world lists a Samuel Keer Barker 1830-1865 and a William Barker 1879, both in Framlingham, there could be some family connection. The hallmarks confirm it is English, Assayed in London, and I'm having trouble identifying the date letter, it looks like the style in the photo, maybe 1846? Hope this helps, Joe
Posts: 78 | Location: Nottingham in the United Kingdom | Registered: March 30, 2013
Is it possible that it is S.H. Barker? There was a Samuel H. Barker listed in the 1851 census for Framlingham who was listed as a watchmaker. He was born about 1800.
Posts: 5107 | Location: New Mexico in the USA | Registered: January 27, 2007
..."Samuel Keer Barker is listed in Brain Loomes new book, “Watchmakers & Clockmakers of the World.” Loomes lists Barker as working in the Market Hill section of Framlingham. This small village is located approximately 13 miles north east of Ipswich in Suffolk County. Samuel was born in 1801 the son of Thomas Barker who was also a Clockmaker. Samuel succeeded Thomas in clockmaking in 1823 and was in business until 1864. He is believed to have died before 1874. Loomes reports that his wife carried on his business until 1874 and trading as a Jeweler, silversmith and ironmonger until 1889."...
Samuel K Barker is also in the 1823/24 city directory of Suffolk as watchmaker.
William Kerr Barker was the eldest son of Thomas.
I think the K - H confusion is caused by the transformation of handwritten documents.
Regards Gerald
Posts: 742 | Location: Wertheim in Germany | Registered: February 21, 2009
Upon closer inspection I believe the L to be an S.These are really hard to read.The date and location looks to be correct.Thanks Tom. THE Super Sleuth" Joe,I believe you are correct on the year 1846. Thanks Gerald the H could very well be a K.Seems to all fit. Regards Roger
Posts: 4094 | Location: Carbon, Texas in the USA | Registered: January 24, 2010
Gerald is correct as usual. After looking at more census records it would be Samuel K. that I found. In the 1851 census it appeared as a H & is listed as that but later census records show a K.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Posts: 5107 | Location: New Mexico in the USA | Registered: January 27, 2007
