# New Member - questions about 2 old pocket watches



## calquail

I have been reading and enjoying posts throughout the forum and decided to join. I have recently received two old pocket watches and would appreciate any information that can be provided about them. I will break the post up into two, one for each of the watches.

I believe that the watches were brought to Canada from Scotland around 1915 or so by my grandfather. Unfortunately I cannot get any more information and this is supposition.

The first is 1.75 in. in diameter (44.6 mm) and is in rough shape. The minute, hour hand and glass are missing.













































Watch 2 will be shown next.


----------



## calquail

Continuation with watch2:

This one is in better condition but is missing the seconds hand. It is 2.1 in. in diameter (53.4 mm):














































As mentioned I would appreciate any information that can be provided regarding the maker(s) and source of these watches. I will be contemplating repairs to the second one if that is possible. If it would be of assistance towards providing more information I can remove the cover for the movement(s) however I would need some guidance as I don't wish to damage them.

Thanks,

John.


----------



## thoth

The first is a London 1901 based on the hallmarks. I don't go to the 1861 due to it not having the duty mark but I could be wrong based on the style of watch. The 2nd is Birmingham probably 1838 but again there is no duty mark. It could also be 1889.


----------



## Eeeb

thoth said:


> The first is a London 1901 based on the hallmarks. I don't go to the 1861 due to it not having the duty mark but I could be wrong based on the style of watch. The 2nd is Birmingham probably 1838 but again there is no duty mark. It could also be 1889.


Based on the technology of the movements the dates are 1901 and 1889. Here is a somewhat similar one I posted several years ago.


----------



## eri231

calquail said:


>


Joseph Walton
7 Upper Charles Street Clerkenwell
can remove dust cover (scrolling the steel arch) to identify the watchmaker?
regards enrico


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Its all answered
I suspect the second will be a fusee movement with verge escapement, the first not sure
a


----------



## calquail

Thank you all for the replies to my questions. The answers certainly give me enough to conduct further research. 

Eeeb - I will read the info in the link provided.

Enrico - do I remove the one screw to remove the dust cover or is there more to it than that. I noticed that screw in watch number one is loose but didn't wish to play with it without more information as I've never had one of these apart.

John.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

No need to remove any screws
Gently slide push that blue metal holding strip clockwise, and voila the dust cover will lift off

Regards


----------



## eri231

Please do not touch the screw. holds the balance bridge 
slide to the left the steel arch to open dust cover
regards enrico


----------



## radger

thoth said:


> The first is a London 1901 based on the hallmarks. I don't go to the 1861 due to it not having the duty mark but I could be wrong based on the style of watch. The 2nd is Birmingham probably 1838 but again there is no duty mark. It could also be 1889.


Watch cases, at this time, were exempted from the duty and so did not carry the duty mark.

These old watches are most likely dated 1861 and 1838 as you suspected and the silver marks would seem correct
for these dates.


----------



## calquail

Thanks for the information about removing the dust covers and about the provenance of these watches. I will remove the covers and provide further photos when I get a chance - don't want to do it in a hurry and scratch things up.

John.


----------



## thoth

In my time with fusees I never use as much as my finger nail or toothpick to slide the blue locks. They don't latch down too tight and should slide with enough ease. I have always done it this way to prevent damage to the cover or slide.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## calquail

thoth:
You are correct. The "latches" slid to the side very easily.

More information/photos about watch1:










Other that "fast" and "slow" in script I only see a scripted number that appears to be "3233". Not entirely sure of this. There are no numbers or other identifying marks on the dust cover. The larger screw may be stripped. When I received the watch it was loose in the back.

John.


----------



## calquail

More about watch2:

First a number (111941) inside the dust cover and the same number stamped on the back of the watch movement.


















The inscriptions on the back of the Movement are:
"Ford Galloway Co." or "Lord Galloway Co." - being in script I can't make it out for sure.

In printing is:
"Birmingham"

John.


