IWC "Seeland" Watches with UK Hallmarks

I had an interesting discussion with Adrianus van der Meijden concerning a number of IWC "Seeland" watches. IWC "Seeland" watches were made during the period when IWC was under the control of of Frederic Frank Seeland, a US citizen who was appointed to manage the IWC factory in October 1876, after the first company, founded by F.A. Jones, had gone bankrupt. Dr. R. Grieshaber was president, and Johann Rauschenbach was managing director. Initially all seemed to go well under Seeland's management and he was left alone to run the business. Seeland introduced watch calibres that were cheaper to make than the Jones calibres. Profits apparently soared, and the workforce increased. But Seeland was faking the profits by overstating the value of stock on hand. This came to light during the summer of 1879 when Seeland with his family suddenly and secretly left Schaffenhausen for America just before the stock take was due. A stock take by Rauschenbach and the factory foreman revealed that the stock on hand was worth a lot less than Seeland had stated the previous year, and the company had actually been losing money and was faced with a substantial debt. The IWC company went into bankruptcy for a second time, and Seeland was sentenced in his absence to three weeks in prison.

Most of the IWC Seeland watches were sold in the UK, and their cases have UK hallmarks. This has lead to speculation that UK made cases were sent to Switzerland to be used in these watches. But this would not have made financial sense; UK wages were higher than Swiss wages at the time, and UK made cases would have been more expensive than Swiss made cases. As I noted above, Seeland was trying to cut costs and produce watches that were cheaper to make than those of F.A. Jones; it would not have made economic sense to import expensive UK made cases. So how did the Seeland watches get UK hallmarks?

From the time of the reign of Edward I in 1300, all gold and silver items made in the UK have been tested (assayed) and marked to show that the purity of the gold or silver met required standards. This was first done at the hall of the Goldsmiths Guild in London, hence the term "hallmarked". However, until 1842, foreign items were not required to be so marked, but were subject to high import duties which protected the UK makers. In 1842 a proposal to reduce the duty on imported items lead to protests that cheaper foreign items of lower purity would undermine UK trade, so a statute was passed requiring that imported items be assyed and marked in the same was as UK made items. It was actually made law that foreign items would have UK hallmarks that were indistinguishable from those of UK made items!

Swiss watch makers were not slow to see the opportunities that this presented and sent unpolished watch cases to the UK to be hallmarked, then returned to Switzerland to be finished and made into complete watches. These watches were then often sold as English made watches, because at the time English watches were very well regarded and commanded high prices. Naturally the English watchmakers objected to this and so a law was passed in 1867 that all foreign made gold and silver items should be marked with an "F" in addition to the normal UK hallmarks.

The IWC Seeland watches in Adrianus van der Meijden's collection, such as the one pictured here, have full UK hallmarks for sterling silver, but do not have the "F" mark. IWC factory records show that the movements were put into the cases at the IWC factory in Schaffenhausen.

IWC Seeland with the sponsor's mark of Antoine Castelberg
Image © Adrianus van der Meijden

When I examined the hallmarks in the cases of five of Adrian's IWC Seeland watches, this is what I found:

[ul]
[li]Two of the cases have Chester Assay Office hallmarks with date letter "o" for the hallmarking year 1877/1878 and "r" for the hallmarking year 1880-1881 (hallmarking years do not correspond to calendar years but start when a new Warden of the assay office was elected). The sponsor's mark is "AC" incised within an oval. This mark was registered at the Chester Assay Office on 17 October 1877 and was the mark of Antoine Castelberg of 58 Holborn Viaduct, London, a watch dealer and importer from La Chaux-de-Fonds. Castelberg had several London addresses, his sponsor's mark was first registered with the London Assay Office on 25 August 1875 with the address 90 Newgate Street London. On 2 August 1876 he moved to 58 Holborn Viaduct. You can see the case back of one of these watches in the picture. The incised mark registered to Castleberg is unusual because UK makers usually used cameo (relief) marks like the other assay office marks.[/li]
[li]Two of the cases have Chester Assay Office hallmarks, both with the date letter "p" for the hallmarking year 1878/1879. The sponsor's mark is "FP" incised within an oval shield very similar to Antoine Castelberg's mark. This was the mark of Fritz Petitpierre, 58 Holborn Viaduct, London. This mark was registered at the Chester Assay Office on 18 June 1878. Petitpierre was also a watch dealer and importer from Chaux-de-Fonds, and a business partner of Castelberg's, sharing the same London address.[/li]
[li]One case has Birmingham Assay Office hallmarks with the date letter "i" for the hallmarking year 1883/1884. The sponsor's mark is FM in a rectangular shield. This is probably the mark of Frank Moss, 48 Frederick Street, Birmingham. Frank Moss was a partner in the firm of J. Blanckensee & Co., watch manufacturers and importers.[/li]
[/ul]
So four of the five watches had the sponsor's marks of watch dealers and importers, and not the maker's marks of English watch case makers, and the fifth has the sponsor's mark of a watch importer who also was not a watch case maker. This shows that these cases were not made in the UK, and it is obvious that they were imported from Switzerland by Castelberg, Petitpierre and Moss, and sent by them for assay before being returned to Switzerland to be assembled into watches in the IWC factory.

