How do I identify the age of this inheritance

I think it stems 😁 from the way watches were made in the US in those days Tom.

The large watch factories made and distributed standard sized movements which were intended to be fitted to standard sized cases made by watch case manufacturers. The two industries were seperate entities in the early years of American watch production.

Because fitting a movement to a case was meant to be a relatively simple task performed by the local jeweller, the movements had no protruding stem. It could easily be popped into a case of the buyers choice.

To correspond, the case makers produced cases with incorporated crowns/stems that would be in winding mode when the crown was pushed in and in setting mode when the crown was pulled out.

So, a jeweller would take a movement, which would be in "setting" mode due to the setting lever spring not being depressed/disengaged, and put it into the case with the crown retracted. The crown would then be pushed in to wind the watch, pulled out to set time and then back in to run.

This method was used up until about the 1900s when watch factory/case makers became complete "watch producers" and the need for case/movement standardisation faded away and watch movements were produced with integrated stems with "positive" setting which is the normal configuration today.

Swiss watches of that period were usually found with the integrated stem as we have today, but produced negative set movements, I assume mainly for the American market to allow Swiss movements to be fitted to US made cases.

If you look at the pic of the OPs movement, you'll notice there is no screw for depressing the setting works to allow removal of the stem as is found in watch movements with integrated stems.



PS: This is all from memory, so if I have things arse about I invite corrections.

Cheers Jim

Something kept nagging at me, I was sure I'd seen a watch like that before, so I got out my bible and found one very similar in the "Creation" chapter.

While very similar, your's has a different movement, small details on the dial are different and the hands are not the usual style seen on Omegas of this period and they may have been US style hands fitted during purchase or later.

Thanks Erich, my booboo.


To my understanding the caliber came in two styles, LX for Lépine and SX for Savonette.

Is there any meaning to the "X"?

Yes, the movement and dial would have been exported from Switzerland as a complete unit for casing in the receiving country.
I don't know if the hands were part of the original movement/dial combo or not.

Edit: As I mentioned earlier, I believe the hands don't have "Omega DNA" and I've found an example of the minute hand like the ones on your watch. I still have to find an example of the hour hand.



Edit: After finding this, I suspect the hands are a match and probably a version of morning glory. These are usually found on American watches.

From PM Time Service

"The end of the hand is detailed with a stylized flower bloom design that is reminiscent of a morning glory or tulip bloom. Similar to the "Morning Glory - open" style but with a solid design instead of having open spaces in the design."

Good deduction, I agree as it seems the only calibers with the "X" designation are the 13''' 15''' 17''' 19''' and 20''' with the serpentine bridges.

A little bit of entertaining thread drift.

Do we remember the retailer of the watch?



It seems the family was quite busy in Cleveland at the turn of the 20th century. Not only did they have the pleasure of selling a very nice Omega pocket watch, they also had some moments of excitement.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From "THE HOROLOGICAL REVIEW", 1908.

Another Short Change Swindler Reported to be Working in the Middle West.

The Jewelers Security Alliance, 13 Maiden Lane, New York, received a letter Friday which indicates that a short change swindler is now at large in the Middle West, where he has been trying his tricks on jewelers. The letter was from Cleveland and stated that on July 25 a man called at the store of the Hueter Jewelry Co., 5372 E. St. Clair Ave., and looked at some diamonds. He went out saying that he would return again. Mr. Hueter was suspicious of the man and determined to watch him closely. In a short time other customers entered the store, and while they were there the first visitor returned and became engaged in talking with everybody.
He finally decided to purchase a solitaire diamond ring which was in the case, and also a diamond stud worn by Mr. Heuter.
The two stones were well matched and were sold to the man for $130 each. The buyer counted out the money in bills and stated that he would take the diamonds to the house and if they were not satisfactory he would return them.

When Mr. Hueter counted the money given in payment he noticed that it was one dollar short, but said nothing about it, as he intended to let it pass at this, but the customer insisted that he had counted out too much money and wished to recount it.
Mr. Hueter told him of the shortage at this time, but said, “We will let it go.” The man insisted upon recounting the money and did so, laying down two 50s, five 20s, four 10s and 19 ones, and exclaimed, “You are right, it’s one dollar short,” and he placed a silver dollar on top of the pile.

Meanwhile Mr. Hueter had drawn his gun from the pocket and held it between himself and the show case, and it began slipping down. Fearing that it would fall on the floor and strike the hammer, he replaced it in the pocket and transferred the money from the show case to a desk back of the counter, and the man departed. When he was about to put the money into the cash register he discovered that all the bills of larger denominations, which he remembers as being very crisp and new, were gone, and $20 were all that remained.

Mr. Hueter immediately went out to look for the man and learned he had boarded a St. Clair Ave. car. The jeweler took the next car, being unable to secure an automobile, but trace of the thief was lost. The jeweler informed the police department of the trick and looked through the Rogues’ Gallery, but found only one man who looked like the thief. The photograph selected, strange to say, was that of Samuel K. Reich, alias Max Gross, who is now under arrest in Brooklyn on a similar charge.

The description given of the man who swindled the jeweler is as follows: Age 30, height 5 feet 6 inches, weight 140 pounds, build medium, dark brown eyes, black curly hair, Roman nose, dark complexion, cheek bones prominent. He wore a Van Dyke beard and mustache and had on his finger a diamond ring of 1% carats.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nov. 30, 1911, The Cincinnati Enquirer (Cincinnati, OH):
Robber Seizes Tray of Jewelry in Cleveland Store and Escapes, Pursued By Girl Clerk

Cleveland, Ohio, November 29. -- A tray containing diamond-set jewelry valued at $2,500 was snatched in the store of John Hueter, 8806 Wade Park avenue, this afternoon by a man who made his escape. The man called when the proprietor was at lunch, and only a girl, Miss Winnie Hill, was in the store. In response to his request, she took the tray from the case to show the goods. The man seized it and ran.

Catching up a revolver, the girl sped after him, but reached the street only in time to see him disappear around a corner.
Miss Hill then returned to the store, and there fainted. The police are still looking for the thief.

A year ago John C. Hueter, a son of the jeweler victimized to-day, was robbed of valuable gems from his window.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with Tom.
This is, IMO, and exceptional example and even if it isn't to be worn or wound, a service will preserve it for the next generation.
Shipping should be painless as you don't need to declare contents for internal US transit (am I correct?).

If it was in Australia, I'd just put it in a well packed box and send it registered mail (or equivalent in the US).