NAWCC Lexicon - A discussion of semantics

[Greg Davis]

In a number of topics currently under discussion there are statements suggesting (either directly or indirectly) that we need to develop some concsensus on the specific meanings of terms.

I think an open discussion of the terms in question would be beneficial. We may never completely agree on the terms, but at least we can expose our own biases regarding those terms.

I will begin by suggesting some terms and definitions:

Original
Literal definition: As delivered by the factory. No parts installed at the factory have been replaced.
Liberal interpretation: Parts supplied by factory for "normal service" (e.g. balance staffs) may have been replaced.
Notes: The term is often applied to parts that were not installed at the factory (e.g. cases, dials, hands) but are considered to be part of the "history" of the watch.

Correct
Literal definition: The parts that comprise the whole were manufactured for use together, even if they did not leave the factory together.
Liberal interpretation: The parts that comprise the whole work together as if they were made for the same model, and definitely did not leave the factory together.
Notes: Often applied to parts such as cases and aftermarket dials that were manufactured by different sources.

Restoration
Literal definition: Repairs made to a timepiece that did not alter the originality of the timepiece.
Liberal interpretation: Repairs made to a timepiece that used only factory parts made for the model of timepiece being restored.
Notes: Definitely does not allow for replacement of serial numbered parts from other timepieces; neither does it allow for replacement of dissimilar non-serialized parts (e.g. dissimilar regulators, dials, hands, etc.).

Repairs
Literal definition: "Normal service" of a timepiece to restore functionality.
Liberal interpretation: Any work done to return a timepiece to working order.
Notes: This term is very broad and may include the use of New Old Stock parts, non-serialized parts from other watches, as well as repair work done on existing parts; but does NOT include replacement of parts purely for "cosmetic improvement" (e.g. cases, dial, hands, etc.)

Remanufacturing
Literal definition: Creating something new using some original parts (i.e. essentially complete loss of all claim to originality)
Liberal interpretation: Creating new parts to replace missing or damaged parts.
Notes: Often confused with "restoration", though the techniques are widely separated.

Switching
Literal definition: Replacement of factory-delivered parts with parts from other sources (NOS parts, other watches, etc.)
Liberal interpretation: Replacement of any parts, including those not delivered by factory (e.g. cases)
Notes: I is often difficult to ascertain "originality" of cases when watches were not cased at factory.

Parting Out
Literal definition: Disassembly of an original timepiece to obtain profit by selling the parts.
Liberal interpretation: Disassembly of an APPARENTLY original timepiece to obtain profit from sales of the parts.
Notes: Disassembly of non-original timepieces (e.g. those composed of parts from multiple sources) seems to be exempted from this definition, falling into some more respectable category yet to be named.

- Greg

[Greg Davis]

In a number of topics currently under discussion there are statements suggesting (either directly or indirectly) that we need to develop some concsensus on the specific meanings of terms.

I think an open discussion of the terms in question would be beneficial. We may never completely agree on the terms, but at least we can expose our own biases regarding those terms.

I will begin by suggesting some terms and definitions:

Original
Literal definition: As delivered by the factory. No parts installed at the factory have been replaced.
Liberal interpretation: Parts supplied by factory for "normal service" (e.g. balance staffs) may have been replaced.
Notes: The term is often applied to parts that were not installed at the factory (e.g. cases, dials, hands) but are considered to be part of the "history" of the watch.

Correct
Literal definition: The parts that comprise the whole were manufactured for use together, even if they did not leave the factory together.
Liberal interpretation: The parts that comprise the whole work together as if they were made for the same model, and definitely did not leave the factory together.
Notes: Often applied to parts such as cases and aftermarket dials that were manufactured by different sources.

Restoration
Literal definition: Repairs made to a timepiece that did not alter the originality of the timepiece.
Liberal interpretation: Repairs made to a timepiece that used only factory parts made for the model of timepiece being restored.
Notes: Definitely does not allow for replacement of serial numbered parts from other timepieces; neither does it allow for replacement of dissimilar non-serialized parts (e.g. dissimilar regulators, dials, hands, etc.).

