English Verge / Fusee Pocketwatches (service and repair)

I’ve been given a rather special challenge by F-chat’s own @ArtS … Servicing and repairing some antique English verge/fusee pocketwatches!

The “verge” here is the type of escapement mechanism used. While it was an important step forward in time keeping, it is incredibly out-dated now which makes it all the more special. The ”fusee” is a chain drive mechanism. One end of the chain attaches to the mainspring barrel while the other attaches to the fusee. As the mainspring unwinds the chain unwinds from the fusee along a path with a increasing diameter. As the spring unwinds, the force it can apply to the chain decreases. The fusee increases the lever arm that the torque applied to the going train. As a result the torque applied to the going train remains relatively constant throughout the entire run. (I think I explained those correctly but please refer to the linked Wikipedia articles for more clarity).

ArtS has sent me three cased watches and some movements to potentially use for parts (if it is necessary).

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

The one in the top left corner needs a cleaning, oiling, and adjustment. The two on the right end of the top row might need a bit of repair work (the gold one I know has a broken escape pivot but I haven’t looked too closely at either of them). The bottom right worked pretty well with a little wind up so I hope to get it running well too.

Since I haven’t worked on this type of movement before, I’ve been doing some research before actually getting into them. I decided that a good first step was to work on taking apart one of the more complete “parts” movements.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

That’s a little taste of what I’m getting in to. The escape pinion shaft is broken and the fuse chain is completely rusted in place (and broken). There is at least one tooth missing from the crown wheel and little to no hairspring left. There is a screw or two rusted into place that I’ll have to find ways to back out. Importantly though, it is giving me a good look at how the components are arranged and assembled.

 

What would a repair thread be without a little mystery?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

1) What does that second name say? I’m pretty sure (and my wife agrees so I MUST be correct) it says “John Snatt Ashford”. “John Snatt” being the watchmaker and “Ashford”, in England, being where he was based. When I first glanced at it though I though maybe it was “Pratt” but after looking at that second letter compared to the “r” in “Ashford”, it doesn’t look similar enough.

2) Ok, so who the hell is that? I’ve found records online from the Ashford Baptist Church of a John Snatt born to John & Mary Snatt in 1748. I’ve also found several English long-case clocks from the later 18th century by a John Snatt of Ashford. Problem: ArtS (who knows a lot more about these types of watches than I) has told me that stylistically and based on features of this pieces, it dates somewhere near 1750. If John Snatt (Jr.) born in 1748 is the same as the clockmaker I mentioned, then it doesn’t make sense that he would have made this timepiece. My current theory is that IF the John Snatt Jr. I’m the church records is the clockmaker (active from 1774-1807 according to something ArtS found), then perhaps his father was a watchmaker and Jr., after apprenticing at dad’s shop, went into clocks vs. watches to stay in the industry, in Ashford, but not compete with his old man. In that case it could maybe be that John Snatt (Sr.) made this watch.

Now, that is a lot of “what-ifs” and supposition, but I have to start somewhere! So dig-in my fellow horological sleuths! Or sit back and enjoy as I descend into a rabbit hole of historic madness.

 

Conventional wisdom holds that “1729” is the serial number assigned by the maker. I suppose it could be the year of manufacture, but I think it is a coincidence that it aligns so closely with the period of manufacture.

 

Maybe? Maybe??

Image Unavailable, Please Login

If you look around the middle of the listing (screen shot from my phone), I’ve come across a John Snatt (son of John S.) that apprenticed as a clockmaker. If this were the John that made the timepiece I am working on, it would mean that a serial number of 1729 could line up well with a 1750s manufacture date.

Unfortunately, I’m finding data to fit my hypothesis rather than that proves it. What’s the saying? Confirmation bias?

This does give me a little more data to follow though. The one in this document apprenticed in Lewis and his parents were from Warnham. Both of these towns are also in the Southeast of England approx 50 miles from Ashford.

 

That does seem like a lot, however, a master guildsman (regardless of the profession) would often have several apprentices or employees of other levels working under them in their shop. Each item they completed under his supervision would be signed and counted the same as though it was his own personal work.

Another of the movements ArtS has given to me has a serial number higher than 5,000. It would depend on how successful the master artisan was at his work and how many people he was able to have working under him.

To be clear, I am not saying you are incorrect. I also have no historic information (personally) as to what serial number he may or may not have started with. If it was a family shop with several generations of John Snatt’s having been at the helm, would they have restarted each time it changed hands or just kept going under the same name? Again, I have no idea.

