The Auburndale Watch Company.

by Edwin A. Battison.

_First American Attempt Toward the Dollar Watch_

_The life of the pioneer has always been arduous. Not all succeed, and many disappear leaving no trace on the pages of history. Here, painstaking search has uncovered enough of the record to permit us to review the errors of design and manufacture that brought failure to the first attempt to produce a really cheap pocket watch._

_This paper is based on a study of the patent model of the Auburndale rotary and other products of the company in the collections of the National Museum, and of other collections, including that of the author. The study comprises part of the background research for the hall of timekeeping in the Museum of History and Technology._

THE AUTHOR: _Edwin A. Battison is a.s.sociate curator of mechanical and civil engineering, Museum of History and Technology, in the Smithsonian Inst.i.tution's United States National Museum._

The idea of a machine-made watch with interchangeable parts had been in the minds of many men for a long time. Several attempts had been made to translate this conception into a reality. Success crowned the efforts of those working near Boston, Ma.s.sachusetts, in the 1850's. The work done there formed the basis on which American watch making grew to such a point that by the 1870's watches of domestic manufacture had captured nearly all the home market and were reaching out and capturing foreign markets as well. In spite of this great achievement there remained a large untapped potential market for a watch which would combine the virtues of close time keeping and a lower selling price. Only a radical departure in design could achieve this. Rivalry between the several existing companies had already produced an irreducible minimum price on watches of conventional design.

The great obstacle to close rate in a modestly priced watch is the balance wheel. This wheel requires careful adjustment for temperature error and for poise. Of these two disturbing factors poise is the most annoying to the owner because lack of it makes the watch a very erratic timekeeper. A watch in which the parts are not poised is subject to a different rate for every position it is placed in. This position error, as it is called, can and often does cause a most erratic and unpredictable rate. Abraham-Louis Breguet, the celebrated Swiss-French horologist of Paris is credited with the invention, in 1801,[1] of his tourbillon, a clever way to circ.u.mvent this error.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 1.--BREGUET'S TOURBILLON. At C is shown the carriage which revolves with pinion B carrying the escapement and balance around the stationary wheel G. (After G. A. Baillie, _Watches, their history, decoration, and mechanism_, London, Methuen, n.d.)]

His solution was to mount the escapement in a frame or "chariot" which revolved, usually once a minute, so that with each revolution all possible positions were pa.s.sed through (fig. 1). This gave the watch an average rate which was constant except for variations within the period of revolution of the chariot. Only a very skillful workman could, however, work with the delicacy necessary to produce such a mechanism.

The result was that few were made and these were so expensive that it continued to be more practical to poise the parts in a conventional movement. The idea of revolving the entire train of a watch, including the escapement, seems to have evolved surprisingly slowly from Breguet's basic invention of the revolving escapement. In constructing a watch wherein the entire train revolves, no such delicate or precise workmanship is required as in the tourbillon. Due to the longer train of gears involved the period of revolution is much slower. Position errors average out as certainly if not as frequently. In Bonniksen's "Karrusel"

watch of 1893[2] the duration of a cycle is 52.5 minutes[3] while in the Auburndale Rotary which we are about to discuss the period of each revolution is 2-1/2 hours.

----- [1] Paul M. Chamberlain, _It's about time_, New York, 1947, p. 362.

[2] British patent 21421, granted January 21, 1893.

[3] Chamberlain, _op. cit._ (footnote 1), pp. 229, 230.

The Invention

The patent model of Jason R. Hopkins' revolving watch, now in the U. S.

National Museum,[4] was not the first in which the entire train revolved but it was a very novel conception intended to reduce greatly the number of parts usually a.s.sociated with any watch. This may be seen from figures 2 and 3, where everything shown inside the ring gear revolves slowly as the main spring runs down. This spring is prevented from running down at its own speed by the train pinion seen in mesh with the ring gear. Through this pinion motion is imparted to the escape wheel and balance, where the rate of the watch is controlled. The balance, being planted at the center of revolution, travels around its own axis, as in the tourbillon, at the speed with which the entire train revolves around the barrel arbor. This arbor turns only during winding. No dial or dial gearing is shown in the patent or exists in the patent model. The patent merely says, casually, "By means of dial wheels the motion of the barrel may be communicated to hands and the time indicated in the usual manner." No fine finish or jeweling has been lavished on the model, the only jewels present being in the balance c.o.c.k which was utilized as it came from its original watch with only minor modification to the shape of its foot. Apparently the balance wheel itself is also a relic of the same or a similar conventional watch. There is no jeweling in the escapement or on the other end of the balance staff. In spite of this the model runs very actively and will overbank if wound up very far. The beat of the escapement is two per second and the movement revolves once in 20 minutes.

