Pocket Watches Silver & Gold

Hi,
Came across two pocket watches at a show today and trying to find out who made them.
#1 is 18c gold with enamel on the front. Has a button to push down to set the time, was ticking when I viewed it but not sure how good it keeps time. There are some marks that are hard to make out, one looks like the duty mark (lady head) and the other maybe the mark for London.
#2 is sterling, Birmingham which I think is marked for 1833, maker mark is M and I can't make out the other letter. Was ticking but again not sure how good it keeps time.
Any information is appreciated.
thanks for looking.

 

The marks are only for the cases and not for the watch works (about which I know nothing!)

But I think that Birmingham silver one is from 1884, not 1833. The odd thing is that between the anchor and the k is what looks like a female head facing right. If 1884, the monarch's head for Victoria should be facing left. If 1833, the monarch was George IV, so the head should be male. Can you get a sharper pic of that?

Another thing is that M something for the case maker. Any chance you can show that alone (blown up) and the other way around? I'm thinking it may be a JW.

On the gold case, both of those appear to be "lady heads" facing left - making that one dated during Victoria's reign, as well.

 

Thanks bakers. I'll have to go back tomorrow and try and get better photos. On the gold one the enamel is a very pretty pink with blue numbers, is a lovely looking piece.
The duty mark on the silver one is almost impossible to tell what it is and I'll see what I can do on the maker mark - you could be right and it is supposed to be the other way around.

 

The cases are sterling silver and 18kt gold. That's correct.

The silver case is Birmingham 1884 with a duty stamp. Also correct.

Bakers is right in that the date on the case does not indicate the date of the watch.

Just because the case was made in 1884 does NOT mean that the WATCH was also made in 1884.

Watches and cases were manufactured separately. A casemaker (a silversmith or goldsmith) made the case. A watchmaker or watch-company manufactured the watch. The jeweller or retailer who sold the watch would marry the two together at the counter upon purchase.

The two components may be years apart in their manufacture dates.

Of course there's no real way to prove this, but it may be.

Because of this, you should also be aware of the fact that JUST because the watch has a solid gold case or a solid silver case, is NOT guarantee that the movement is of any level of quality. I've seen a number of pocketwatches with solid sterling cases and cheap movements inside. This is less prevalent with gold watches, but it's still a possibility.

 

What Shangas says is theoretically correct but wildly improbable, if you buy a 1990 car you can expect a 1990 engine in it,and routine watches of the period are the same.
Both are late 19th C Swiss made lady's fob watches (less popular than the larger man's watch).

The top one is a Swiss made and cased barred clubfoot lever escapement watch made around 1890 to 1910, one of many similar Swiss makers, decent but not remarkable quality. Better class watches have the inner cover in gold, slightly cheaper ones are marked 'metal' or 'cuivre' on the inner back cover. Gold weight of the first would be around 20 grams. This is an average, some Swiss cases are very thin, others more meaty. A back that does not flex easily would indicate a more solidly made case. The control marks are normal Swiss marks. Stem wound and pin set.

The second example is apparently a Swiss made barred cylinder escapement fob watch, not such a good movement and trivial metal value. British made case as noted, possibly a few years older than the other but absolutely certainly has nothing of 1833 about it. This one is key wound and set.

I'd expect to get the first one at auction for around the gold value and the second for about £20 to £25 at auction. The first one would keep better time than the second. Both should be within a few minutes per day. The supply of silver fob watches in the woman's size has always been plentiful and the supply of gold examples smaller of course but matched to demand or more. I have three similar open face gold ones that are just sitting around as I know the best price I'd get is as scrap gold.

AS more get scrapped the rarity will increase but it has some way to go yet. The half hunter style would increase the retail potential a bit. Ensure the front cover opens when you push the crown.

The term 'fob watch' applies to lady's watches, by convention men's watches are called 'pocket watches', but there is a lot of casual misuse of the terms.

 

With higher end watches I would agree, but I'm not sure about lower-end watches regarding the dates. That said, I still stand by what I said about case-quality & movement quality.

 

You could indeed buy a watch with a heavy 18 carat gold case and the cheapest of movements, or a silver or rolled gold case with the finest movement, depending on your budget and priority. The various price lists from around 1900 show this clearly, most notably with Waltham watches where the quality of the movements is well known over the range, the same case could be found with anything from a Traveler to a Riverside Maximus movement in it.

Luckily it usually only takes a glance at the movements to determine their quality, independently of the case material.

 

Quite true. I was after a silver pocketwatch once. (Still am, really).

I saw one at the flea market for a great price. Popped it open and saw a 7-jewel Waltham movement inside it. Changed my mind on the spot.

Still searching.

 

thanks for the great information af and shangas! I went back today and the gold one had been sold. I had a better look at the silver one and the marks are MS which I believe is for Max Steyerman.
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/Birmingham-M.html#MS