The 18th Century, the Century of the Great Watchmakers (Part 4)
By: Sílvio Pereira
In this 4th part we shall conclude the contribution that the extraordinary English craftsmen made to the history of horology and of the watchmakers of the 18th century, a fact of paramount importance to its evolution.
Today we shall explore in detail the careers and legacies of two master watchmakers: John Arnold and Thomas Earnshaw. Driven by the relentless search for a more exact method of determining longitude, these craftsmen produced horological masterpieces. Some of these pieces have survived the passing of the centuries and can be admired today in the world's most prestigious museums. They not only created exceptionally precise watches, but also perfected vital components such as balance and escapement systems. We dare say that it was this commitment to precision in measuring longitude that drove the significant evolution of chronometry, whose benefits we still enjoy today. A thought to leave you with: without this ceaseless search, would the horological precision we know today be so advanced?
Note: In the 5th part we shall begin a series of articles analysing the great contribution that French watchmakers made to the history and evolution of horology in this century.
John Arnold 1736 – 1799
John Arnold was a prestigious watchmaker born in the picturesque region of Cornwall, England, where he began his career as an apprentice under his father's guidance. It is highly likely that he honed his skills by working with his uncle, a talented gunsmith. Around 1755 he left England and sought new experience as a watchmaker in The Hague, in Holland, returning to his native country about two years later, around 1757.
It was in 1762 that Arnold's destiny crossed that of William McGuire, for whom he skilfully repaired a repeating watch. His dexterity impressed McGuire so much that he granted him a loan, enabling him to set up as an independent watchmaker. In 1764 Arnold had the honour of presenting to King George III a remarkable half-quarter repeating watch, admirably small, fitted with a cylinder escapement and mounted in a ring[1].
A watch similar to Arnold's still exists today. It is important to note that the basic movement of this watch was of Swiss origin, but it was perfected and finished in London. Later, the escapement mechanism was refined with the introduction of one of the first ruby cylinders, so called because it used a ruby in its composition.
Around 1768 Arnold made another watch for the king, this time with a case of gold and enamel and a movement that displayed all the refined features of the period, including a minute repeater and centre seconds. In addition, Arnold fitted a bimetallic temperature compensation mechanism, the pivot holes were adorned with precious jewels, and the escapement had a cylinder made of ruby or sapphire. Arnold classed the watch as “Number 1”, a practice he adopted for all the watches he produced and considered remarkable, making a total of twenty pieces with these characteristics.
Between 1765 and 1770, some of Arnold's first creations showed remarkable originality and creativity. Among them, one extraordinary watch stands out, with a singular design and surprising features.
This remarkable horological artefact incorporated a centre-seconds system (later replaced, and the dial changed) that could be activated by pressing the pendant once a day. The mechanism, besides being an authentic work of art, was richly decorated with precious jewels (about 25) and included a temperature compensation device. It had an original ruby cylinder escapement.
Beyond its aesthetic refinement, the “Number 1” piece carries with it an important milestone in the history of horology: it was the first known movement to dispense with a conventional winding key. The mainspring, dated 1766, represents a significant advance in this respect, giving it a remarkable technical innovation.
Arnold's skill and talent attracted the attention of the illustrious Astronomer Royal Neville Maskelyne, who at the time was looking for a watchmaker of the utmost competence to reproduce John Harrison's successful marine chronometer.
However, although Arnold had caught Neville's attention, it was Larcum Kendall who agreed to take up the challenge and devoted two years of hard work to creating a replica of the K1 (a fact already mentioned in a previous article). The result achieved was similar to the original, although the project required a significant cost of 450 pounds, a considerable sum at the time.
For obvious reasons, the Admiralty wished to equip all its principal vessels with a reliable chronometer. However, although the K1 was considered a precision chronometer, Kendall's creation was too costly and time-consuming to be made on a large scale. Faced with this demand, in 1771 he conceived a simplified version, the K2, which eliminated the complicated winding system. Yet even with this alteration, the result was still expensive and less precise when compared with the excellence of the original conceived by Harrison.
In retrospect, it is important to highlight the significance of an event that took place in 1767: Neville Maskelyne presented John Arnold with a copy of the “Principles of Mr. Harrison's Timekeeper” as soon as it was published, showing his intention of encouraging him to develop a similar high-precision chronometer.
