For well over 300 years pocket watches were worn by both men and women as the commonest form of portable timepiece. Now they have unfortunately outlived their original purpose; but in doing so they have become fascinating items to collect, primarily because of the vast number and variety that have survived. Some of the early 17th and 18th century watches are now quite rare and hence are expensive when they appear on the market. However, this is not the case with later 19th century watches which remain plentiful and reasonably priced.
In this and a subsequent article I will show readers a selection of typical pocket watches from the 18th to the 20th centuries, and describe the changing styles and some of the mechanical advances made during this period. I shall deliberately avoid expensive and rare watches which are beyond the collector of modest means. I do not intend the articles to be too technical but I will describe various kinds of movements, knowledge of which is essential in order to date and to differentiate between types of watches. My object is to
attempt to enlighten the collector (or would-be collector) regarding some of the easily identified mechanical differences and attributes of different watches. Figure 4.
Watchmakers were always coming up with developments in design, incorporating different features intended to improve both the reliability and accuracy of their watches. In fact, unlike cases and dials which tended to be fairly standard in layout and form, watch movements could vary quite considerably. Over the years some mechanical features became characteristic of particular periods in the manufacturing process so that it is possible to deduce a lot about a watch from the design and layout of the movement alone.
As we look at the different types of watch, we shall see how, over the years, different production methods and components employed by the Swiss, American and English watchmakers affected not only the movements themselves but also the marketing successes of the watches. English watchmakers tended to be very conservative both in their movement design and in their methods of production.
One of the principal differences in the late 19th century between the English, American and Continental watch movements was in the use of the fusee. The fusee, which is a component incorporated into many English clock and watch movements, equalises the power or torque of the mainspring on the movement train. In the 18th and 19th centuries mainsprings were made from steel, a metal which was not reliable in providing an even motive force. A steel spring would deliver a lot of power when first wound-up, and varying amounts thereafter, which would severely affect the timekeeping qualities of the watch.
It was for this reason that English watchmakers incorporated the fusee in their movements, rather than the much simpler going-barrel adopted by the Swiss and Americans. However, the fusee not only involved more components and expense, but also made the watches physically much larger and bulkier to carry.
In England during the 19th century most watchmakers were not watchmakers as such but very skilled watch finishers. The vast majority of watchmakers purchased semi-finished watch components from manufacturers situated primarily in London, Coventry and Prescot. The watchmaker would perhaps have one or two apprentices or would employ proficient out-workers to finish the majority of the components. Ultimately the 'maker' signed and retailed the finished watch but he did not make the watch in the true sense of the word. Quite often young girls or children were employed by the watchmaker to assemble and finish watches; their delicate fingers and keen eyesight were considered a distinct advantage when
working with small components. Historical social records show that children as young as eight were employed in the making of fusee chains for watchmakers.
On the other hand, both the American and Swiss watchmakers very quickly abandoned the individual hand-finished approach to watchmaking and dispensed with the fusee, incorporating the going-barrel into all their watch movements instead. By the 1850s their entire production was geared to machine-made watches with interchangeable parts. This method of manufacture not only dramatically cut costs and speeded up production but also their use of the going-barrel as opposed to the fusee made much smaller watch movements possible, thus reducing the size of the cases. It was the short-sighted reluctance of English watchmakers to change their methods of production and the refusal to use the going-barrel which led to the decline and eventual collapse of the English watchmaking industry.
|
