So my watchmaker has this, and the serial number appears to be from the 1900s, maybe 1903, 1905, somewhere around there. I thought wristwatches weren't a thing then. Can anyone confirm the originality of this piece?

 

enamel dial and a very early example of a wrist watch when features/technology from pocket watches migrated to the wrist.

Cherish that undamaged and fragile enamel dial.


The serial points to early 1900's and yes, wrist watches were a thing then, uncommon, mostly in Europe and mostly for women and foppish, fashion forward gents.

I don't believe this is a conversion, but will let others more qualified answer that.

It was WWI that brought wrist watches to the mainstream for men.

 

I love such historical pieces. Mansfield Ohio is an old run down city now. I wonder what it was like then, and what this watch has seen.

 

Others know exponentially more, but I feel that this may be the 15''' NN movement with "C" fine finishing.
I agree with Tex that it doesn't appear to be a conversion but I wonder if the nickel case was married to the movement later, perhaps in the States, where nickel was more commonly used.
The case is numbered but without a logo, others will be able to read more into it.
We need @Tire-comedon , @OMTOM, @JimInOz and some of the oldies lovers to give us some insight.

You mentioned your watchmaker has it, do you own it?
If not and he is selling may I be added to the queue (dibs, in a way)?

 

They needed their hands free.


Which has generated more inventions, war or peace?

 

Very nice....Here is another one very similar that sold recently.

 

We know Omega made their first wrist watch in 1900 and by 1906 they were advertising wrist watches for ladies and gets.

However (my guess) is that this was a movement made for the American market, as evidenced by the style of decoration applied to the plates which is similar to that used on US made watches of the period (Waltham Elgin Hamilton et al). It would have been imported and cased in the US in a Hunter case, not a Lépine (due to the movement configuration).
It was later re-cased as a wrist watch with the addition of the wire lugs and possible removal of the front lid. The lugs are quite wide which wasn't the fashion in the very early 1900s, straps were generally narrower. The large pendant/stem tube is also a pointer to a conversion where the crown (not original) is retained but the bow and pendant have been removed.

Watches were often re-cased as fashions changed and people weren't quite into disposable technology so reusing a perfectly good watch made perfectly good sense.

Note: These are just my impressions and I welcome any debate on the points I've raised.

Caliber is probably a 15''' as @UncleBuck noted, but a measurment of the movement diameter would help to confirm that.

It's a nice piece, I wouldn't mind one like it.

 

From the images shown of the watch, I don’t think there’s any way of dating it. I agree with gator and JimInOz:

Movements were made in batches and used as required, sometimes many years later. Although the movement could date from 1903, it might not have appeared in a watch until at least 10 years later.

The case is not Omega. The case number does not correspond – and Omega cases were never marked ‘NICKEL’ like this.

Both the dial and movement shown by Raymondo are interestingly similar (a higher grade of movement of course). The movements in both watches are typical of Omega exports to the US (with the decorated plates and ‘SWISS’ marked next to the balance cock.

Chapter 2 of AJTT (pp.54 – 58) shows some early pocket watches (even from 1896, 1897, 1901, 1903 etc) with similar dials (even with red 5 – 60 markings) – albeit not identical. One of these even has an American case.

To answer the OP, I think the movement (and dial/hands) are original, the case is not Omega. It is not possible to date the movement – and certainly not possible to know how it started life and when it was cased here. The best chance of dating would be from the inscription – such as the link that gator offers.

Regarding UncleBuck’s comment, I agree with the implication. The technical developments during wartime have sometimes been incredible – look at the developments in aviation over just 2 or 3 years of WWI as an example. But then you run into the problems of development without co-operation (because other possible contributing nations might be ‘on the other side’!).

 

That's about it Knafel, great insight from Tom, Jim and Evan, some of the top collectors in the world.
Your piece is special to warrant their work. Special in beauty, condition and history.
It's value lies in the story and the history.
It's hard to wear because it's fragile, don't crack that dial!
These sell for a couple hundred and if it was mine, I'd research Loesch and get a million dollars worth of Karma and heart telling (and maybe presenting) his Great-grandson this fabulous piece.
Thanks for sharing, I hope your still with us.

 

WWII was even more extreme, we started with biplanes and ended with rockets and nukes.
WWI was horses and swords ending with tanks and machine guns.

 

Pornography...

 

Agreed -- My 5 minute googling suggests that there is still a number of Loeschs in Mansfield (including a 102 year old and a 91 year old!). That cannot be THAT common of a name, right?

Anyone want to bet this is the man's grave? The birth-year would seem to fit...

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/157299726/michael-loesch

 

This is the movement in my Omega trench.



Tom

 

Well, thought I'd jump in here to update.
This lovely watch has found its way to my collection this week.
Pretty neat to be doing a bit of research and actually run across pics of the actual item being researched!

Thanks to all for the shared knowledge. When I received it the first thing I did was Crack open OJTT myself to have a look-see at other period items. What an sweet little treasure.

Thanks again, and this just again shows why I should spend more time in here.

 

This was on the Omega Enthusiast's youtube channel this recently

 

I’m sorry but I find the claims made in this video are very questionable.

Firstly, the ‘claimed’ dating is apparently based on the movement number – which (as explained above) is no guide to the dating of a watch.

Secondly, we are sadly shown no case number – the only way to date the watch.

Thirdly, this style of ‘cushion-shaped’ case was introduced considerably later.

Finally, the video asks “Have you ever wondered what the earliest Omega wristwatches looked like?” Well, to answer that, look in Chapter 3 of AJTT – and they didn’t look anything like this watch!

 

I would love to see some examples of any genuine 1900-1906 wristwatches - the earliest authenticated wristwatch that I know of is David Boettcher's 1906 IWC example (although that has a replacement dial). I have one that is possibly the second oldest IWC (again factory authenticated). I see many claims of early wristwatches but they are for the most part re-cased pocket watches or hunters.
https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/earlyiwcwristwatch.php

 

There is a "case number" shown, either 19, or 61. However it doesn't align with the expected range for the period 1900 to 1910.

Regarding the cushion shaped case, my observation is that the watch would be from the mid 1920s or later, possibly locally produced.
And once again, the size of the wire lugs is out of place with a watch from the first decade of the 1900s.