There are two great faults in the model. First is the lack of an adequate bearing for the barrel to turn on. There is only one very short bearing a long way removed from the point of engagement between the pinion and internal gear, and no adequate support is given the barrel, with the result that it tends to deflect from the ideal or true position and to bind. This condition is aggravated by the fact that the ring gear was made by cutting its teeth on an angle to the axis around which it is to revolve, using only a saw of appropriate width. The teeth were then rounded-up to form by hand in a separate operation which by its very nature means that the teeth are not exactly alike. This lack of uniformity of the ring gear coupled with an entirely inadequate bearing for the barrel contributes to rather erratic transfer of power. These irregular teeth would not, of course, be a factor in factory-made watches where suitable machinery would be available for the work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 2.--PATENT DRAWING OF THE HOPKINS WATCH. The mainspring barrel _E_, of a very large diameter in proportion to the diameter of the watch, occupies nearly the full diameter of the movement.

The spring itself, narrower and much longer than usual, is made in the patent model by riveting two ordinary springs together end to end. Over this barrel and attached to the stationary frame of the watch is placed a large thin ring A, cut on its inner diameter with 120 teeth. Near its edge the barrel E carries a stud _g_ on which runs a pinion of 10 in mesh with the ring gear _A_. On this pinion is a wheel of 80 driving a pinion of 6 on the escape-wheel arbor. The 15-tooth escape wheel locks on a spring detent and gives impulse to the balance in one direction only, being a conventional chronometer escapement. The intermediate wheel and pinion, balance wheel, and balance c.o.c.k have been adapted from a Swiss bar movement of the time.]

The second fault is in the ratio between the time of one revolution and the number of revolutions necessary for a day's run. Three turns of the spring are, of course, required to run the watch for an hour, since the barrel and train revolve three times in that length of time. If we choose to have the watch run for 30 hours on a winding, and this leaves but a small safety factor, then we see that this will require 90 turns of the main spring, a manifest impossibility in view of the s.p.a.ce available.[5]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 3.--ORIGINAL PATENT MODEL OF THE HOPKINS WATCH, U. S. Patent 161513, July 20, 1875, now in the U. S. National Museum (_cat. no._ 309025).]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 4.--DRAWING FROM U. S. PATENT 165831, showing Hopkins' first design improvement, an arbor for the barrel and train to turn on and the balance displaced from center.]

Probably no attempt was made to produce a finished and practical watch at this time, although Hopkins, the inventor, was an actual watchmaker as well as a retail jeweler, with premises virtually in the shadow of the Patent Office. He was a native of Maine[6] and had been established in Washington since 1863, or perhaps some time in 1862.[7]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 5.--HOPKINS' BALANCE ARRESTING DEVICE, the subject of U. S. patent 165830. This and the device ill.u.s.trated in figure 4 originally were submitted together to the Patent Office on June 9, 1875, and later were divided into two patents.]

----- [4] Cat. no. 309025; U. S. patent 161513, July 20, 1875.

[5] Those who have seen the Waterbury watch, which developed from this design, may be drawn to the conclusion that this explains why it took so long to wind the Waterbury.

Such is not really the case; in the Waterbury the winding wheel (which is on the outer rim of the barrel) was nearly as large as the inside diameter of the case while the pinion engaging with it was of only nominal diameter. This meant that one turn of the winding crown wound the barrel a much smaller fraction of a revolution than in a watch of conventional design.

[6] District of Columbia death record 145,013.

[7] Hopkins is not in the _Washington and Georgetown directory_ of 1860 or 1862, and 1861 was not available to check. Starting with 1863 he is listed each year through 1871. Starting with 1872 Boyd's _Directory of the District of Columbia_ lists Hopkins as a resident each year (including 1902, the year of his death at 84 years) except 1877, when he was out of the city in connection with the exploitation of his rotary watch patents. Carl W. Drepperd, _American clocks and clockmakers_ (Garden City, N.Y., 1947), in referring to Hopkins, says, "Lincoln, Me. 1840's-1850's: Bangor, Me., to 1862. Inventor of the Auburndale Watch. Also manufactured pianos and clock cases."