The question remains as to why these cases did not carry the "F" for "Foreign" as required by the 1867 British Act of Parliament? I asked The Goldsmiths' Company about this, and I learned that there was considerable difficulty in enforcing the 1867 act, to the extent that hardly any items of silver are known to bear the "F" mark until the early 1880s. The reason for this is because, as I noted above, there was no provision made to ensure that the law was complied with, and UK agents of Swiss manufacturers continued submitting Swiss made cases for assay without declaring that they were made abroad. The assay offices were not capable of checking this and so the cases were hallmarked as if they were British made, without the foreign "F" mark. This situation continued until 1887 when a new act required a statutory declaration before an officer of an assay office, a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner for oaths of the country of origin for all watch cases submitted for assay, that all imported watch cases be marked "Foreign" and not just with an "F", and that the usual mark of the assay office and the lion passant be replaced with different marks that could not be mistaken for UK hallmarks.

I understand from Adrian that Seeland designed his new cheaper calibres to look like existing British and American models. These watches with a full set of British hallmarks could then be passed off as being British made and thereby command a higher price. At the time, British made watches were regarded as the best available. This was certainly the sort of thing that Seeland would have been capable of doing - perhaps this was why he valued his IWC stock above its market value, he thought the watches could be sold as British made and thereby command a higher price?

Funnily enough, the Seeland Swiss watches are actually unusual in having UK hallmarks at all. Although the clear intention of the UK law since 1842 was that imported watches should be hallmarked, the UK Customs officials misinterpreted the law and thought that watches that were imported complete, that is rather than an empty case, were exempt from hallmarking. This wasn't discovered until 1905, and the law wasn't changed until 1907, so the vast majority of Swiss watches imported into the UK before July 1907 don't have UK hallmarks. You can read more about this on the "Cases and hallmarks" page of my web site.

Regards - David

Excellent reading, thanks.

+1!

Dear David,
Although not particularly horogical, your contribution is considered very important to me, concerning the historical facts around the IWC Seeland watches now 130 years ago. The "travel" of silver watch cases for the Seeland calibers from Schaffhausen to Great Britain and back after British hallmarking, is more than interesting and your guess about this seems to be supported by other(s). However, as more research is necessary I cannot mention details now. I am sure you will understand.
Many thanks for your excellent piece of work.
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).

I found this discussion to be particularly illuminating. Thanks for the education.

Thank you for this very interesting piece of history. It's great to see that so many information is still available and stored for posterity.

Kind regards,

Clemens

Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting.

We continue to learn something interesting about IWC watches every day.
Thank u for the post.

Kevin

Dear Michael,
I knew this fact from Alan Myers, the key researcher for the Jones calibers and the first author of the book on these icon IWC watches to be launched shortly from now. However, I did not find it appropiate to announce on the forum his next project : investigations on the Seeland calibers and the caliber 28 Bascule à Piliers, where this finding is part of.
But now, the case is clear : Ferdinand Seeland sent silver watch cases to Great Britain, to obtain the British markings. Although not allowed, this action was performed by Seeland. A letter on his action has been identified by Alan Myers researching the archives. Once the silver British hallmarked cases returned to Schaffhausen,they were used to build in the IWC Schaffhausen Seeland calibers. After that, most of the now completed watches were sent to Great britain for the local market. The advantages of this procedure has been pointed out by David perfectly.
For many collectors this thread might be not very interesting. For me and a few others it is a piece of history, pointing out the severe struggle of survival that Ferdinand Seeland undertook to save IWC from a second bankcrupty, only a few years after the founder F.A. Jones had failed.
In vain. Seeland had to admit that had failed too, but he did not admit this in public. The role of Ferdinand Seeland is a sad one. In the history of IWC he is described as a crook, manipulating figures. But as far as I know, there has never been one attempt to defend or support him.
Johann Rauschenbach, being in Gastein, where he was taking his waters ( which means that Rauschenbach was involved in a "Spa" treatment enjoying the medicinal water), had to return to Schaffhausen immediately during August 1979. He wrote :
" As you are well aware, our manager F.Seeland went away secretly at the beginning of August , just at the time of stock-taking; in the absence of the board of directors and without informing the company offices, he left with his family on a journey to America."
Already during the same month on August 25, 1879,the district court of of Schaffhausen took action and determined : "Order of confiscation of all furniture, starting with the coach and the horse of F. Seeland. The house is closed by the locksmith Mr. Habricht and the doors are bolted from within. The property( house, fields, garden and vinyard) of Seeland was sold to Russenberger & Sons for 49.500 Swiss Francs. This information has been published in : Tölke and King,IWC, International Watch Co, Schaffhausen.
When I read these words a feeling of sadness comes over me. How little has changed over nearly one and a half century in destructing a part of the life of a man and his family, when he fails in business. The history of Ferdinand Seeland is one that can be seen around you every day. If one fails the verdict may be very harsh!
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).

