Carnegie Hero Fund watch - untangling the hallmarks.

 

The inscription says
"HE SERVES GOD  BEST WHO MOST NOBLY SERVES HUMANITY"
(I am told!)

The Errington movement has an English Lever escapement and a
Bregue sprung cut compensating balance.

The watch is from the Errington Watch Factory in Coventry (then owned by Williamson) for David Harley of Dunfermline but the case was much modified before being presented to William Russell by The Carnegie Hero Fund for saving life in 1912.

The hallmarks are interesting:

• There is no Assay House mark.
• The dust cover has the makers mark "C & W" and London date marks for 1910 /11.
• The front cover has the makers mark "ATO" and London date marks for 1911/12.
• The pendant marks are difficult to read but look to be "CH" , Birmingham 1911/12 and
• The highly decorated back lid has no marks at all.

The case was originally made by Thomas Clark and Alfred Ward of Kensington Rd Coventry ("C&W"), who I know from other examples were making cases for Errington watches at this time, the Errington ("C.H.E") mark having been cancelled in 1905. So the Dust cover is almost certainly original to the body.

As was common the pendant was made by a specialist pendant maker, in this case by Charles Harrold & Co.

The back is more complicated. It is not in one orriginal piece the centre having been cut out and a cast silver disk with the Latin moto and a hero's laurel wreath expertly let into it. This removed the hallmarks, including the London Assay mark, but as the back was now modified and from two makers it could not be resubmitted for assay and could not have had 2 sets of marks. It is OK for two lids to have different marks because they are hinged to the body and are considered different pieces of silver - which is why they are individually marked in the first place.

The history of the front lid is more problematic, the "ATO" mark is that of Albert Oliver of Clerkenwell, London. I can think of two reasons it is different to the rest, either the original was damaged during the engraving and had to be replaced or, my guess, the watch was original a half hunter and was converted to a hunter so that the long engraving could be put in a visible place.

An unusual jewel configuration on a 17J Recta.

This 17 jewel Recta for J.W. Benson  has an interesting configuration in that the centre wheel does not have a jewel on the face side and the jewel count is made up to 17 with a single cap jewel on the escape.

English makers, particularly Rotherham, Errington and Coventry makers using CWM Co ebauchés did something similar either making 16 jewel movements or adding one centre wheel jewel to their 19J movements probably under presure from Marketing department to have a jewel visible on the centre wheel.

20 Jewel Rotherham, 1903.

The designers did not want a jewel at the face plate as with the centre wheel only turning once per hour the benefit is small and with the power from the barrel being applied close to the face plate there is a percieved risk of damage.



A 16 Jewel Errington 1906

A very rare J.W. Benson "FIELD" watch made by Errington.

J.W. Benson "The Field" Watch 16J made by C.H. Errington of Coventry 1898.

A Benson made "Field" c 1899.

This was a big surprise, Benson frequently re-sold, under their own name, smaller high jewelled  watches and full plate keyless Coventry made watches by Rotherham,  but I have never seen one supplied from the Errington Watch Factory (then owned by Williamson but managed by Errington). Not only that but this is branded "The Field", a name had I thought (and so does everyone I have read on the subject) was reserved for two in house designs pervious described here.

The movement itself was almost certainly a special run for Benson and has the best finish I have seen on an Errington, which is in any case is always pretty good, this one appears to have heavier gilding, the banking pins are steel rather than brass and all of the jewels are screw set, top and bottom.

It has Errington's patented spring release mechanism, a fast train, unlike the slow train of the later Benson made Fields, 16 jewels and a true English Lever escapement with a Breguet sprung cut compensating balance.

The under-dial of the Errington made "FIELD"
showing the screw set jewels.

The watch dates from 1898/9 - the serial number on the case matching that of the movement and it has the  Benson "makers mark, although it is almost certainly a Coventry made case, probably made in the Errington factory.

It has the "Queen & Prince of Wales" Warrants only used for a brief period but fairly common on early Benson made Field movements, it is probable therefore that this watch was a stop gap measure before the Benson made Field was introduced and implies that production of the Benson Field started in 1898/9.

Updates:

1. John Matthews responding to another post bought to my attention an advert from 1892 showing the "Field" watch, that states the watch was London made so in the late 1890s Benson were selling two completely different watches as the "Field".

2. Further investigation of that source found that both the "Bank" and the "Field" were mentioned in an advert in June 1890,

Why 16 & 19 Jewels on English Watches but few with 17?

A 16 jewel movement by Errington of Coventry.

Several quality English makers made 15, 16, 19 & 20 jewelled watches but rarely, if ever,  used 17 or 21. The first reason to spring to mind might be cost, there may be some truth in that but I think the real reasons are the very conservative nature of most English watch makers and alternative and maker preferred methods of adding jewels.

