t 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