Ainda a questão sobre quem inventou o relógio automático, já por nós abordada várias vezes, nomeadamente aqui. Agora, e em primeira mão para Portugal, a recensão do investigador norte-americano Fortunat F. Mueller-Maerki ao livro The Origin of Selfwinding Watches – 1773-1779, do australiano Richard Watkins, a que aqui fizemos referência.
A Systematic review of the Evidence on WHO invented WHEN and WHERE the Self-Winding Watch
The Origin of Selfwinding Watches – 1773-1779. By Richard Watkins. Published December 2013 by the Author, in an initial print run of 100 copies primarily for horological research libraries, and released January 2014 as a free download pdf-file at (http://www.watkinsr.id.au/Origins.html). Vi & 264 pages, hardcover. 244 illustrations (Images and reproduced historic documents, plus numerous decorative vignettes from ‘Dubois 1849’). Four appendices (ten documents, including a bibliography of 135 primary and secondary sources, and 22 tertiary sources, and the first publication of an extensive list of Neuchâtel case maker used by the Dubois organization 1758-1824 (and their marks). A print on demand version in English may be forthcoming, and translations of the book into French and German editions are under consideration.
Ever since 1952, when Alfred Chapuis and Eugene Jaquet published « La Montre Automatique Ancienne, un Siècle et Demi d’Histoire 1770-1931 » (Neuchatel: Editions du Griffon, (and the English language edition 1956: The History of the Self-winding Watch 1770-1931, London: B. T. Batsford) the early history of the self-winding watch seemed a settled case. Chapuis/Jaquet reached the conclusion that a certain Le Locle (Neuchatel, Switzerland) based watchmaker named Abram-Louys Perrelet was the inventor of the rotor-driven selfwinding watch in the early 1770s. The Chapuis book was triggered by the 1949 ‘discovery’ (by the French watchmaker Leon Leroy) of a historic, center-rotor, unsigned pocket watch, and fueled by the recent mass market launch of that design for wristwatches by Rolex.
Literally at the same time the French language 1st edition was being printed, Chapuis also seems to have become aware that the Belgian horologist Hubert Sarton had published a pamphlet (ca.1789) describing his invention of a self-winding watch. Chapuis decided to add a loose sheet (labeled ‘addenda in extremis’, with instructions to paste it between pages 62 and 63 of his 1951 book) describing Sarton's claim. (In this reviewers experience many surviving copies lack the pasted-in addendum). By the time the English edition of Chapuis was published (1956) he had just become aware of the 1778 report to the French ‘Academie des Sciences’ concerning Sarton’s watch, and again, time to digest the added knowledge was short; it appears that a chapter on the Paris report describing the center rotor was added to the English edition of Chapuis, without adjusting any other conclusions. [Coincidently, most of the French and the English speakers studying the issue in recent decades never became aware of the discrepancy between the two language editions, causing further confusion and misunderstandings between the two camps].
In 1993, the French horological historian Joseph Flores ‘rediscovered’ first the original report by the French Accademie in their archives, as well as a few years later the supporting sketch, about the ‘Sarton Watch’. From these documents the ‘Sarton watch’ described in the Accademie documents could well even be identical with the watch ‘discovered’ by Leroy in 1949 (which is currently in the Patek Museum). Much of the horological literature of the second half to the 20th century has just repeated Chapuis conclusion, without reexamining the original documents, and Flores found few readers interested in an alternative storyline.
In all fairness, there are several factors and issues that make it very challenging to disentangle the various facts, opinions and storylines, and to reach a reasonable conclusion:
• The decentralized system of watch manufacturing in the Neuchatel mountains in the late 1700s was dominated by ‘wholesalers’ (particularly the ‘Dubois’ organization) who used various independent craftsmen/watchmakers (such as Perrlet).
• Most Neuchatel craftsmen usually did NOT sign their pieces.
• Most of the Dubois order books, and many of their production records survive, but until the 2013 effort by Watkins nobody had systematically examined them line by line.
• In addressing this issue it is inexcusable – as some other publications do- to look only at one type of selfwinder, as the steps in inventing and improving the various types influenced each others development.
• Undoubtedly, A.-L. Perrelet made some ’selfwinding’ watches, but so far no hard evidence has been discovered that he specifically made any center-rotor selfwinders.
• The ‘center rotor’ at the time of the pocket watch was a sub-optimal technology that – deservedly- never gained much traction and of which only five1880s known samples seem to have survived.
• The Swiss watch industry in general (and the Rolex enterprises in particular) obviously have no incentive to rectify the Perrelet center-rotor myth created by the Chapuis 1951 edition (and furthermore there seems to be evidence that they - at various times in the second half of the 20th century - took active steps to obscure the history of automatic watches).
• The concept of a single ’inventor’ is inherently an imprecise one. What do we mean by ‘inventor’? Do we mean the person who developed a concept, or the craftsman who built it? Sarton for instance could have thought up the central-rotor and have had some made by any Neuchatel craftsman (or by a craftsman somewhere else).
• The fact that in 2013 the generally respected French watch historian J.C. Sabrier published a long awaited major new book on the history of the self-winding watch, but inexplicably managed to completely avoid dealing with the issues raised by Flores over the last 20 years did not make the situation any easier.
But the Australian watch historian Richard Watkins, known primarily for his online editions of a major bibliography the of watch literature, and his several translations of historic French horological texts into English (all available at www.watkinsr.id.au ) rose to the challenge and decided to try to get to the bottom of this controversy. He spent many weeks in 2012 photographing the historic archives of Dubois in Le Locle, and carefully rereading all the various languages editions of the relevant historic publications for details and inconsistencies.
The book under review lays out all the available evidence, and then systematically tries to determine the most plausible way to fit all the documentary evidence together. Watkins reaches the conclusion that the most likely key player in creating the center rotor automatic in the 1780s is Hubert Sarton. Watkins is a most methodical and thorough researcher. His book features countless citations from his 235 primary source documents listed in his bibliographic appendix.
While it is possible – although in the opinion of this reviewer implausible – to construct alternative scenarios from the totality of the cited sources, now that Watkins’ book has been published, any new publication on this subject reaching a different conclusion better have a solid foundation in primary evidence that matches the standard set by the book under review.
This book, freely accessibly as a printable pdf-file as a no-fee download at the authors website (http://www.watkinsr.id.au/Origins.html) is a “must-read” addition to the library of any serious watch historian.
Fortunat F. Mueller-Maerki, Sussex NJ 31 January 2014
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário