“Time and tide wait for no man,” an old English proverb reminds us. While the passage of time and the forces of nature remain beyond human control, mankind has long sought ways to measure and understand its relentless progression. From the great public clocks that governed civic life to the increasingly sophisticated timepieces of the early modern period, the history of timekeeping reflects centuries of scientific ingenuity and craftsmanship. Among these inventions, none proved more influential in bringing time into the hands of the individual than the pocket watch.

The earliest portable watches appeared in Europe during the sixteenth century, following earlier developments in large mechanical clocks for churches, town halls, and domestic interiors. These early watches were costly objects, admired for their ingenuity and decorative cases, but their accuracy was limited. They were first and foremost luxury possessions, owned by those who could afford both the mechanism and the craftsmanship required to produce them.

A major advance in the history of timekeeping was made by the Dutch mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695). In 1656, he developed the pendulum clock, which greatly improved the precision of stationary clocks. Nearly two decades later, in 1675, Huygens devised the spiral balance spring for portable timepieces, an innovation that significantly increased their accuracy and laid the foundation for the modern watch. The first examples were constructed in Paris by the renowned clockmaker Isaac Thuret (c. 1630-1706), whose technical skill transformed Huygens’ theoretical design into a practical reality. Although Huygens and Thuret later became embroiled in a dispute over credit for the invention, their collaboration illustrates the close relationship between scientific innovation and skilled craftsmanship in the development of early watches.

The improved accuracy made possible by the balance spring contributed significantly to the growing popularity of the pocket watch. By the eighteenth century, it had become a visible symbol of refinement, prosperity, and punctuality, carried by merchants, gentlemen, scientists, and travelers alike. As production increased and prices gradually declined, pocket watches became more accessible throughout the century, and by its end they were owned by a broad segment of society, particularly the urban middle classes.

When not being worn, early pocket watches were suspended from decorative wall hooks or furniture-mounted brackets known in France as crochets porte-montre or crochets de montre. Introduced during the seventeenth century, these simple supports allowed owners to display their valuable timepieces within the home while keeping them readily accessible. As pocket watches gained popularity and the desire to display them grew, these functional hooks gradually evolved into more elaborate porte-montres, or watch stands. The majority were produced in wood. An early example is a watch stand from the personal collection of King Louis XIV (1638–1715), of France (Fig. 1). Throughout the eighteenth century, freestanding watch stands were produced not only in carved wood but also in a variety of more luxurious materials, including gilt bronze, silver, and ceramics. While examples in gilt bronze and silver reflected the growing demand for costly luxury goods, ceramic watch stands, despite their inherent fragility, also gained increasing popularity. Their decorative appeal and the opportunity they offered for artistic display evidently outweighed the practical disadvantages of a more delicate material.

It is possible that France, as an important center for the production of watch stands, also played a role in the development of faience examples. A Rouen faience watch stand, dating to around 1730, suggests that ceramic interpretations of the form were already being produced in France during the first half of the eighteenth century. Whether France was the first to produce ceramic watch stands remains uncertain, however, as a Viennese porcelain example dating to around 1725 is also known.

Following this broader European development, Delft potters produced their own tin-glazed earthenware versions of the fashionable watch stand, although no surviving Delft examples appear to predate about 1760. Most extant Delft watch stands date from the Rococo period and reflect the exuberant asymmetry and playful ornamentation characteristic of the style. Among the most popular models is one featuring several young boys climbing over and hanging from the framework of the stand (Fig. 2). Produced in a number of closely related variations, these watch stands are generally unattributed, and the factory responsible for the original design remains unknown.

A particularly elaborate polychrome example with a unique design formerly in the Aronson collection demonstrates how successfully this fashionable model was translated in Delft faience (Fig. 3). Its richly modeled Rococo ornament, lively polychrome decoration, and carefully framed circular aperture transformed a practical support for a pocket watch into an elegant decorative object.

Not all Delft watch stands, however, followed the Rococo idiom. A later blue-and-white example in the Louis XVI style, which is on view in the Princessehof, Leeuwarden (Fig. 4) reflects the changing taste of the final decades of the eighteenth century. The exuberant curves and animated figures of the Rococo gave way to a more restrained and symmetrical design, illustrating how Delft potters continued to adapt the watch stand to contemporary fashions.

As independent objects, watch stands were most commonly displayed on a mantelpiece or commode, where they combined the practical function of supporting a pocket watch with an ornamental role in the interior. During the eighteenth century, however, Delft potters also produced more elaborate compositions in which the watch stand was incorporated into an inkstand, following a fashionable European type (Fig. 5). By combining the watch holder with writing implements, these multifunctional objects found a natural place on the writing desk or in a gentleman’s study, where they united practicality with fashionable display.

Even rarer are ceramic models of pocket watches themselves. Carefully moulded and painted to imitate contemporary metal watches, these trompe l’oeil objects reproduce the characteristic convex case, suspension loop, and painted dial, while one example proudly bear the inscription “DELFT” (Fig. 6). It has generally been assumed that they were intended to occupy the aperture of a watch stand when the owner’s pocket watch was being worn, thereby preserving the visual completeness of the display.

Although ceramic watch models are often associated with Dutch Delftware, the earliest example presently known is an English Delftware model bearing the initials MD and dated 1696. The origin of this remarkable object type therefore remains uncertain. The earliest surviving Delft examples are of a later date, suggesting that the idea may already have been established elsewhere before being adopted by Delft potters.

Surviving ceramic watch models are exceptionally rare. Besides the early English example, only six Dutch Delft examples are currently recorded, all polychrome: one in a German private collection, one in the collection of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, an example in the Royal Museum for Art and History in Brussels and three in the Aronson collection (Figs. 6 and 7). Their function has never been documented in contemporary sources, and whether they indeed served as substitutes for pocket watches remains a plausible, though as yet unproven, interpretation.

Although many questions surrounding the origin and function of these remarkable objects remain unanswered, the Delft examples demonstrate how rapidly potters responded to new fashions and technological innovations by translating pocket watches and their accessories into faience. They not only testify to the creativity and ingenuity of Delft potters, but also illustrate the profound cultural significance of the pocket watch during the eighteenth century. Their rarity and the limited number of known examples underscore the need for further study.

Notes

1. Landes, David S. Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983. Revised edition, 2000, p. 87
2. Landes, 2000, p. 116
3. Landes, 2000, p. 125
4. Ibidem
5. Bernd Bauer (ed.), Taschenuhrständer, Pocket-Watch Stands, Porte-montre, Stuttgart, 2024, p. 11
6. Bauer, 2024, p. 240
7. Bauer, 2024, p. 386
8. This stand is depicted in Bauer, 2024 on p. 240
9. Bauer, 2024, p. 299
10. Bauer, 2024, p. 293
11. Depicted in Louis L. Lipski and Michael Archer, Dated English Delftware, Sotheby’s Publications, London, 1984, p. 418, no 1754
12. The first is depicted in: Bauer, 2024, p. 248, no 476 and the second in: D.C. Mees, Kunstnijverheid en Tegels 1600-1800, 1997, p. 194, no B 235