Around 1770 Arnold achieved a remarkable feat in the history of chronometry: a portable precision chronometer. This creation came shortly after John Harrison had completed his pioneering work in this field. However, unlike Harrison's complex and costly timepiece, Arnold's basic design was simple, yet consistent in its precision and with a reliable mechanism.
It is worth noting that the relatively simple and conventional design of Arnold's chronometer made large-scale production possible at a reasonable price, as well as making maintenance and adjustment easier.
Three essential elements were crucial to this achievement:
• Escapement: A detached escapement with minimal interference with the rim and the hairspring;
• Balance: A balance design that allowed compensation for the effect of temperature on the hairspring;
• Hairspring: A method of adjusting the hairspring so that the balance oscillates in equal periods of time, even through different degrees of arc of the balance.
After making some experimental pieces, in March 1771 Arnold produced what could be considered a production model for the Board of Longitude. This piece differed completely from Harrison's timepiece. Although relatively simple, it was of comparable size, with a balance of similar diameter. The radical difference, however, lay in a newly designed escapement with a pivoted detent positioned horizontally. This innovation allowed the balance to move freely, except when held by the escape wheel.
In addition, the balance rim incorporated a temperature compensation device resembling the bimetallic brass and steel balance used by Harrison. Arnold proposed that each of these chronometers be sold for 60 guineas.
As proof of their quality, three of these chronometers accompanied the explorers Captain James Cook and Captain Furneaux during the second voyage to the South Pacific between 1772 and 1775.
In 1773 Captain Constantine Phipps undertook a remarkable expedition to the North Pole, on which he took with him not only Arnold's famous pocket chronometer, but also another sophisticated pocket chronometer, also by Arnold, with a case mounted in gimbals, as well as Kendall's famous “K2” chronometer.
From Phipps's account, it is clear that the pocket watch performed exceptionally, becoming an indispensable tool for determining longitude on his explorations.
It is probable that, before 1775, the first pocket chronometers designed by Arnold were simple models with centre seconds.
However, in 1772 Arnold completed a more advanced design of pocket chronometer and began series production with a standardised movement calibre about 50 mm in diameter. This size was larger than that of conventional watches of the period, and the chronometer had a remarkable feature: a pivoted detent escapement[2], together with a sophisticated half-round hairspring compensation[3] for better precision.
However, this innovation did not prove as efficient as expected, which apparently led to a substantial decline in the pace of production.
From 1772 to 1778 Arnold developed several models of pocket chronometer. However, he continued to experiment with different methods of compensating and adjusting the hairspring, which was a significant challenge. The most difficult problem was to find an effective and adjustable way of dealing with variations in temperature. Owing to technical constraints, temperature compensation had to be incorporated in the balance itself, rather than acting directly on the hairspring.
In 1775 Arnold patented a new type of balance with bimetallic rims. These rims operated two weighted arms, moving them alternately towards and away from the centre, which changed the balance's radius of gyration and, consequently, the period of oscillation.
In the same patent, Arnold introduced an innovative helical balance spring. This discovery reduced the lateral thrust on the pivots during rotation and diminished the inaccurate errors caused by the so-called “point of attachment effect”, which affects any balance fitted with a flat spring.
In a concise letter sent to the Board of Longitude in 1782, Arnold stated: “… the energy in all the cycles of the spring is uniform”, showing remarkable insight in recognising the technical advantages of a balance with this type of hairspring.
Between 1772 and 1775 Arnold made about thirty-five pocket chronometers, although only ten have survived, and none in its original form, since Arnold constantly updated the specifications.
Initially, these chronometers had a pivoted detent escapement, a steel balance and a helical balance spring. The chronometers from this series that still exist include numbers 3, 28 and 29.
Arnold's experiments and inventions resulted in a significant advance at the end of the 1770s.
Arnold restructured the compensation balance and developed two promising designs known as the “double T” and “double S” balances, as documented in his patent of 1782. Both used bimetallic bars of brass and steel with added weights, which changed the radius of gyration in response to changes in temperature. Although these designs probably needed considerable adjustment, they performed significantly better than earlier attempts at a compensation balance.
Around 1777 Arnold reconfigured the chronometer, increasing its size to accommodate the new “T” balance, which worked with the pivoted detent escapement and the helical spring already patented. The first chronometer of this pattern was signed with the inscription “Invenit et Fecit” (to invent and to make) and received the fractional number 1/36, as it was the first example of this new design.
This timepiece is widely known as “Arnold 36” and was indeed the first to which Arnold gave the term “chronometer”, a designation that later became popular and came to cover any high-precision timepiece.