Jewels are used because they are hard wearing and smooth so the pivot hole does not go out of round and friction is reduced, if only some wheels are to be jewelled it is best to use them on wheels that are moving quickly and with gearing effects have the most impact on reducing the overall power requirement of the watch.

The basic 7 jewels on a lever watch are 2 hole jewels + 2 cap (or end) jewels (to reduce end float and to keep the shoulders of the pivot off of the jewel to reduce friction) for the balance, an impulse jewel on the roller and 2 on the lever pallet. After this the next pair of jewels would normally be put on the escape wheel. After that there is some disagreement as to where they should go, the options being:

1. On the lever.
2. On the seconds wheel.
3. As cap jewels on the escape.

An 11 Jewel movement by Rotherham
with hole and cap jewels on the
escape wheel.

Some makers go for option 1 although the lever does not go through 360 degrees which is why some go for option 2. Rotherham in particular will go for option 3 to further reduce friction and to increase stability at this critical point, this may also be a cheaper option.

After 11, additional jewels would normally be added in pairs moving towards the centre wheel until you get to 15 (or 19 for a Rotherham with cap jewels on the escape and lever).

At this point it is worth mentioning that the marketing men sometimes prevail over the watch makers and jewels were added just on the top plate where they can be seen and not on the face plate. This is waste of jewels as those on the slower turning wheels contribute little and the benefit of the jewels that are there is reduced. I see this quite frequently on Swiss watches for the English market and occasionally on American watches.

English watchmakers did not like putting jewels on the centre wheel, this is probably a legacy of very strong main springs in big movements and a concern that the pressure would break the jewel. When pressed a lot of makers, notably Errington, would put a centre wheel jewel just on the top plate where it would be seen and not on the face plate where the maximum pressure from the barrel would normally be.

A rare 20 jewel watch by
Rotherham of Coventry.

Rotherham and many of the better Coventry makers would go to 19 by putting cap jewels on the lever and the escape, ignoring the centre wheel (they did not advertise the fact by engraving the movement as having 19 jewels so to the uninitiated they look like 15 jewel movements). Some excellent movements were made this way.  If pushed to show a jewel on the centre wheel they would then follow the practice of adding a single jewel to end up with a 20 jewel watch but these are rare birds.

In American makers would make a 19J watch by jewelling all wheels and then either adding cap jewels to the escape or jewels to the barrel, something not seen on English watches.

An unusual watch by Errington with some interesting patents.

Click on the picture for a larger view.

This watch by C.H. Errington of Coventry was made in 1895 shortly before the business was acquired by Williams, it incorporates two Errington patents:

One was for a mechanism to let down the mainspring using the steel screw head visible bottom centre of the picture, this moved a cam which withdrew the "click" (ratchet) allowing the mainspring to be let down in a controlled fashion using the crown before removing the movement from the case.

This was a useful feature as normal methods could be rather hit and miss with the potential to cause damage, at least to the inner end of the spring, if let down too quickly. This set up was retained on many Errington and later Williamson movements for ten of fifteen years by which time the movement was no longer in [volume?] production.

A second example from 1895, this one with 11 Jewels
and for W.E. Weeks of Ryde.

The second patent was for the unusual position of the regulator curb pins protruding through the balance cock, this worked well but gave no significant advantage and would have been difficult to use with a Breguet hairspring and so, probably to avoid having two types of balance cock it was discontinued after a very short time. This is only the second I have seen and a few years ago when I showed the first of these to the Coventry Watch Museum they had not seen one either.

However in this example [update Jan 2017: And two other examples found since], the design led to an error. For a balance in this position the hairspring leaves the balance cock termination in an anti-clockwise direction and would be terminated on the right hand side of the cock looking at it as in the picture to the right. It would then move through the regulator curb pins which would be suspended off of the regulator towards the top of this picture.

Because the curb pins are under the balance cock this hairspring has to be terminated on the left of the cock passing under it. This probably mislead whoever put on the F[ast] and S[low] markings because they are the wrong way round as if the hairspring was moving off clockwise. So if this watch runs fast you have to move the index to F, lengthening the hairspring, rather then towards S as would normally be the case.

C.H. Errington of Coventry for A Faller of London,
Sterling Silver, 1895.

A Double Own Label!

A 16J Errington, 1895.

At first sight this appeared to be a normal "own label" watch made for by C.H. Errington of Coventry for Curtis & Horespool of Leicester.

However looking at the hallmarks there are normal marks for Chester 1895 but one set of makers marks have been over-stamped by another.

Under high magnification and with a hint from another mark (see below) it is possible to read the second set of marks as belonging to Alfred Moss Jacobs & Co (Watch Makers), 18 Cross St, Hatton Garden, London.

The original marks are probably those of Errington.