----------



## calquail

Now that I have quite a bit more information about the watches I would like to look into repairs/restoration at least of the second watch. Unless the movement has problems it seems I need at least one key (don't know if the same one works for winding and setting time) and also a second hand. I found various keys on ebay so that looks fairly easy.

I'm unwilling to do the work on the movement(s) myself and also not likely to mount a new second hand. I would like to have the movement cleaned and lubricated anyway. There are at least a couple of watch repair people in town that I know of but I haven't used them and don't know their work.

Is work on these watches ok to farm out locally to a competent watch repair person or should I look at finding a specialist? If a specialist can anyone suggest one in Canada - I'd prefer not to have to deal with border/customs issues. I would entertain ideas of someone in another country if that's what it takes.

To what degree should the dial and case be polished (on the second watch particularly) without reducing it's value as an antique? I don't plan to sell either one but don't wish to harm them either.

Am I likely to have a problem sourcing a seconds hand for the watch? Any suggestions as to where I could get one would be appreciated.

Any other comments and ideas would be appreciated.

Thank you again,

John.


----------



## eri231

'Moncrieff Ford....His son, Peter Ford was a jeweller and watchmaker in partnership with cousin, Peter Galloway in Birmingham.' (These men were born in Scotland).were in activity at the end of 19th
regards enrico


----------



## aditya

Here is what I think-

Watch1- Hallmarks are most likely for London 1861. What is unusual for the period is the hairspring stud and regulator. In 1861 a bosley regulator and an underslung hairspring would be more common. Does the movement fit the case well?

Watch2- Hallmarks are most likely Birmingham 1889. The movement is certainly not fusee drive. Notice how close the winding arbour is to the barrel? There is no room for a fusee, just a 'reversing pinion' under the dial. 1889 is early for a going barrel in an English watch but possible.

Hope this helps.

Aditya


----------



## Clockbloke

I specialise in Fusee clocks not watches but they both look like fusee's to me. Have a look through the side of the movement. If the spring barrel has a little chain wrapped around it that attaches to a cone then they are fusee watches. You'll see what I mean if you look at my website The Uk's Antique Fusee Clock Specialist - Sales & Restoration Services - London UK Bigger movements but you'll see what I mean by fusee cones. Also both are back wind not stem winding so another feature that makes me think they are fusee watches.

T


----------



## Clockbloke

Pretty sure that's London 1861 on the first watch. J W could be John Walker a famous London retailer who is always linked to English Fusee Railway clocks.

Second one with silver dial is Birmingham 1832 and I'd be shocked if it wasn't a fusee movement with lever escapement. Typical of that silver dial type to be fusee. Neither should be verge movements.


----------



## Clockbloke

That's a duplex english fusee movement of a watch I recently sold out of my own collection side on. It shows the spring barrel with the chain and the fusee cone. If they look like that inside then they are English Fusee. I'd be surprised if they are anything else.

View attachment 1449841


----------



## Clockbloke

Clockbloke said:


> That's a duplex english fusee movement of a watch I recently sold out of my own collection side on. It shows the spring barrel with the chain and the fusee cone. If they look like that inside then they are English Fusee. I'd be surprised if they are anything else.
> 
> View attachment 1449841


Ford Galloway & Co is not recorded in any of my books so I can not give you a date for his business ventures unfortunately. Hope all that blurb helps


----------



## thoth

Any thought of work on a fusee should start with looking at the chain. If the chain is broken, this is seen by many as one of the biggest pains. My watch maker and father in law don't like working on fusee watches if the chain is broken or the end hook is broken. As my watchmaker said to me...if the chain broke it depends if it was under power at the time. Did the mainspring break? Did the fusee get stripped?. To him it becomes a can of worms. He will work on them though, just charges more then usual...a lot more. The cost of the repairs out striped the value of an 1804 verge fusee I have. He will sell a working fusee for between $300-$500 depending on condition and case.

For $400 he has a Hamilton 960 in great condition for sale...it may not be as old as a fusee but it is way more accurate and robust. It would also be far cheaper and easier to get repaired. I guess this is why the value of fusee watches has remained low in relation to their age. I find them fascinating but shy away from them due to potential repair costs.