Over a period of thirteen months, the Royal Observatory at Greenwich subjected “Arnold 36” to a series of meticulous tests. The assessors placed it in different positions, used it and even carried it about. Surprisingly, it exceeded all expectations, showing remarkable precision.
Although it showed a timekeeping error of 2 minutes and 32.2 seconds, by the end of the following nine months the error had been reduced to just one minute. Subsequently, the greatest deviation recorded in a 24-hour period was a mere four seconds, which is comparable to travelling the distance of one nautical mile along the equator.
Arnold meticulously recorded the trial and the results in a pamphlet, providing testimonies of veracity from everyone involved in the tests.
The extraordinary performance of this timepiece generated controversy, as many suspected that the results were a fluke or some kind of fraud, especially because Maskelyne, one of Arnold's patrons, was involved in this project.
From a technical point of view, the design showed complete consistency and exceptional precision over prolonged periods. Arnold undoubtedly understood and masterfully applied the lessons passed on by Harrison, adopting a magnificent balance together with a very fast oscillator (18,000 vibrations per hour) using small pivots. Arnold's escapement, in turn, minimised any interference with the delicate helical balance spring, since temperature compensation was incorporated in the balance itself. Harrison had suggested such an approach as a prerequisite, although he never fully explored the idea. The detent escapement with pivots designed by Arnold did not need oil on its working surfaces, and had the further advantage of maintaining a stable rate of operation for long periods without degradation. It should be noted, however, that at that time vegetable oil was used, and it degraded significantly faster than modern mineral lubricants.
This chronometer, 60 mm in diameter, is housed in a gold case, where it has extraordinarily remained in perfect original condition.
Both Harrison and Arnold showed that the precision of a timepiece required a considerable diameter. Thus, at the end of the 18th century, a large watch was considered the main characteristic of superior quality.
However, Arnold's success in perfecting chronometer technology through simple but effective techniques also made it possible for other watchmakers to copy and use those techniques without permission. For this reason, Arnold decided to withdraw his patents, thus allowing the knowledge to be shared.
Two other makers, Josiah Emery and John Brockbank, also produced precision timepieces using detached escapements. Both were friends of Arnold and relied on the highly qualified skill of Thomas Earnshaw, an outstanding maker of escapements. Josiah Emery, with Arnold's permission, used an earlier version of the compensation balance and of the helical balance spring, together with the detached lever escapement of Thomas Mudge and John Brockbank. John Brockbank, for his part, hired Thomas Earnshaw to produce his own pattern of chronometer, but with his exclusive design for the compensation balance.
In 1780, while making these chronometers for Brockbank, Earnshaw introduced a modification to the pivoted detent, fixing the locking piece on a spring and thus eliminating the need for pivots. Earnshaw claimed that Arnold recognised this new idea and promptly registered the 1782 patent for his own design of spring detent escapement.
Meanwhile, a heated debate arose over the authorship of the invention of the “spring detent escapement”[4], giving rise to a dispute between Arnold and Earnshaw. First launched by Earnshaw and later fuelled by horological historians such as Rupert Gould, this discussion has dragged on over the years. However, it can be argued that the clash loses its relevance in the light of recent research. New studies have indicated that Arnold's success was due not so much to the specific type of detent spring he created as to the original methods he developed for adjusting the balance spring. Arnold skilfully manipulated the terminal curve of the hairspring, correcting positional errors in an innovative way. For understandable reasons, he preferred to keep these methods secret, clearly expressing concern about possible plagiarism on Earnshaw's part. Indeed, there are records indicating that Arnold warned Earnshaw, in no uncertain terms, not to use his helical balance spring.
However, a year later, in 1783, Earnshaw obtained a patent through another watchmaker, Thomas Wright. This patent included the pattern of integral compensation balance and the spring escapement mechanism designed by Earnshaw in a multiple specification. However, compared with Arnold's designs, these mechanisms were not so well developed and offered little reliability, especially the balance system, which needed to be redesigned.
Since then, the bimetallic compensation balance and the spring escapement mechanism designed by Earnshaw have been widely used in marine chronometers, making him one of the pioneers in the development of these precision instruments.
However, because of Arnold's patents (each lasting 14 years), Earnshaw could not use the helical balance spring until the 1775 patent expired in 1789 and, in the case of the 1782 patent, until around 1796. Initially, the watches made by Earnshaw used only flat balance springs. However, from 1800 onwards, practically all marine chronometers, including Earnshaw's, came to be fitted with the helical spring with terminal coils.
