|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael V. Sheehan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm: |       |
Hello All, I'm a new poster to the boards and a collector of antique watches especially English watches.
I believe that the basic questions regarding this watch have never been asked.
First a picture of the inside of the watch case:
See Bottom of Page for Picture
1. Is the watch a genuine or a composite artifact?
There are many "antique" watches reassembled from a movement and case that were never previously associated. Does the serial number on the movement, dustcover (if still extant) and case match?
The serial number of the case is stamped at the 6 o'clock position in the photo and appears to be 1288 or 1266. If the serial numbers do not match, then the watch was assembled from parts of several different watches. Unless the watchmaker's name is stamped on the case (unusual but not unheard of) we will never know who the maker is. If the watch and case are integral, the next question is:
2. What do we know about the maker?
The maker is unlisted in Vol.1 of Watchmakers & Clockmakers of the World by G.H. Baillie which means that he was not active before 1825. Vol. 2, of the same work, by Brian Loomes (2nd. ed.) which continues and supplements Baillie has three listings for watchmakers named Verity.
Henry Verity of Lancaster who was also a
jeweler.
William Verity of Hunslet (Leeds)
William Verity of Rothwell (near Leeds)
We know the beginning dates of business for each of the makers listed above from Loomes. Henry V. 1869; William V. of Hunslet 1866; and William V. of Rothwell circa 1850. I have not seen the hallmark on the watch (it's not in the photo available to me) but I trust that it was diligently researched and that the date 1847/8 is correct. This would mean (assuming there is only one hallmark on the watch case and, if several, that they agree) that the watch could only have come from the shop of William Verity of Rothwell near Leeds.
3. What can the maker tell us about who bought the watch.
Verity is not a well known or important maker. He is a regional maker producing products for his locality and it is very unlikely that his products would have any currency outside his local area. Anyone buying a good watch, i.e. one appropriate for the upper-middle class, would be buying from northern makers such as Jos. Johnson or Tobias.
If Shirley Harris is correct (!), it was bought for or by a woman (see The Mammoth Book of JTR Carrol & Graff N.Y. 2001; p. 220) Assuming it was bought new, it was purchased when James was 10 yrs old so, if it belonged to James Maybrick, it would have been purchased by his family and handed down as an heirloom. He had no sisters, therefore it is likely it was bought by or for Susannah Maybrick, James' mother. This begs the question, Why would the Maybricks living in Liverpool go all the way to Rothwell to buy a watch? There were certainly an abundance of watchmakers in Liverpool and a watch, being a luxury for James parents, would be something meant to last. It would have been bought new and serviced regularly to keep it in working order. Hence the markings.
4. What do the markings visible in the attached photo tell us?
I am fairly certain that the marks, visible in the photo, H9 3 and 1275 are watchmakers marks one would expect to find on a watch of this age.
The stamped Crown mark is an excise mark, the 18 is the gold karat content, and the stamped RS are the casemakers' initials.
The rest of the markings (wherein lies the whole mystery) are hard to evaluate from a photo. It does seem to me, and I have had training in paleography, that several hands are at work here. Note the apparent difference among the several examples of the lower case "a". It also appears that the initials at about 2 O'clock in the photo are "WR" or "WK" rather than "MK" and that those to the upper right of the karat stamp may also be read as "AL" rather than "AC". It also seems exceedingly strange that one would choose to write the words "I am Jack" in their present position with the winding hole (the dark circle located a little above 3 O'clock) smack dab in the way.
 |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Michael V. Sheehan
Thanks for those very interesting observations.
We have been discussing closely related issues on the Testing the Watch board.
By coincidence, Paul Butler has just been posting on the question of whether the serial numbers on the case and movement match. Although he suggested that 1275 was the serial number on the case, he mentioned that the number on the movement was 1286, which would plausibly match the stamped number you point out.
I don't know what to think about the discrepancy of the dates of Henry Verity of Lancaster. But it was apparently Lancaster that the watch surfaced in at the beginning of its recorded history.
One point looming large in the other discussion is that Turgoose found that the "J" of "I am Jack" was scratched before the "H 9 3" and "1275" marks.
I must admit I'd never previously been able to see where the "Jack" was supposed to be, and can only share your amazement at the way "Jack" is supposed to be written over the hole. Indeed, does it really say "I am Jack" at all?
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi Michael,
Welcome to the casebook and the watch discussion. You’ve arrived just in the nick of time here, and just as things are getting interesting.
I’m a clock man myself, but have had a fair few Victorian watches through my hands as a consequence of my repair work.
That photograph is a darned sight clearer than the one I’ve got and I was convinced 1275 must be the casemakers serial Number until I saw that 1286 showing up so clearly on your photo.
Our watch however is by William Verity of Lancaster, and this is engraved on the backplate. The Hallmark is for 1846/7 I believe. The style of watch, and the gold dial certainly fit that date very well.
The Casemaker is generally supposed to be Ralph Samuels, and all my researches do bear that out. I have recently seen a Liverpool watch in a case by RS almost identical to this one and dated 1844. The serial Number on that case is 724.