All that said....try scotchwatch for parts. Blake has been a big help in the past for me. I will be ordering a set of 1950's hands for my Longines 19A auto from him shortly. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## calquail

I've taken several photos showing the edge of the movement - I hope they help as I am having trouble getting really detailed clear photos that small. Neither appear to have the chain and cone.

Watch1:



























John.


----------



## calquail

Watch2:




























I really appreciate the time and effort made by all those contributing. I hope that these photos make things a bit clearer.

Thanks again,

John.


----------



## thoth

The top pic shows the "cone" but it is shorter and much wider. The only kind of watch that uses a chain drive will be a fusee. The chain appears to be on the barrel which is a good sign. If the balance swings freely I would think the watch should run ok.


----------



## thoth

This appears to be an English lever escapement watch. As it is not a fusee it will be much easier and cheaper to service.


----------



## calquail

Aditya:

In answer to your question about watch1 fitting the case - it seems to fit well although perhaps not as close a fit as watch2. I enjoyed some readings on your blog, by the way.

Enri231 - where did you find the envelope? That is quite something.

Clockbloke - I hope the new photos help resolve matters. I will be taking a look at your website later. For some reason the attachment comes back as invalid.

Thoth - thanks for the info on fusee vs. other movements. I'm really new to this but certainly can't see the chain and cone - I guess that's good from the point of view of restoration.

John.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

calquail said:


> Aditya:
> 
> Enri231 - where did you find the envelope? That is quite something.
> 
> C
> John.


Enri231 is the 'Houdini' of this forum!


----------



## thoth

calquail said:


> Aditya:
> Thoth - thanks for the info on fusee vs. other movements. I'm really new to this but certainly can't see the chain and cone - I guess that's good from the point of view of restoration.
> 
> John.


When you look at the mainspring barrel on each watch. You will see that one has a silver chain wrapped around it in 1 line. This is about along the middle of the barrel. If you follow that chain you will find the fusee. On the other the barrel is much shorter and does not have that chain running across it. This could be due to the chain being broken but I think in this case and by the pictures, watch 2 is directly run from the mainspring barrel like a modern watch.

If you look between the plates just under the balance wheel you should see the escapements. The one without the chain should be a lever and that lever will be a shiny steel color I believe.


----------



## aditya

calquail said:


> Aditya:
> 
> In answer to your question about watch1 fitting the case - it seems to fit well although perhaps not as close a fit as watch2. I enjoyed some readings on your blog, by the way.
> 
> John.


I asked because the type of regulator on watch 2 is more consistent with 1861. Which is not to say that every watchmaker had adopted the later type seen on watch 1 by 1889. That made me think that the movement might be of a later date.

As for watch 2, there is no way the movement dates back to 1832. The style of the case too is later.

Aditya


----------



## aditya

calquail said:


> Watch2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John.





thoth said:


> When you look at the mainspring barrel on each watch. You will see that one has a silver chain wrapped around it in 1 line. This is about along the middle of the barrel. If you follow that chain you will find the fusee. On the other the barrel is much shorter and does not have that chain running across it. This could be due to the chain being broken but I think in this case and by the pictures, watch 2 is directly run from the mainspring barrel like a modern watch.
> 
> If you look between the plates just under the balance wheel you should see the escapements. The one without the chain should be a lever and that lever will be a shiny steel color I believe.


thoth, the teeth of the great wheel are clearly visible on the barrel (picture above). Watch 2 has a going barrel. I agree with you about this one being easier to service.

Aditya


----------



## calquail

Thoth: I see the chain now that you pointed it out - not used to such tiny items. Watch2 has teeth (fairly large) on what I believe to be the mainspring barrel. Please keep in mind that I don't know a lot about watches/clocks so may be looking at the wrong items.

John.