Arnold stood out as a pioneering figure in the production of marine and pocket chronometers towards the end of the 18th century, around 1783. Over a period of about 14 or 15 years, he produced hundreds of these timepieces before facing any significant form of commercial competition. These facts prove that authors such as Gould and Sobel were quite mistaken in claiming the existence of a commercial rivalry between Arnold and Earnshaw.
As regards Arnold's legacy, it can be said that, together with Jean Antoine Lépine and Abraham Louis Breguet, he contributed significantly to the invention of the modern mechanical watch. Indeed, one of his most important inventions, the “overcoil” balance spring[5], is still used in most mechanical wristwatches.
Arnold and Breguet:
The Swiss-French watchmaker Abraham Louis Breguet had a bond of friendship with the Englishman John Arnold. Breguet was known for his technical innovations and elegant designs. Arnold was impressed by his watches when the Duke of Orleans showed him one in London in 1792. Arnold immediately travelled to Paris and asked Breguet to accept his son as an apprentice.
This collaboration between Arnold and Breguet enabled the latter to integrate or develop some of Arnold's inventions and techniques in his own watches. These included the balance design, the hairspring made of steel or gold, the spring detent escapement and the overcoil balance spring. Arnold also contributed the layout of a dial design that Breguet included in his watches. This configuration had proportional numerals and figures turned in gold or silver, and became known as the classic and distinctive Breguet dial.
The dial pattern introduced by Arnold in 1783, with proportional numerals and drawn figures, identical to the turned metal dials of Breguet that appeared around 1800, was a significant contribution to the style and aesthetics of these watches. These dials were distinctive and different from other models produced in France or Switzerland at that time.
Arnold is also considered a pioneer of the “tourbillon” concept, probably as a result of his remarkable research into the identification and correction of positional errors. In the tourbillon system, the balance and the escapement rotate continuously, minimising the effects of imbalances in the balance wheel in the different vertical positions. Arnold seems to have explored this idea, although he died in 1799 before developing it further. It is known that Breguet created a tourbillon mechanism around 1795, but he acknowledged Arnold's influence when he presented his first (it is likely that it was not the first) tourbillon in 1808 to Arnold's son, John Roger Arnold.
As a tribute to his friend Arnold, Breguet incorporated the tourbillon mechanism in one of Arnold's first pocket chronometers, known as “Arnold No.11”. A commemorative inscription engraved on this watch reads: “Breguet's first tourbillon chronometer incorporated into one of Arnold's first works. Breguet's homage to the revered memory of Arnold, given to his son in 1808 AD.”
This watch is of the utmost importance and has a special significance, so much so that it is now part of the British Museum's watch collection. At the time of Arnold's death in 1799, he was recognised as the most famous watchmaker in the world, together with Abraham Louis Breguet. Arnold earned distinction for his pre-eminence as the inventor of the precision chronometer.
Therefore, it can be said that the friendship between John Arnold and Abraham Louis Breguet resulted in an exchange of knowledge and mutual influences, which contributed to the development of horology and of watch design.
John Roger Arnold (1769 / 1843), son of John Arnold, began his vocation as an apprentice alongside his father and Abraham Louis Breguet. In 1787 they founded the firm Arnold & Son, which remained active until 1799. After his father's death in 1799, John Roger took over the business and became a partner of John Dent between 1830 and 1840. In 1817 he reached the position of Master of the prestigious Company of Clockmakers.
However, after Roger's death in 1843, the firm was acquired by Charles Frodsham. This succession of events represents the course of the firm founded by Arnold and his son John Roger.
John Arnold's pocket chronometer numbering system:
1. Best Type: This is the largest version of Arnold's pocket chronometers. The numbering begins with No. 75. In 1794 there was a change to this version. The slot for the detent is placed in line with the arbor of the maintaining-power detent, similar to the “Second Type” versions. Despite this change, the larger size is retained. The numbering may be given with or without a fraction.
2. Second Type: These pocket chronometers are smaller than the “Best Type”. The numbering is given in fractions, and the difference between consecutive numbers is 301. The researcher Vaudrey Mercer believes that this difference indicates the total number of pocket chronometers produced up to the start of this new series. The first watch of this type is numbered 1/302 and was made in 1783. Chronometers of this type have the Arnold spring detent and an OZ-type balance[6]. With the inclusion of John Roger in the firm in 1787, the numbering reaches 126/427, and the last recorded number is 518/819, produced in 1796.
