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 assigned 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 cock 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] assigned 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 associated 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 manuscript 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.
[Illustration: 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 associates
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.
[Illustration: 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, Massachusetts,[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 assigned 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, assigned 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.
[Illustration: 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 passes 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 mass production, although still basically the same.
[Illustration: 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."
[Illustration: Figure 10.--WILLIAM B. FOWLE, sponsor of the Auburndale
Watch Co., after an engraving in S. F. Smith, _History of Newton,
Massachusetts_ (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.
[12] Crossman, _op. cit._ (footnote 8), January 1888,
p. 32.
[13] _Ibid._, p. 33.
[14] William B. Fowle's "Cash book," commenced January 1,
1873, and closed February 21, 1882, plus "Cash Book #5
Leaves 1 to 20 inclusive. All that were used up to my
failure on August 4, 1883," are in the author's
possession. They contain many entries on the "Watch
Adventure" and later "Aub Watch Co." mixed in with other
entries referring to everything from killing pigs to
extensive stock, bond, and real estate transactions.
[15] U. S. Patent Office digest of assignments, vol. H9V,
p. 13, stored at Franconia, Virginia, Accession no.
57A393.
[16] _Ibid._, p. 76.
[17] August 26, 1876, p. 2., under the heading of Waltham
Items, "Signs of a revival of business at the Watch
Works in Waltham."