----------



## eri231

in this old thread an identical movement built by William Ehrhardt reversing pinion or if you prefer a false Fusee 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/silver-cased-watch-birmingham-410388.html

see also: Ehrhardt watch manufacturer 
photos n. 14
regards enrico


----------



## thoth

I have been collecting for 26 years and I still learn more every day. That is the great thing about vintage watches...you can never know enough because you are looking back hundreds of years.

The chain on a fusee is a very fine one...so much so it was usually made by children or women. Or the story goes. And many times the long hours and the fineness of the small parts caused them to go blind over time.

Which one would you choose? | Dorset Life - The Dorset Magazine

I am not sure how close to the old "You sit too close to the TV and you will go blind" saying this is related. But I guess it would be possible. That would also explain why my watchmaker and many others hate working on them. They are small and fiddly to work with which costs time and time is money.

The idea behind the Fusee (Cone shaped device) was to help even the power from an unwinding mainspring. This was used a lot because mainsprings were not made out of the modern spring steel that was developed in the mid to early 1800's. In watches that use a going barrel or any modern mainspring barrel the spring keeps a consistent power through the complete unwind. Even these springs get old and lose some of that property and don't fully unwind. This is why many times you have a non-broken mainspring replaced. I had one replaced in a watch that had a bad balance staff that the spring had been fully wound for over 10 years or more.

So as an old spring unwound in a old fusee watch the power became less and less and thus the shape of the cone to help even it out. It is all mechanical engineering.


----------



## calquail

Thoth - interesting link to the fusee chain makers. 

John.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

calquail said:


> Thoth - interesting link to the fusee chain makers.
> 
> John.


Absolutely +1
Of course the kids could have been up a chimney - sweeping it!

PS - Fusee was designed circa 1570 by the one and only Leonardo da Vinci. True!


----------



## calquail

Rejuvenating an old thread:

Several days ago I was out in an area of town I don't usually go to and noticed a jewelry store with a display of old pocket watches in the window. There was an ever larger display of repaired and restored pocket watches inside. 

This morning I brought in the two watches referred to earlier in this thread with a view to having the best one repaired. The watch repairer looked at them and judged that watch 1 wasn't worth repairing - it's missing the lens and both hands. With regards to watch 2, he suggested that a cleaning, new second hand (likely not new but new to this watch) and a key would result in it working properly. We came to an agreement on price and he advised it will be ready in two weeks.

I was not in any hurry to get this restored however I'm eagerly awaiting the results and really look forward to getting this watch back in working order.

The watch repairer felt that watch 2 was from the 1880's or so but I didn't question him on how he came to this conclusion. It's quite a bit older than I am anyway and does correspond with the time period that my grandfather was a young adult.


Thanks again to all those who contributed to this thread. I will post a photo or two once the watch is returned.

John.


----------



## calquail

*Re: New Member - rejuvenated Ford & Galloway - more questions*

I picked up the watch this morning and it is almost like new. It ticks away very nicely but I haven't had it long enough to see how well it keeps time - the watchmaker said it was a decent timekeeper.

















The key provided isn't original to the watch - it works and is quite old however it would be nice to find out what the original key looks like. I found this listing on ebay for another Ford & Galloway - do you think the key with it is original and is it likely to fit my watch? I noticed that this watch has a swiss made movement but don't know if they would use the same sized key.

Antique Solid Silver Pocket Watch KEY BY Ford Galloway OF Birmingham | eBay

I was also wondering what a matching watch chain would look like if anyone has an image they would care to post.

Thanks again,

John.


----------



## Border-Reiver

1901 and 1889. I have an almost identical watch with pointed tooth escapement which recently came back from cleaning maintenance. Mine is from 1887.


----------



## calquail

Border-Reiver said:


> 1901 and 1889. I have an almost identical watch with pointed tooth escapement which recently came back from cleaning maintenance. Mine is from 1887.


Could you clarify the "1901 and 1889" comment - it's morning so maybe I'm a bit thick. Not sure what you are referring to. Your watch is very nice. How accurate is it. Mine appears to be a couple of minutes fast per day but I'm now in the process of checking it further so am not totally sure yet.

Thanks,

John.


----------