Developing the Invention

Edward A. Locke had long been seeking a simple watch adapted to easy manufacture and a selling price of three to four dollars. While on a trip to Washington his attention was drawn to the Hopkins watch by William D.

Colt of Washington.[8] A result of this meeting appears to have been the issuance to Jason R. Hopkins of two patents,[9] in both of which half rights were a.s.signed to William D. Colt. Patent 165831, relates to a barrel arbor for watches. The arbor will be seen (fig. 4) to consist of two parts, one telescoped within the other and the composite arbor _B_-_C_ supported at each end by the frame of the watch. The patent text limits itself to a bare description of the arbor. In the light of what we have seen of the shortcomings of the original model, however, the patent drawings tell that much more had been accomplished on the general design of a more workable rotary watch.

A square on arbor _C_ at the back of the watch permits winding the main spring, which attaches to the largest diameter of _C_, a ratchet or winding click being supplied just under support _F_. The inner or front part _B_ of the composite arbor projects from the front of the movement and revolves at the speed of the barrel arbor, which speed is not specified. Also, looking at the perspective view, we see that while the chronometer escapement has been retained, the balance has been placed eccentrically to make room for the center arbor. The balance now describes an orbit around the center of revolution. No driving train is shown, it being irrelevant to the patent, but there seems to be ample room for two intermediate wheels and their pinions between the escape wheel and the train c.o.c.k boss, seen at the upper right in the perspective view of figure 4. Adding one more wheel and pinion to the train would have the effect of reducing the number of revolutions required of the spring barrel. We have seen from examination of the patent model of the Hopkins rotary that this was necessary not only to reduce the number of turns of the main spring and barrel but also to reduce the force transmitted to the escapement. There seems little reason from the foregoing observations and considerations to doubt that these modifications had been realized by the time of this patent. Again no dial gearing is shown. If the need for special gearing existed at this time it seems strange that it was not covered by patent as was done in the later patent[10] a.s.signed to William B. Fowle. The only way to avoid special gearing would be to revolve the barrel and train each hour so that the minute hand could travel with them as it travels with the center wheel in conventional watches. Once this condition was set up, the usual dial gearing would apply.

Companion patent 165830 (see fig. 5) covers a mechanism to prevent overbanking of the balance wheel, primarily of a chronometer escapement.

This, of course, was aimed at making it possible to use the escapement in connection with a mainspring of greatly varying power. We have seen that this condition of uneven power existed in the first Hopkins watch. While the condition was greatly improved in the second model (seen in fig. 4), it was surely present to some extent, as it is a.s.sociated with every spring. Overbanking protection may well have continued to be necessary, particularly if the gear ratio between escapement and barrel was low enough to permit hourly rotation of the barrel. The features covered by this patent were originally submitted as part of what later became patent 165831. Examination of the original ma.n.u.script patent file[11] shows that the patent application was separated into two on the suggestion of the patent examiner, who pointed out that two distinct and separate mechanisms were involved, either of which could be used without the other.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 6.--DRAWING FROM U. S. PATENT 179019 showing Hopkins' device to prevent the tripping of a chronometer escapement.]

These two patents, which actually started out as one, appear to represent the watch as it was when Hopkins went to Waterbury, Connecticut, where he again met Edward A. Locke. They submitted this improved watch model to the Benedict and Burnham Manufacturing Co., which advised not manufacturing it until it was further developed. Hopkins went with his watch from there to Boston, where he conferred with George Merritt who, like Locke, was interested in getting into the manufacture of a low-priced watch. Merritt may have been the senior member of the Locke-Merritt team or may simply have had more faith than his a.s.sociates in Hopkins and his watch. At any rate, he advanced expense money while further efforts at improvement were made.[12] Hopkins' absence from the _Washington city directory_ of 1877 is perhaps explained by this work he was doing on his patent. While this was completed to Hopkins'

satisfaction, it still fell short of Merritt's idea of practicality, and the latter abandoned the idea of manufacturing the watch;[13] what had started out as a very simple watch of few parts grew, with every effort to make it workable, more and more complicated by involved and expensive detail. It appears that Hopkins did not possess the rare gift of improvement by simplification. This is a rare gift, and one seldom possessed by an individual very closely and intensely involved in the minute details of a given problem.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 7.--PART OF THE DRAWINGS FROM U. S. PATENT 186838, showing the winding and setting mechanism very nearly as it was applied in the Auburndale rotary.]