3. Second Best Type: This version is large and similar to the “Best Type”, but it has no seconds dial. The numbering of the fractions differs by 1000, and only three watches of this type are known.
John Arnold & John Roger Arnold, London, No. 249/550, 1793
This dazzling watch is a true masterpiece of elegance and precision. The case is in gilt brass, giving it a sophisticated and luxurious appearance. It is fitted with a full-plate fusée movement (43 mm in diameter), showing the skill and mastery of its maker.
It has a pierced cock, meticulously engraved with intricate patterns, adding a touch of art and design. Unfortunately, the watch has been subjected to repair, but its timeless charm remains intact.
The balance and escapement are adorned with diamonds, symbols of luxury and refinement. The Arnold-type spring detent escapement and the detent skilfully positioned in a slot display the classic style typical of the period. Arnold's bimetallic balance (OZ type) is elegantly fixed to a balance of pure gold, without engraved details or ornaments, providing a perfect combination of functionality and beauty.
The original hairspring, made of gold and consisting of four turns, has terminal curves inspired by Arnold's genius. The original enamel dial is meticulously decorated. The chronometer's number was skilfully written by hand on the enamel of the dial, later complemented by gilt hands, further heightening its elegance.
The gold hairspring was introduced by John Arnold to solve problems found in the steel versions. Steel springs oxidised easily when exposed to sea humidity, and were also susceptible to magnetic influence. In order to overcome these challenges, Arnold introduced the gold hairspring in 1791. He also introduced the gold balance wheel for the same reasons.
On the watch's back plate is engraved: “John Arnold & Son, Inv(eni)t et Fecit, Nº. 249/550”. The numbering indicates that the movement belongs to the “second type” (301 series) of pocket chronometers.
John Roger Arnold spent two years, 1792 and 1793, as an apprentice to Abraham Louis Breguet in Paris. The movement in question was created in the year John Roger returned from Paris. The influence of his French master's style can be seen in the shape and finish of the “foot of the dust tube around the winding square”[7].
Thomas Earnshaw 1749 – 1829
Thomas Earnshaw, born in Ashton-under-Lyne, followed in John Arnold's footsteps and further simplified the production of marine chronometers, making them accessible to the general public. He is also known for his improvements to the transit clock of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in London, as well as for his inventions of the chronometer escapement and the bimetallic compensation balance.
After completing his apprenticeship in 1770, he worked as a finisher for various watchmakers in London. In 1780 he devised a modification to the “detached escapement” in chronometers, in which the detent locking mechanism is mounted on a spring instead of on pivots. This spring escapement, also known as the “detent escapement”[8] was patented in 1783 by Thomas Wright, for whom Earnshaw worked. Initially the design was rudimentary and did not succeed. However, with later modifications it became the standard in marine chronometers, after the invention of the detent escapement by Pierre Le Roy in 1748. John Arnold also invented a similar type of escapement in 1782, which gave rise to great disputes between Arnold and Earnshaw.
In July 1791 Captain William Bligh, on behalf of the Admiralty, acquired Earnshaw's chronometer number 1503 for 40 guineas. This purchase was made for an expedition he was to command aboard HMS Providence, with the aim of transporting breadfruit plants from Tahiti to the West Indies.
This expedition was Bligh's second attempt to carry out this specific mission. The first expedition was made aboard HMS Bounty and became infamous because of a mutiny led by Fletcher Christian. This mutiny forced Bligh to face enormous difficulties in returning to England. The second expedition, however, was an absolute success.
Around 1796 Earnshaw temporarily lost interest in the Board of Longitude's reward. However, Josiah Emery's failure to win it led him to reconsider. Earnshaw had a poor opinion of Emery's chronometers and stated that his own existing chronometer, number 265, could outperform Emery's, despite unfavourable conditions such as dirty oil resulting from a recent voyage to the West Indies without proper cleaning.
Earnshaw easily proved his theory, showing that his chronometer maintained a reliable average rate over a 12-month test. However, he received no reward from the Board of Longitude, because of the assessment method, which considered only the rate of error in the first month rather than overall precision over time. Curiously, this method had been proposed by Maskelyne, an ally of Earnshaw.
In June 1801 HMS Investigator, commanded by Matthew Flinders, was equipped with two Earnshaw chronometers, E520 and E543, at a cost of 100 guineas each. During the first circumnavigation and mapping of the coast of Australia, HMS Investigator also carried two Arnold chronometers.
