Dating initials on watch

[horselydown86]

I have taken a look through some documents from 1774.

It's not hard to find handwriting wherein the I and J are identical - such as the attached from a PR in Cornwall.  However, note that this is a J form serving as an I.

In print - attached is the Westminster Poll Book of that year - the letters are distinct and of broadly modern form.

Given that the watch engraving is such an uncompromising block style, I would say it's unlikely to be intended as a J, unless it's using the Latin form of the name (as Viktoria has suggested).

[BushInn1746]

Hello Richard

Think it is a letter I

Mark?
There is an asterisk between the letters and I'm wondering if it is a Mark, rather than a person's initials?

Mark

[BushInn1746]

In catalogues Watchmaker's Marks are two or three letters.

[AJ100]

The lettering is in keeping with the date of the watch and, at that time, I was used as a J so could well be John. I've come across it many times in genealogical research.
AJ

[Richard Knott]

These initials are engraved onto the back of a watch made in London by Benjamin Maud in 1774. I think it probably belonged to John Brown, a successful leather hose pipe maker who died in 1824 aged about 70.

Thanks for all your replies.
These are definitely the owner's initials (see original post for date/maker of the watch) and I am confident that they are John Brown's. I have seen I used for J all over the place at that time (builders' initials over doors; spelling of 'majesty' as 'maiestie' and 'John' as 'Iohn' - not just 'Iohannes').
My concern was whether they belonged to the John Brown who died in 1824 or his grandson who died in the 1870s, and had hoped that the style of the letters would help. I am increasingly sure that they must have belonged to the older John who may have been given the watch on his 21st birthday (the dates are about right) or have bought it when he inherited some money in 1781. I hope that's not just wishful thinking!
Richard