Do you know the source of that clipping? It is an interesting read. My great-grandpa worked in a shop in rural Washington state, so trends could be different in various parts of the state.

 

@TexOmega ,

How apropos! Where and when (and how) did you manage to come by that gem? I suppose many wrist watch wearers eschew pocket watches. Their right, I guess. But I suspect that many of we pocket watch wearers also wear wrist watches! Proof we are more open minded!

 

Right click on image and then click do a web search


Appears I saved it from WUS

 

Aha! It would appear as though that idea works in Windows 10, but not in IOS on an iPad. Next time I’m at the computer, I’ll try that. Come to think of it, that technique might be the reason there are so many wizards at solving rebus puzzles on the rebus forum! Hmmm! Thanks for the tip, @TexOmega .

 

They may say they shun or dislike pocket watches, but almost all of them still carry one, although modern pocket watches are quite different than the ones of old.

 

I have not seen a Tremont yet

 

Now there is an unusual watch. I have never seen a Tremont. The skinny.

https://pocketwatchdatabase.com/search/result/tremont-watch-co/2202

From Michael Harrolds book American Watchmaking, a Technical History of the American Watch Industry 1850-1930:

Aaron Denison put together the Tremont company as an attempt to avoid expensive American labour. Escapements balances gear trains and fine parts were made in Switzerland then mated with heavy brass and steel parts made in Boston. This was a successful business and the owners concluded to build the entire watch, moving to the Boston suburb of Melrose. The Melrose watch Company got out some watches but expenses rapidly overran financial resources and the operation closed. Tremont operated from 1864, to 1866. Melrose Watch Co. operated from 1866 until 1868.

According to the Shugart, Engel, and Gilbert 2014 edition, Tremont made about 5,000 watches. Truly a limited edition, this one. Is it me, or does this watch have earmarks of early Walthams? Note the Liverpool Windows”. Aquamarine? Rock crystal?

 

Didn't they produce Bulova Accutron pendant? Not sure if that would qualify as pocket watch, I mean it is a pendant so obviously not, but it is not on the wrist lol

 

The Accutron 218 was made as a pocket watch. I don’t see them very often.

 

Figure since we are pocket watch collectors. Mite under stand why this one wrist watch is sort of also important to pocket watch collectors. If any one knows how Waltham started was Denison and Davis started it. And Denison left and started Tremont watch co and Melrose watch co and those businesses did not do well and Denison got into watch case manufacturing in England. In the beginning of WW2 about the time of the battle of Britain this was like Denison and Waltham came back together for one last time two companies there were once one this is a watch issued to the RAF with a Waltham 870 movement and a Denison case and think it's a impotent watch due to Denison connection to Waltham even though Denison was gone from this earth the time a Waltham Movement and a Denison case came together for WW2.

 

I recently serviced one of these for a friend. These have a Waltham 6/0 size 617 S S, or 621 S S (17 or 21 jewels) movement in them. The one I did for my friend was supplied to RCAF personnel, and his had a broken centre sweep seconds pinion in it. Try to find one of those! I don’t remember if the case was a Dennison, or something else. Finally, Paul Krichten of Hamiltonmilitarymarineparts.com of Finksburg (MD.) was able to supply the pinion (thanks to Paul). Needless to say my friend was thrilled! The dial on this one was marked RCAF, but I don’t remember if or how the case back might have been marked. Neato!

 

The 870 movement is small they sort of have a spacer for it to fit right in the Denison case. Had a photo of the movement but lost it due to photobucket screwing it all up. Lost a lot of photo's due to moving away from photobucket when they started messing up. So had to retake some photo's of some pocket watches to post here my photo skills use to be better I guess age has a lot to do with crappy photo's now.

 

Canuck I got a RAF print out on info and specs of my issued Waltham I can PM it to you if you want it. It was posted at another forum the poster had his water mark on it so don't want to post it here sort of his only to post on a forum.

 

These images from my 1948 Waltham parts catalog. The movement in the one I did for my friend (the 6/0 size, 617 SS) is shown, as well as the caliber 870 you mentioned. The catalog tells me that the calibre 870 was made with a subsidiary seconds hand, as well as a centre sweep hand. There is also an image of the parts used on these two different versions of the 870 movement.

 

Here is the thread with the info the the military specs.
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/sho...III-(6B-234)-wristwatch&highlight=Waltham+870

 

Here is a old photo of mine of movement and inside case back. See why I hate photobucket. One of the case back serial numbers also matches one on the lugs.

 

That movement is the same one as the one I referred to. It is the 6/0 size, grade 617 or 621.

 

Illinois
12s 17j grade 525 Marquis Autocrat
Square spade hands
Killer applied numerals with pin striped dial
Illinois white gf case
Circa 1923




Just an esthetically pleasing, well designed pocket watch in and out.

 

That one appears to have a motor, or safety barrel. The American watch companies did some interesting things with these 12-size watches, aesthetically. Very sharp,

 

How many of you have the same gripe as I have, regarding the stupidity of some watchmakers. My gripe is this. I have a Hamilton 952, 19-jewel version of the venerable Hamilton 950. This basic movement shares much with the Hamilton 992. Early versions of the base movement had 4 dial feet, and (of course) 4 dial screws. Later version have only three dial feet, and 3 dial screws. My gripe is this. My 952 has damage at the edge of the dial, near the two. It is also an early version of the 952 which has 4 dial screws, not 3. The damage to the dial is right near one of the dial screws. Some hamfisted SOB was (apparently) taking it apart, and wondered why the dial wouldn’t lift at that point! Guess what! He must have discovered the 4th screw after the dial was damaged!




Same goes with my Hamilton 950, another early one with 4 dial screws. Only with this one, the damage is closer to the 1 on the edge of the dial. Same hack watchmaker?