Chronometer E520 was carefully installed in a wooden box with gimbals to compensate for the movement of the ship. Flinders and his team regularly made coastal observations to check the accuracy of the chronometers against the stars. By the end of the expedition, only the Earnshaw chronometer was still working correctly, which led Flinders to describe it as an excellent chronometer in his book “A Voyage to Terra Australis”.
Flinders was taken prisoner of war by the French in Mauritius.
In 1805, when Captain Aken, also a prisoner of war, was released and sent back to England, Flinders entrusted him with the chronometers he had used on his expedition, so that they could be returned to the Greenwich Observatory.
Chronometer E520, for an unknown reason, was sold to an Australian collector and, in 1937, became the property of the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (Powerhouse Museum) in Sydney. Only in 1976, after an investigation, was the chronometer identified as the one used by Flinders during his historic journey, which shed new light on the history of navigation.
In 1805, a notable recognition was conferred on two brilliant watchmakers: Earnshaw and Arnold. The Board of Longitude distinguished their remarkable contributions to the evolution of chronometers, rewarding them for their achievements. Earnshaw was awarded the generous sum of 2,500 pounds, while John Roger Arnold, son of John Arnold, received 1,672 pounds in recognition of his merit.
Earnshaw's genius resonated significantly in the art of chronometer engineering. His innovations had a transformative impact by simplifying and democratising the construction of precise timepieces. Among his remarkable achievements, the bimetallic compensation balance and the spring detent escapement, both conceived by Earnshaw, won a prominent place in marine chronometers, becoming universal standards that endure to this day. This striking contribution gave Earnshaw the honour of being considered a pioneer in the evolution of chronometers. His legacy has transcended the ages, leaving an indelible mark on the history of horology and allowing us to map the past while we admire the precision and elegance of our time-measuring instruments.
Between 1831 and 1836 a notable milestone was reached by chronometer number 506, which sailed aboard HMS Beagle on a global circumnavigation expedition. This epic voyage had an ambitious aim: to establish a network of points around the world, each with a meticulously known longitude, marking the first time such a feat had been achieved. In command of the ship was Captain Robert FitzRoy, who would later become a vice-admiral and the visionary founder of the Meteorological Office.
HMS Beagle carried several chronometers, including the legendary number 506, since precision was of the utmost importance for the complex task in hand. The aim was to trace a route around the globe with exactness, allowing a precise understanding of geographical longitudes.
This iconic expedition also marked a fundamental starting point for the very course of science. Charles Darwin, who sailed on the Beagle, was profoundly influenced by his experience during the voyage. The observations he made around the world inspired him with revolutionary ideas about evolution, culminating in his masterly work “On the Origin of Species”.
Chronometer number 506, an essential piece of this historical narrative, was immortalised as object number 91 in the BBC Radio 4 series “A History of the World in 100 Objects”. This distinction attests not only to the importance of this precise instrument, but also to its role in shaping events that transform our understanding of the world, of science and of the very evolution of life.
Peter Torckler / Thomas Earnshaw, London, No. 406, 1775
A gilt brass watch, notable for its meticulous construction and distinctive features. The movement has an ornate brass cock and a full plate with cover, 38 mm in diameter. It stands out for its intricate detail, such as the engraved cock and plates, which add a touch of elegance to the structure.
The cylinder escapement, keeping its original inclination in the style of Graham, is an impressive example of horological creativity. Composed of a 13-tooth brass escape wheel, its function is perfected by the steel balance and the spiral balance spring, both working in harmony to ensure remarkable precision in the measurement of time.
The enamel dial, an authentic piece signed by the renowned dial maker William Weston, has a brass plate with the inscription “Earnshaw Finisher” carefully engraved on the underside. This detail suggests that this watch may have been one of the first movements attributed to and “finished” by Thomas Earnshaw at the start of his career as a watchmaker, when he was working as a finisher. An expert finisher had to be a skilled and experienced craftsman, responsible for carrying out specialised tasks in the process of making a watch movement, preparing it precisely and in detail for the next stage of assembly. This task includes: adjusting the wheel trains [9], finishing the barrel, trimming the rivets on the pinion heads and facing them (polishing), leaving the movement ready for the escapement maker.