What a fascinating read. It is the type of information that makes this forum special. Thanks David for bringin it up.
Adrian: it is good to see you're still active and contributing to the heritage of IWC. I do wonder if we will ever learn who Seeland really was.
Peter (who still regret selling his Jones but is happy someone got it who takes good care of it, like you did)

Thank you, an excellent researched and very informative essay, David. Congratulations!
Besides the history of the Seeland watches, you pointed out clearly the difficulties resp. varieties in hallmarking of British silver due to imports until 1907.

@Adrian. I hope you will share betimes the forum your collection of Seeland PWs which I've seen last time. :)

Best regards

A most interesting thread on the conturbated early history of IWC. Thanks Davis and Adrian.

David, Adrian, great reading and yet another angle to the history of IWC we Vintage Collectors, all so revere in studying.

Great post and very timely indeed, for me coming just at a moment I start a restoration project of a Seeland three‐quarter which was produced around 1879 - a Cal. 20 "bascule à pilier".

beautiful piece of history wonderful encapsulated in the timepieces and ably told by historians. thanks for sharing.

I'm glad this was interesting to some people, thanks to everyone who has contributed, and especially thanks to Adrian of course, without who it would never have happened.

This is forming part of a wider research project of mine into the UK hallmarking of foreign watches, which has turned out to be a good deal more interesting, and even surprising, than I thought. When it is finished I hope to write it up, perhaps for publication in the BHI Horological Journal.

To Mark, and to anyone else who has a Seeland watch with UK hallmarks, or any other watch with UK hallmarks come to that, if you would like me to have a look at your hallmarks and tell you what I see, then I am more than happy to do that. You can find my email address via my web site, or just email some pictures of the marks to David [dot] B [dot] Boettcher [at] gmail [dot] com.

Kind regards to everyone! David.

As others have commented, this is truly fascinating reading. Maybe IWC can add it to the FAQ section as an archive article for easy access.

Thanks to David and Adrian and all who added to this thread,

Congrats, a good read indeed. I also have another Pocket Watch full of Enlish Assay marks, a Tschopp-Boston (International Watch Co)...

If it´s of interest, I´d post pictures of this watch, or maybe even start a new thread, as it´s also a watch not seen that often. I know for a fact that Alan Myers has one with the same markings ;-)

Regards

Jimmy

OK Michael, the threads up, just has to be filled with life now ;-)

In 1879 a Select Committee of the UK House of Commons (the lower house of parliament) was set up to look into the hallmarking of foreign items. In its report in May 1879 the committee said:

The chief complaint against the operation of the existing law comes from the manufacturers of watches and watch-case. They have established by evidence that within the last few years a practice has sprung up, and is rapidly increasing, under which foreign-made watch-cases are sent to this country to be Hall-marked with the British Hall-mark, and are afterwards fitted with foreign movements, and are not then unfrequently sold and dealt in as British made watches; and they assert that this not only injures their own reputation and lowers the credit of British workmanship, but is contrary to the spirit and intention of our legislation. The Assay Offices are unable legally to refuse to Hall-mark these foreign watch-cases when brought for assay by registered dealers, though their officials are practically able to distinguish them from cases of British manufacture.

That Parliament has recognised the distinction between foreign and British plate is shown by the provisions of an Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 82, s. 24, which requires all imported plate to be marked before sale with the letter F in an oval escutcheon, "in order to denote that such gold or silver plate was imported from foreign parts, and was not wrought or made in England, Scotland, or Ireland."

Until the practice of Hall-marking foreign watch-cases sprang up, the British Hall-marks were taken to indicate British workmanship, and your Committee cannot doubt that foreign watches in watch-cases so Hall-marked are frequently sold as of British manufacture. The Committee are therefore of opinion that all foreign-made watch-cases assayed in this country ought to be impressed with an additional distinctive mark (the letter F, by reason of its resemblance to existing marks, is not sufficiently distinctive) indicative of foreign manufacture, and that the law ought to be altered accordingly.

It is interesting to note that the report says that the practice of having foreign made watch cases marked with UK hallmarks had started recently (i.e. not long before 1879) and was rapidly increasing.

The committee were concerned that although, since 1867, a letter "F" was legally required to be struck alongside the other UK hallmarks, this was not a sufficiently distinctive mark, and could easily be confused with other marks usually struck in the case. The general public only looked out for the well-known lion symbol and on seeing it assumed that the case, and therefore the watch, was made in the UK. They didn't mention that some foreign manufacturers were still managing to get cases hallmarked without the "F" mark even though this was by then illegal.

The committee recommended that all foreign-made watch-cases be impressed with an additional distinctive mark, and the law was altered later that year so that from 1 January 1888 completely different hallmarks were struck into foreign watch cases, and the lion mark was no longer used.

Are the dates of this report in May 1879 and the disappearance of Seeland in the summer of 1879 just pure coincidence? Or had Seeland built his apparent success on passing off his new designs of watches and their UK hallmarked cases as British, thereby achieving higher prices for them? We shall probably never know, but the coincidences are interesting.

Regards - David

So, David, the real challenge is to look for IWC "Seeland" watches which have besides the British silver marks an additional letter "F". I wonder whether these cases exist!
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).