The watch is 45mm in diameter, and is of the size generally referred to as a gentleman’s dress watch. It looks smaller in Albert Johnson’s hands, and is not a ladies fob watch as has been suggested before anyone actually checked it out. It has a nice chunky full plate fusee lever movement
Anyhow, it now turns out that the two “repair marks”, H 9 3 and 1275 go OVER the Maybrick scratches, and so post date them. The thrust of the debate is therefore to try and ascertain if any sense can be made of the “repair marks”, and maybe even date them. If we could do that, then we would have a latest possible date for the Maybrick marks.
Anyhow, nice to see you here. Come on over to the Maybrick watch thread and join in the fun! We now have two people with an interest in both JTR and horology. We might even get some answers!
Regards
Paul
|
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 65
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
The Maybrick watch only told the time.
 |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 142
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
....for the lady who originally owned it.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
Hi Howie,
Why would a lady have owned a gentleman's pocket watch? And why would anyone wish that a lady had owned this particular example? Hmmmm?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Howard,
Now see what you've done?
Someday, you people will learn the price for mentioning such things...
Watching another circle appear,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Hell,
a lady would have owned a ladies pocket watch *******!!!!
John,
I love circles but my favorite shape is ... umm i don't know!!
Jenni |
ADD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:49 am: | |
It tells us just how crude a hoax can be and yet still be accepted by some. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
Exactly, Jenni - but all men who owned a gentleman's watch may not have been gentlemen. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Caz,
thank you. thank you so much for clearing that up. i would never haev known what with having lead such a sheltered life had you not said!! |
lonelyGuy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi all.
The Maybrick watch has interested me since I first became aware of it. I have lived in Lancaster all my life and can add a little about Verity.... (source; my mother in law who has an excellent memory for such things - she also saw Buck Ruxton being moved from Lancaster jail btw).
Although the Verity family did have a son who made watches, this was more of a 'sideline' - almost a hobby. The main family business was that of a tobaconist. The shop was in Lancaster City centre but the wtachmaking (and presumably selling) was done from the Verity home in, or around Meadowside, quite a well-to-do area. Therefore, it could possibly lead one to conjecture why someone in Liverpool would purchase a watch from Lancaster. Is it possible that it was a 'mail order' transaction or a word of mouth recommendation rather than a shopping trip? Obviously, Mr Verity would be making very few watches, he was almost a hobbyist rather than a business man, - could it be that one ordered a watch before it was made and then you 'took what you got'? Possibly accounting for why a woman would have a man's watch or vice versa? It was also likely to be a 'bargain price', a factor that would appeal to a Liverpudlian.
Incidently, I, (being allergic to metal and therefore wrist watches), always use a pocket watch. I have always prefered to have a woman's watch rather than a man's for the simple reason that the size is more appropriate to me. Other people could easily have simillar 'cross watch dressing' tastes.
Robert W Nelson
PS In support of the Maybrick diary, as someone who has known citizens of Liverpool very well, the convoluted stories, lies, counterlies, half truths, admissions, retractions and denials of the people concerned with the diary's discovery and provenance are entirely typical of Liverpudlians. It is entirely believable that a false confession could be offered with regard to forgery then retracted.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Interesting post - many thanks for your insights.
However, there is absolutely no doubt that the gold watch owned by Albert Johnson is a gentleman's dress pocket watch, measuring 4.5cm across. Pick up any reference work on watches of the era and you should see copious examples.
It would have been kept for social occasions, such as a ball, or a night at the theatre or one's club - a weekend watch, one could say, for a gentleman's night on the town.
I met a native of Liverpool recently, who told me there was a post house in School Lane, as well as the Poste House in Cumberland Street. When I then told him that a Liverpudlian had been fingered as the ripper in a suspicious diary, his immediate reaction was that he wouldn't be surprised if a Liverpudlian was Jack, because "we are all scallywags here"!
If that's the case, Albert Johnson seems to be the exception. Anyone less scallywaggish I have yet to meet. 
He and Michael Barrett may both be Merseysiders, but they are poles apart in other ways. It's easy for people to point the finger at Mike, and I can't really blame them for doing so, if they truly believe he was in on the diary's creation. But Albert is a totally different kettle of fish, which I suspect is why the watch often gets sidelined - too tricky for most people to want to tackle. Unfortunately it comes with the territory: two sides to every story.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
However, there is absolutely no doubt that the gold watch owned by Albert Johnson is a gentleman's dress pocket watch, measuring 4.5cm across.
In case anyone is tempted to accept this assertion at face value, they may like to search the message boards with the key-word "Dangar", which will bring up details of an expert opinion to the contrary.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Robert
Have you seen the first message in this thread?
In it, Michael Sheehan says that Henry Verity of Lancaster didn't begin business until 1869, and concludes that the watch must have been made by William Verity of Rothwell (near Leeds).
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Oh lord not the watch again!!!!!!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
A very good checkable detail is the one proposed by the first poster: There are many "antique" watches reassembled from a movement and case that were never previously associated. Does the serial number on the movement, dustcover (if still extant) and case match?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hi Chris P,
Yes, by all means encourage people to do their own research. If they find any evidence that Stanley Dangar was right to think Albert's 4.5cm pocket watch is a lady's watch that's fine by me. I was only going by published photographs of watches similar to Albert's, all described as gents' pocket watches. The ladies' examples tend to be considerably smaller in diameter, but some of the gent's watches of the period are equally ornate.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