Identifying individual contributions in watchmaking is generally a challenging task; few workshops kept detailed records in this respect. A notable exception to this rule is found in the pieces preserved in the atelier of Abraham Louis Breguet. The inscriptions often found engraved on movements are, in fact, more closely related to records of repairs than to the manufacturing process itself.
A message of great historical importance was found in Abraham Lincoln's first pocket watch, giving it a singular significance. This watch, with a movement from Liverpool and an American gold case, is now at the Smithsonian, in the National Museum of American History in Washington DC. It was on this intriguing artefact that an authorised watchmaker left an inscription during a repair carried out in 1861, a crucial moment at the start of the Civil War.
This inscription was discovered recently, in 2009, after a member of the watchmaker's family requested the removal of the dial. The carefully engraved inscription reads: “Jonathan Dillon, 13 April 1861, Washington. Thank God we have a government, Jonth Dillon.”
In this moving testimony engraved in time, we see the profound impact that the events of the period had on an individual, capturing the feelings and circumstances of that crucial moment. A later inscription, dated 1864 and made by another watchmaker, confirms a second repair to the watch, attesting to its journey through the years.
Curiously, Abraham Lincoln never knew of these hidden inscriptions, which remained as silent witnesses of a tumultuous age.
Peter Torckler
Peter Torckler is a little-documented figure who emerges from 18th-century London. He appears to have been a talented immigrant craftsman who set up a business in London, possibly seeking to capitalise on the thriving export trade with the East, an activity unequalled in other parts of Europe. His influence extended beyond the construction of elaborate automata to the production of complex components and supply to other craftsmen involved in the creation of these singular objects.
In London trade records between 1780 and 1783, the name Torckler appears, operating from the address 9, Red Lion Street, in Clerkenwell, a vital hub in the city's watchmaking district. Curiously, his workshop was just three doors away from the prominent maker James Upjohn, responsible for the celebrated elephant-shaped carriage clock now on display in the Palace Museum in Beijing.
Another automaton orchestrated by Torckler, showing an animal figure and simulating a waterfall with elegant rods of twisted glass, is now in the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. This addition to his work suggests that Torckler's incursion into this field was not limited to the piece in question.
It is presumed that the craftsman behind this creation is Peter Adolph Torckler himself, a native of Riga. In 1795 he arrived in Calcutta, possibly accompanied by Edward Torckler, probably his brother. Torckler's commercial connection with the mercantile firm Howell and Torckler in Calcutta, trading goods from China, suggests that he may have cultivated ties in the Far East before this period. His life came to an end at the age of seventy-six, in 1824, indicating the possibility of his contribution during the 1780s in London.
The existence of a discreet inscription on the back of the enamelled dials, revealing the word “Weston”, points to a possible collaboration with William Weston, whose workshop prospered in Greenhill's Rents, West Smithfield, from 1764.
Torckler's legacy has echoed through the centuries and, in 2013, a dazzling automaton in the form of an articulated Asian elephant, signed by him, reached an impressive price of 1.4 million pounds at auction at Sotheby's. This appreciation attests to the lasting impact of Torckler's creations and to his talent for arousing admiration and fascination up to contemporary times.
Palmer, London, No. 314, ca. 1770
This is an exquisite watch made in gilt brass, which stands out for its fusée movement with a skeletonised plate and round pillars, characterised by a 36.0 mm top plate and a distance of 5.5 mm between the plates. One of its striking features is a single-foot cock, pierced and engraved, further enhancing its beauty, and a garnet endstone that adds a touch of refinement. The regulator disc is meticulously crafted in silver, accentuating the precision of this complicated mechanism. The cover plate of the case has complex ornamentation, finely pierced and engraved, while the mainspring barrel cover completes the whole with a truly sophisticated aesthetic. It is important to note, however, that the chain is missing.
The first examples of skeletonised watches date from the beginning of the 18th century, although they are quite rare. The introduction of this style is often associated with Jean Antoine Lépine, around 1760, although some records point to the existence of similar versions as early as the end of the 17th century.
Unknown maker, London for the Dutch market, No. 9001, 1787
This watch has a silver case with British hallmarks dated 1787, without pendant or bow. It is made of gilt brass with a fusée movement, whose dial plate measures 41.6 mm, with a thickness of 7.4 mm, supported by baluster pillars. It has a pierced cock, characterised by two broad feet in a design reminiscent of the Dutch style. The silvered Tompion regulator dial complements the composition. The back plate bears the engraving “VIVAT WILLEM DEN 5 PRINS VAN ORANGE EN NASSAA” accompanied by the numbering “No. 9001”. The enamelled copper dial, detailed with Arabic numerals, adds a striking aesthetic dimension.
