It’s great discover that a doctorate of horology has been created and being first held by Dr Rebecca Struthers. I found her lecture of immense interest. The importance of timekeepers to the history of the industrial revolution cannot be overstated, both in terms of its contribution to safety at sea and its enabling technology to allow workers to attend the workplace and improve their lives by synchronising timetables for transport systems across the planet.
This talk is of enormous value to anyone interested in the eighteenth-century watch industry. The idea that the so-called 'Dutch forgeries' are actually of Swiss origin is not in itself entirely new, but (speaking as a long-standing though wholly unauthoritative collector) I have never until now met with any account of the part played by the Dutch themselves in originating them, or of the undeniable fact that these pieces really do show Dutch design features quite different from those favoured by the Swiss industry in its domestic products. Many thanks to Dr. Struthers, and also to the Horological Society of New York for presenting this video at full length and in such high quality. On the question asked near the end, 'Who bought these watches?', there is an amusing story in a book from 1805, 'Memoirs of Frederick the Great' by Dieudonné Thiebault, a Frenchman in the service of the Prussian court. King Frederick wished to present Thiebault with a good English repeater-watch as a mark of favour and instructed his Chancellor, von Katte, to obtain one. Unfortunately von Katte was fooled; the 'London' watch which he procured and personally guaranteed proved to be a German imitation which was beyond repair after two years. (Dr. Struthers did not mention these German imitations, probably because of lack of time; despite this example, they can be much closer to English work in both style and quality than the Dutch/Swiss type discussed here. David Lodge's book on the British Museum watch collection illustrates a fine specimen by Josef Spiegel of Friedberg near Augsburg, who disguises his German name by writing it backwards.)
There is something to be said for a "shop" made watch from the 18th century. Yes, it's not made by 1 amazing artist who only put out a handful of master pieces, but it may be made by several specialist workman or apprentices of the 18th century..... the goddamn 18th century! Here in the US it is not typical to find anything that old. It is , for me at least, something very special to hold something from the Enlightenment Period in my hand. I don't care if it is not up to snuff for a major collector or museum.
Homages are the future. Chinese watches are blowing away expensive watches because they are great for under $80 USD. Plus, like autos, they are assembled worldwide with quality Chinese parts.
It's simple. If you make a simple object and vastly overcharge for it then it will be copied for gain. So the modern brands like rolex and tutor and tag heuer quartz create there own problem. How can you justify £1000's for watches that can be "replicated" ,not copied, for £100's and copied for £10's. Almost all the big names stole designs in the past , rolex would not exist otherwise. The high end makers like urwerk and JP journe are making designs that can't be replicated. Historical copies are irrelevant now as most were improving designs and manufacturing methods so not strictly copies.
While true of Rolex etc. today and some of their copiers, I'm not sure that the comparison holds true for the London made watches Dr. Struthers was talking about and their Dutch-Swiss "copies", which were clearly inferior. However they were able to be produced in very large numbers - not so much improving design and manufacturing methods as improving accessibility / affordability.
