Yes, it is sad. It’s success followed by stagnation and complacency.

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your comment!

The “date” of 1810 is in fact the serial number of the watch so there’s no discrepancy. Some watch manufacturers put the same serial number on the dial, movement and case so that they can both be correctly paired up when assembled, and also later buyer will know if the part are all original or replacements with a different serial number.

Colin

‘The movements produced were slim and compact for the time, but were still of a high quality. Image © Trustees of the British Museum’

has a date of 1810 but in the article, you write Ingold didn’t get the company going until 1842. Why the discrepancy?

Great website, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed browsing through your articles.

Hi Jack,

Thanks for your message.

I would be happy to help give any information you are after. I have a number of different sources, some mentioned in the article, and other material taken directly from the British Museum’s archives.

I will scan and send you the details.

Regards

Colin

I work for Nutopia, a television company in London. My team is producing a landmark documentary series about innovation for PBS and the BBC and I have just read your fascinating article about the history of British clock and watchmaking.

I was hoping you could send me some suggestions for papers to read, especially around your statement that in 1800, Britain was producing half of the world’s watches.

If you could get back to me on my email address, your help would be very much appreciated.

Kind Regards

Jack