Another item to consider. IIRC, the British horological industry by that time had gone to a system of nearly standardized parts. The “watchmaker” would purchase components from several different specialty shops (wheels from one house, pinions from another, plates from yet another) in a similar fashion to how the Swiss operated with “ébauches” or unfinished components being mass produced to general size guidelines. The watchmaker or his shop would the finish (polish, decorate, etc) and assemble the timepiece and through their own name on the entire thing.

You bring up a great point though that I can only provide anecdotal data against but not totally refute. My goal is to find a John Snatt, if that’s even the correct name, that was operating as a watchmaker in the early to mid 18th century. Then I can possibly track down information regarding his production practices. That is the only way of REALLY pinning down the production year or period. The style and features are a pretty good guide though given how expensive a quality watch was at the time and how many other offerors the customer had to choose from.

 

Following Art’s thought process (specifically what I have put in bold font above), 17 years after finishing his apprenticeship would be 1753. Assuming this is “our man” and he set up shop immediately or within a few years, it could be that this watch was the 29th made in his 17th year as a watchmaker sometime around 1753-1757 which falls right into the heart of the period the design features say it should have been made in.

I have a request for assistance in with the Museum of Timekeeping in Upton, Newark Upon Trent, Nottingham, UK. They are supposed to send me a research request form soon. I think it is worth seeing if that is a path that can provide some more info, but based on the totality of the evidence we’ve all found, I believe we’ve found the man and very closely pinpointed the year.

poljav, I will look for other marks on the components but that’s the only item I’ve marking I’ve found that resembles a serial number.

 

Brockbanks No. 6795

My next step in this process of gradual escalation is the most complete (actually it runs!) “parts” movement.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

There is a small amount of damage to the dial but the movement itself is in very good condition and is amazingly clean. Being used to modern watches I am used the the purple/pink/reddish color of a sapphire or corundum cap stone on the balance. If you look closely though, you can see that this watch actually uses a diamond endstone!

As always, I like to see what I can find of the history or background of a timepiece. This one appears came from a firm created by brothers John and Miles Brockbank sometime around 1781-1782.

By 1800, the Brockbanks had become one of four principal manufacturers of Chronometers in London.

After the death of their father (also named John) in 1806 combined with John’s (the brother I talked about) declining health, Miles formed a partnership with his nephew, William Brockbank, and two other watchmakers. The company was renamed to Brockbank & Co. I don’t know if they changed the signature on their watches at this time though.

At one point in their stories history, the brothers found themselves caught up in the controversy surrounding the invention of the spring detent and whether Thomas Earnshaw or John Arnold invented it first. That’s a story for another time though.

@ArtS, do you think this is an original or a later forgery? It appears that one of the eventual partners continue to run the company all the way to the 1880s. What era does the design place this piece at?

 

I forgot to include this image in the previous post. Check out that chain for the fusee!

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The Brockbanks of London piece is back together and running nicely. The hands don’t seem to fit far enough down the canon pin and minute wheel. When they have gone in as far as they’ll go, there’s no room left to use a key to set the time. Based on my stopwatch and the seconds hand it keeps pretty close time over a few minutes. Once I can figure out the hands, I’ll do a better job of timing it out.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A. Goldsmith No. 48448

Image Unavailable, Please Login

This timepiece is by “A. Goldsmith” (sounds like a joke, right?) of Liverpool. At first glance, it is clear that minute hand is missing and the hour hand is bent not to mention the status of the dial. The case is missing it’s crystal and what you cannot see here is that the latch which keeps the outer case closed is broken.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

After removing the dial (which was missing all three of the brass retaining pins to hold it to the movement’s pillar plate) I found that the minute wheel (should connect the canon pin that turns the minute hand to the hour wheel and should set on the pin above and to the right of the center of the movement in the image above) and the ratchet wheel (should set in the square post of the mainspring protrude above and left of the center of the movement - the little blue claw looking part is what keeps the ratchet from spinning in reverse) for the mainspring barrel were both missing. Without the ratchet the barrel will spin freely and not apply force to the chain.

As I continued the takedown process I also found that the hook on the chain which connects to the fusee is broken (shown near center of next image).

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Solutions

I found that one of the “parts movements” that Art sent me (by H. Johnson of London) was able to provide the brass pins, minute wheel, and ratchet.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

I found what I hope will be a a suitable replacement chain on eBay and it is in its way here from the UK. I may have found a replacement crystal as well. I was able to get the hour-hand straightened out but still need to source a replacement minute hand.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

I not sure how to address the breakage on the dial as of yet.

The latch on the case… I am fairly certain it is made of a hardened spring steel. I want to try to make a replacement piece for the missing section and either silver solder it or weld it into place with a micro tack-welder that will be in its way soon as well.