How long this period of development and experimentation required is unreported. It could hardly have started before early June of 1875, when application was made for the patent (165830) to prevent overbanking. The cash book of William B. Fowle of Auburndale, Ma.s.sachusetts,[14] tells us that he bought half of William D. Colt's half-interest in the Hopkins rotary in March 1876, partly for cash but including a royalty on each watch made. Half this royalty was to go to Hopkins, a quarter to William D. Colt, and a quarter to William B. Fowle. Does patent 179019, issued June 20, 1876, to Hopkins, who a.s.signed it on June 10, 1876, to Fowle,[15] represent the last improvement offered to Merritt? It covers a device actuated by a spur on a balance staff to lock the detent against tripping when in one position and to permit normal operation of the chronometer escapement when in the other position (see fig. 6). Another patent applied for on January 12, 1876, was in prospect and finally issued as no. 186838 on January 30, 1877, a.s.signed to William B. Fowle on November 21, 1876.[16] This is much the most practical and useful patent in the series. A comparison of these (see figs. 7 and 8) with the Auburndale rotary watch (see fig. 9) shows a remarkable similarity between the inventor's conception and the product eventually manufactured. A practical center arbor to support and guide the entire rotating mechanism is here combined with a stem-winding and lever-setting mechanism and dial gearing in a well thought out arrangement.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 8.--REMAINING DRAWINGS FROM U. S. PATENT 186838, showing the dial gearing used in the Auburndale rotary.]

Here, where the story of the Hopkins watch diverges from the interests who later brought out the rival Waterbury watch, it seems appropriate to call the reader's attention to the basic points of novelty and merit in the Hopkins watch which carried over to what became the Waterbury, somewhat as an hereditary characteristic pa.s.ses from generation to generation. Previous writers have realized that one of these watches led to the other and have grouped them together because of the rotating feature which they shared in common. Beyond this point they have treated the watches as though they had nothing in common. Actually several basic features of the Hopkins watch existed in both: the long narrow spring in a barrel approximately filling one side of the watch case, a train rotating in the center of the watch and driven by a planetary pinion in mesh with a gear fixed to the stationary part of the watch, a slow beat escapement, and probably the hourly rotation of the train and escapement.

When these details appeared in the first watches manufactured for Messrs.

Locke and Merritt by the Benedict and Burnham Manufacturing Co. and later the Waterbury Watch Co., they were vastly changed in detail and much better adapted to ma.s.s production, although still basically the same.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 9.--AUBURNDALE ROTARY WATCH MOVEMENT.

(In the author's collection.)]

The story of Hopkins' rotary watch now enters an entirely new setting with new financial backing which, however, had no apparent experience or background in mechanical work, much less watch manufacturing. Those with watchmaking experience who were brought into this new organization unquestionably did their best, based on past experience confined to conventional watches of much higher grade. Judging from the products turned out, however, they had great difficulty in making a clean break with their past and in producing a satisfactory low-priced watch of new and radical concept. The market for watches, which had been depressed, was at this time reviving a little. The _Newton Journal_,[17] referring to the American Watch Co. at Waltham reported: "The hands employed in the caseroom and the machinists have been called in. All the works are to be started the first of September."

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 10.--WILLIAM B. FOWLE, sponsor of the Auburndale Watch Co., after an engraving in S. F. Smith, _History of Newton, Ma.s.sachusetts_ (Boston, 1880).]

----- [8] Chas. S. Crossman, "A complete history of watch and clock making in America," _Jewelers Circular and Horological Review_, January 1888, pp. 400, 401. This history ran as a continuing series of short articles appearing over a period of years. In his sketch of the Waterbury Watch Co., Crossman gives the name as William D. Coates, a name not found in Boyd's _Directory of the District of Columbia_ for 1875. The directory does, however, contain the name of William D. Colt, a patent attorney.

[9] U. S. patents 165830 and 165831, granted July 20, 1875.

[10] U. S. patent 186838, January 30, 1877.

[11] Patent file 165831, records of the Patent Office in the National Archives, Washington, D. C.