Community Stories

Calling all Pocket Watch Buffs

TexOmega
Posts
7,942
Likes
57,351
That link states 1902 and the Hamilton ledger pages state it was finished on 12-22-1902 and sold to Watch Inspector agent JW Forsinger of Chicago 5-18-1903


I edited my previous posting to reflect a 1902 production and finishing date
Edited:
 
DaveK
Posts
4,905
Likes
14,838
TexOmega TexOmega
Hamilton also had an upscale 940/41 the grade 943. Priced higher because of the extra fine finish of the movement. Plus, a double roller.

Chamfered, highly polished “flat” head (not domed) screw’s throughout even on the screws holding the gold jewel settings. Also, the whip spring is highly polished and also chamfered.

not many produced not many seen

1902(edit) RR grade 943:

Do we know what these numbers mean?

IMG_0868.jpeg
 
pdxleaf
Posts
5,117
Likes
17,787
DaveK DaveK
Do we know what these numbers mean?

IMG_0868.jpeg

Do they match the last digits in the cuvette?
 
TexOmega
Posts
7,942
Likes
57,351
DaveK DaveK
Do we know what these numbers mean?

IMG_0868.jpeg


The case manufacturers place the last 3 digits of the case serial number on the case body.



Allows a marriage of parts at the factory and a way to track a date for any warranty work.
Edited:
 
Canuck
Posts
14,355
Likes
41,354
In another thread, this morning, the discussion was about travel by train. It was over 50 years between my last significant train trips in Canada (Vancouver to Calgary) and the train trip we took from Amsterdam to Rome, in 2012. I carried a Hamilton 992B on that trip, and I found European trains to be quite punctual. Picture taken on board the train at 125 kmph.

P9184018.jpeg
 
DaveK
Posts
4,905
Likes
14,838
TexOmega TexOmega
Rockford Watch Co
16s RR grade 545 model #5
Year: 1903

Good looking watch!
 
Waltesefalcon
Posts
3,470
Likes
9,407
I've been wearing my 121 year old Hamilton 940 since last Friday (six days). This morning, checking it against naval observatory time, I observed that it has gained eleven seconds since I first started wearing it. I don't think that's too shabby.

20240815_100455.jpg
 
TexOmega
Posts
7,942
Likes
57,351
And, about as far opposite as possible from the quality of that 940….
A Garland for Ball, made by Record in Switzerland AND pendant set.😵‍💫::facepalm1::

but a good example to have in a collection to measure against real RR grade pocket watches.
 
IMG_5081.jpeg IMG_5080.jpeg IMG_5079.jpeg
Canuck
Posts
14,355
Likes
41,354
I did some work on a Ball/Record pocket watch for a friend several years ago. At one point, I thought I might want one of these models (435C?), but after working on the one I referred to, I no longer want one. It appeared to me as though the Record company copied several features of the 992B regarding how they were jewelled. And I found the pivot sizes to be tinier and less robust than the Hamilton product. The result of this was a broken lower conical pivot on the escape wheel! Try to find a replacement escape wheel for one of these! 🤦 It took me a while, but I came up with a solution for the problem. But I told the owner of the watch I never wanted to see it again!
 
Canuck
Posts
14,355
Likes
41,354
Time to “wake up” the pocket watch thread. I’ll repeat pictures of one from my collection that might be one of my five favourites from my collection. This one is a 19-jewel, grade 952 Hamilton. It is the little sister to the venerable Hamilton grade 950 (and 950B) which are 23-jewel models. This one is in its original gold filled case with hinged bezel, hinged back, and hinged cuvette. I acquired this watch about 40 years ago. Relative to most of the Hamilton 16-size railroad grades, this one is quite a low production model. I am of the impression that some time service rules didn’t accept cases with hinged bezel and back. But otherwise, this one has everything it needs to be railroad standard. The pocketwatchdatabase lists that there were 7,300 grade 952 movements produced, and they are listed as railroad approved. The data base lists this one as having been produced circa 1910. There were three models of the grade 952 movement made. This one is an example of the first model. Later models were designed to make the watch simpler to service regarding mainspring changes, and as with from 4 dial feet to 3 dial feet.

https://pocketwatchdatabase.com/search/result/hamilton/753325


P5137161.jpeg P5137158.jpeg P1146681.jpeg P1146678.jpeg
Edited:
 
TexOmega
Posts
7,942
Likes
57,351
Canuck Canuck
I did some work on a Ball/Record pocket watch for a friend several years ago. At one point, I thought I might want one of these models (435C?), but after working on the one I referred to, I no longer want one. It appeared to me as though the Record company copied several features of the 992B regarding how they were jewelled. And I found the pivot sizes to be tinier and less robust than the Hamilton product. The result of this was a broken lower conical pivot on the escape wheel! Try to find a replacement escape wheel for one of these! 🤦 It took me a while, but I came up with a solution for the problem. But I told the owner of the watch I never wanted to see it again!


I had a 435 (17j) and wanted this 433 (17j) to slot into my later day Ball collection. And it really has a nice dial. And times well.

From my understanding, the 435B and 435C are 21j and were actually accepted as RR grade in the mid 1950's.

The US regulations always specifically excluded Swiss made pws from being even considered as RR grade, so I guess the regulations changed around that time.
 
IMG_5100.jpeg IMG_5101.jpeg IMG_5102.jpeg IMG_5103.jpeg IMG_5099.jpeg
Canuck
Posts
14,355
Likes
41,354
TexOmega TexOmega
I had a 435 (17j) and wanted this 433 (17j) to slot into my later day Ball collection. And it really has a nice dial. And times well.

From my understanding, the 435B and 435C are 21j and were actually accepted as RR grade in the mid 1950's.

The US regulations always specifically excluded Swiss made pws from being even considered as RR grade, so I guess the regulations changed around that time.

Time service regulations DID change after the last U S based manufacturer of railroad standard pocket watches (Hamilton) ceased manufacture of pocket watches. Railroad standard wrist watches had been available for about 7 or 8 years when Hamilton folded. There was still a market for pocket watches at this time, so the Record/Ball models were it! Plus, the fact that most of the railroad standard wrist watches were Swiss made. One of the earliest U S made railroad standard watches to be introduced being the Hamilton Electric Railroader which was such a colossal failure, acceptance of the Swiss product was ordained.
 
Canuck
Posts
14,355
Likes
41,354
TexOmega TexOmega
The 435 series both B and C had serial numbers unlike their 17j brethren also.

With the Swiss Incabloc shock proofing system employed in the Ball/Record models, this should have been a major advance in reliability. But the railroad standard pocket watch was unable to withstand the onslaught of the railroad standard wrist watch. I think the Ball corporation were major proponents of the railroad standard wrist watch (witness the Ball Trainmaster ORRS wrist watch which had Swiss-made ETA self-winding movements). I have numerous Swiss made railroad standard wrist watches. All battery powered, including many Accutron 214 and 218 models, and two quartz models with the ETA 955.xxx movements in them. I don’t own a mechanical, Swiss made railroad standard wrist watch. And when and if I acquire one, I hope it will be a manual wind Universal Geneva railroad model.

I think the die hard railroader who had always used a pocket watch was retiring or dying off, so this contributed to the downfall of the pocket watch. Younger railroaders were more accepting of wrist watches. That, plus time service rules were changing, and watchmakers who were able to maintain the older railroad standard watches were retiring, or dying off. And the older ones were rapidly becoming obsolete.

The Ball/Record model shown by @TexOmega is unique in one regard. One case screw is right hand thread, while the other is a left hand thread!
 
431 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...