This watch was made in England to be sold on the Dutch market, playing a propaganda role and emphasising British support for Prince William V. Records also indicate the existence of other similar watches, with enamelled portraits of Prince William V himself and of his wife Wilhelmina of Prussia directly on the dial.
The Dutch Patriot Revolt of 1787
For a certain historical period, banks based in the Dutch Republic held a significant share of global capital. In addition, government-sponsored banks came to hold about 40% of the British national debt. This concentration of wealth led to the emergence of the Dutch Patriots, led by a Dutch nobleman of low lineage called Joan Van Der Capellen, who sought to reduce the power of the Stadtholder.
William V, Prince of Orange (08.03.1748 - 09.04.1806).
Through their tireless struggle, the Patriots became a significant force capable of challenging the government troops. Despite adversity, they persisted in their aim and continued to advance, eventually attracting the attention of King Frederick William II of Prussia, who chose to intervene militarily in the situation.
In addition, a small contingent of British troops was also sent to reinforce the government forces. As a result, the Patriots were crushed and Prince William managed to establish firm control over the situation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
[1] The ring is mounted around the cylinder and contains a small escapement fork that moves up and down as the cylinder rotates.
[2] The escapement mechanism is designed to rotate around a central axis. This type of escapement offers certain advantages, such as reduced wear and better stability.
[3] It is considered an advanced technique in horology, as it allows the watch to maintain remarkable precision in different thermal conditions.
[4] This is an escapement mechanism that allows the energy stored in the mainspring to be released in a controlled way, driving the movement of the wheel trains and, consequently, the hands of the watch. The detent spring consists of two main parts: the escapement and the regulator. The escapement is made up of the escape wheel, lever and pallet. The escape wheel is a toothed wheel that interacts with the escapement mechanism, while the lever and the pallet work together to release and control the flow of energy. When the watch is fully wound, the mainspring is under tension and stores potential energy. As the spring unwinds, the energy is released gradually through the escapement mechanism. The escape wheel turns and interacts with the lever, alternating between “winding” the mechanism and “escaping”, allowing the spring to release energy in a controlled way and keeping the movement of the gears constant and precise.
[5] The distinctive feature of the overcoil balance spring is the way its coils are arranged. Instead of being flat and parallel to the plane of the balance, they are curved up and down in an S shape. This S-shaped curvature is known as the overcoil. This specific configuration allows a more even distribution of tension along its length. This helps to compensate for the negative effects caused by gravity and temperature variations, resulting in more precise performance of the watch. It also offers greater stability and resistance to shocks, contributing to the precision and reliability of the watch. This innovation represents one of the most important advances in the history of watches.
[6] There is no clear consensus on the exact meaning of the term “OZ” used to describe Arnold's bimetallic balance. Arnold may have chosen a code or an internal reference to identify his creation. Nevertheless, with the OZ-type bimetallic balance, Arnold introduced an ingenious innovation. “OZ” may represent the initials of the German terms “Osten and Westen”, meaning east and west respectively. The OZ-type bimetallic balance has two metal bars fixed so as to expand or contract in an east-west direction.
[7] “Dust tube” is a part that protects the balance staff and the hairspring from dust; the foot of the dust tube is a small spring that helps to hold it in place. The “winding square” is the opening in the main plate of the watch that accommodates the balance and other related components.
[8] This refers to a specific type of escapement mechanism that uses a set of springs and cables to control the release of energy from the watch's winding system.
[9] - The barrel: the barrel is the part of the watch movement that stores energy. It is moved by the impulse of the watch's mainspring and, in turn, transmits this energy to the rest of the movement.
- Adjusting the wheels of the wheel trains: the wheel trains are the gears that transmit energy from the barrel to the rest of the movement. Adjusting the wheels means fitting and aligning these gears to ensure smooth and precise running of the watch.
- Trimming the rivets on the pinion head: the pinion is a part of the watch movement that transmits energy from one wheel to another.
- Trimming the imperfections on the pinion heads is a process that allows the pinion to fit perfectly into the corresponding gears.
- Facing: facing means removing the sharp edges of the parts of the watch movement, such as the pinion, to improve their appearance and make assembly easier.
- Leaving the movement ready for the escapement maker: the escapement is the part of the watch movement that controls the movement of the balance and, in turn, the measurement of time.
Comments