by Terence Camerer Cuss

t may well be easier to assess a watch by first establishing the maker's name, the hallmark date, case maker's mark, the type of movement and maybe the number but, in fact, it is better to start without any of this foreknowledge and to begin by examining the dial (disregarding any signature), the hand(s) and case(s). The advantage is that, not only is one forced to examine these components a little more closely, but also it should be easier to avoid making the assumption that they all belong to a date or period suggested by the maker's name, hallmark (if any), etc. With a little practice it is surprisingly easy to estimate dates correctly to within, generally, ten to fifteen years and sometimes closer.
Each component should be assessed individually. It is al-ways possible, especially prior to the mid-19th century, that they come from different periods from one another. This process can be quite fun, particularly because there is the sense of anticipation that more will be revealed, and perhaps questions answered, when the watch has been opened. If everything matches, all well and good but, for example, the case may appear to be early 18th century (figure 6) but its pendant later (figure 12). The dial may be mid-18th century (figure 8) and the hands 19th century (figure 15). The reader can imagine the effect these changes would have on the watches shown in this article by superimposing, in the mind's eye, the components in one illustration on to those of another.

Figure 18. Dent, London no 25347. Gold case 51mm Adolphe Nicole, London 1866-7.
Dial: white emamel, annular band marked for minutes and fifth second and subsidiaries for hours and continuous seconds. Hands: three central hands, one for the minutes (slightly obscured), the other two for chronograph seconds and minute recording each counter-poised, one with arrow the other with spade.
Case: hunter, quite early keyless winding, set-hand nib at two, chronograph button at twelve.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the watch has been restored. Reproduction hands are the most common. Although these are not ideal, if they are in the correct style and good, well then, fair enough.
Restoration to enamel dials is often quite noticeable. New dials are uncommon, however there are a few silver and gold champlevè dials which have been either freshly chased and engraved or taken from mouldings of an original. In the latter case, small faults of the original will carry on to the fake, and if there is any signature this will have had to be changed to match that on the movement. Otherwise false signatures are rarely found on English dials. With the exception of the mid-18th century 'Dutch forgeries' - so-called -there are really not many contemporary fake watches and, again, these are mostly 18th century. Finally, because later pendants and bows can be far from the original style, some have been removed and replaced with reproductions.
Very many watches have suffered little or no change and rendition. Although, clearly, a much be needed for a fully effective examples, all in private ownership, the broad stylistic changes and some of their essential characteristics over 300 years.