TechnicalThe equation work operates on the differential principle, the mean time and solar time being shown by the two minute hands. Throughout the year, the variation between the two hands is automatic, but initial or resetting is accomplished by the calendar dial on the reverse of the movement in the following manner: a key is applied to the square in the centre of the enamel "month" dial on the back plate and turned until the required month on the silver month dial is opposite the indicator point. Theblack triangular pointer at the edge of the same month, on the enamel dial is then aligned alongside the correct date. There is a gap in the date circle between 31 and 1, equal in arc to two months on the enamel month disc, and the months run in an alternating sequence. Therefore, with the triangular date pointers so placed as to take account of months of differing lengths, the calendar is correct for four years (29th February being the only exception).AttributionThe historical context of the watch is discussed below, but the following details, noted when the movement was dismantled for cleaning, are of considerable interest. Scratched on the underside of the barrel, beneath the gilding, but still visible, is the name "Mu..e 7/2. The name was obviously scratched onto the barrel during construction, but not completely erased by the fire gilding and finishing. On the equation wheel is scratched through the gilding "Taylor Inve". Little is known of this makr, except a signed watch with a fine enamel balance spring regulator index, and similar watches signed Mudge, Ellicott etc.; it is thought that he worked with or for the leading precision watchmakers of the day. Apart from the above, and the general overall quality of the watch, attention may be drawn to the "bridge" balance cock, a feature that Mudge is known to have used (watch No. 318, HM 1756), but was otherwise virtually unknown amongst his English contemporaries. The mainspring is a fairlyearly replacement signed Berthoud.HistoricalExcluding the watch now offered for sale, four equation watches, all signed Ellicott, but firmly attributable to Mudge, are known. None of the four are hallmarked, and only two are numbered (not unusual in view of their experimental nature). However comparison withEllicott's known work provides a reasonable estimate as to the date for these two:- Unnumbered: Ex. Webster sale, Sotheby's, May 1954, lot 216. Gold cases.- Unnumbered: Ex. Sotheby's, October 1988, lot 246, now in the British Museum. Gilt brass, inner case only.- No. 2700: Private collection. Illustrated in Daniels & Clutton Watches, 1st ed. 1965, fig. 262-5. Gold cases. Circa 1748-1750.- No. 5060: Private Collection, circa 1762-1763.THOMAS MUDGE's relationships with John Ellicott, Ferdinand IV King of Spain, and a certain Michael Smith, watchmaker, have been catalogued in various books and articles, and the Richard Gregg watch clearly links into the story. According to the Universal Magazine of July 17951, Ellicott, having been commissioned to make, but unable to complete, an equation watch for the King of Spain, asked Mudge to carry out the work. Ellicott was much esteemed in Spain, and the signing of another maker's workas perfectly acceptable. The article continues with the story of how the watch was damaged, and Ellicott was forced to admit that Mudge had made it and was the only man to repair it. Confirmation that Mudge was indeed the maker is provided by two letters from the aforementioned Michael Smith to Mudge, dated July 1752 and December 17572. In the first, he affirms his own position as "Watchmaker to His Catholic Majesty the King of Spain"3, talks of his recent visit to Mudge's workshop whilst in Lonon, and mentions seeing "part of a movement that is intended to shew ye Equation of the sun such as you made for Ellicott, which the King has here at present...". Smith continues by saying that he has told his Majesty about the watch and recommended Mudge to the King and several courtiers, expecting this to bring orders. In conclusion he surmises that "Ellicott will be Greatly vexed for my Recommending you....". The second letter, dated 1757, describes the King's satisfaction with a quarter-repeting watch made by Mudge upon Smith's instructions, and goes on to order a minute-repeater.RICHARD GREGG can be directly linked to Smith and the Spanish court by the existence of a remarkable miniature grande sonnerie bracket clock with balance wheel escapement and signed "Richard Gregg London, Por Orden de Miguel Smith Madrid"4. It seems that this complex clock is no more likely to have been the work of Gregg's own hand than the equation watch, even if the technical evidence for the latter being by Mudge is discounted. The question therefore arises as to how he was able to commissionsuch exceptional pieces for his own account, from masters among his peers.The answer must surely lie with Gregg's connections and the location of his premises: St. James's Palace was the official London residence of the King at the time, and Gregg's acquired premises in St. James's Street in 1742 and an appointment as watchmaker to the King and Keeper of the Palace Clocks. The survival of a superb watch5, with case decorated by the French artist Aglae Cadet, and dial enamelled with the arms of Charlotte Windsor, wife of Lord Viscount Windsor, further reinforces the imortance of his situation. There is at present no information as to the identity of the client for whom Gregg ordered this watch, but as previously mentioned, the current mainspring is signed Berthoud, indicating that the watch was on the continent shortly after its completion.1 Universal Magazine, July 1795, pp. 42-43. also George Daniels: Antiquarian Horology, V, No. 11, June 1968, p. 396.2 A. J. Turner, A. C. Crisford: Two Letters Addresssed To Thomas Mudge, Antiquarian Horology, X, No. 5, Winter 1977, p. 580.3 Michael (Miguel) Smith was an Irish watchmaker from Kilkenny, living in Spain and appointed Court Clockmaker in 1752 at 30,000 reales per annum.4 Illustrated in Antiquarian Horology, I, No. 12, September 1956, p. iv.5 Pierpont-Morgan Collection, Metropolitan Museum, New York.