Repairs
Literal definition: "Normal service" of a timepiece to restore functionality.
Liberal interpretation: Any work done to return a timepiece to working order.
Notes: This term is very broad and may include the use of New Old Stock parts, non-serialized parts from other watches, as well as repair work done on existing parts; but does NOT include replacement of parts purely for "cosmetic improvement" (e.g. cases, dial, hands, etc.)

Remanufacturing
Literal definition: Creating something new using some original parts (i.e. essentially complete loss of all claim to originality)
Liberal interpretation: Creating new parts to replace missing or damaged parts.
Notes: Often confused with "restoration", though the techniques are widely separated.

Switching
Literal definition: Replacement of factory-delivered parts with parts from other sources (NOS parts, other watches, etc.)
Liberal interpretation: Replacement of any parts, including those not delivered by factory (e.g. cases)
Notes: I is often difficult to ascertain "originality" of cases when watches were not cased at factory.

Parting Out
Literal definition: Disassembly of an original timepiece to obtain profit by selling the parts.
Liberal interpretation: Disassembly of an APPARENTLY original timepiece to obtain profit from sales of the parts.
Notes: Disassembly of non-original timepieces (e.g. those composed of parts from multiple sources) seems to be exempted from this definition, falling into some more respectable category yet to be named.

- Greg

[Kent]

Greg:

I think that you've done a fine job of setting out all of the above. By and large, I'm in agreement. My comments/questions below are to try and better understand what you are saying.

Do the notes only apply to the Liberal interpretations? If not, I'm confused by a number of items. Nevertheless, I'll continue with a couple comments/questions that are not related to the notes.

Remanufacturing
....
Literal definition: Creating something new using some original parts (i.e. essentially complete loss of all claim to originality)
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">So, if you were to build up the material on a gear, in the place of a broken and missing tooth, and then recut the tooth, there would be a complete loss of all claim to originality?</span>

Switching
Literal definition: Replacement of factory-delivered parts with parts from other sources (NOS parts, other watches, etc.)
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I disagree with this to the extent that I feel that Switching is the use of a part taken from another watch. I think that the majority of the people who have posted here (and I may be wrong) believe that the use of NOS or third party parts may be something else, but it is not Switching.</span>

Thanks for putting all of this together,

[Greg Davis]

Kent,

Good questions and fodder for discussion. Since I am no authority on the subject, I think I'll leave the question open and unanswered to encourage discussion.

Regarding the question of whether the Notes only apply to liberal interpretations, I would only say I didn't do so intentionally... but your observation may reflect what actually happened.

- Greg

[Greg Frauenhoff]

A quick comment/question.

"Original
Literal definition: As delivered by the factory. No parts installed at the factory have been replaced."

This covers movements but it doesn't cover many complete watches. In another thread I posed the following scenario:

A guy walks into a jewelry store in the 1880s and looks over some brand new watches. He likes the big fat brand new hunter on display, but the brand new mvt that's in it isn't to his liking. It's too expensive or not high enough quality or whatever. The jeweler points out another brand new mvt (either loose or in a different case) and the customer agrees to purchase this new combination. So the jeweler replaces one mvt with another and makes the sale.

The result is a case with a very faint set of screw marks from a brand new mvt that was placed into the case only once, and another set of screw marks from a brand new mvt that replaced it prior to the watch being sold.

So, can a watch with extra case screw marks ever be considered a "literally" original watch? Does "literally" original mean in the condition (excluding, of course, wear) that a complete watch was first retailed?

[Modersohn]

This set of definition and the further discussions based on it seems of great potential value.

I could chime in here with my opinion about these interesting questions.

However it would be much more valuable if those who are experts-- watchmakers/ restorers/ repairers, traders, long-time collectors-- would share their ways of thinking about and evaluating these questions.

I especially applaud the use of examples, so that rather than using abstractions, we can understand more precisely how these specifics are weighed, and considered, in the most literal way.

But does anyone really care?

Jessica

[Larry S]

"Here, some inductive reasoning seems called for."

And ATTITUDE

Larry

[Modersohn]

which attitude would that be?

(by the way I had decided to delete that stuff about inductivness , because I think I finally figured it out, after all these years--but I got distracted and forgot to hit the send button--it's not the point, anyway, I just got caught up in my own private little conundrum--)

I should also say care enough to really think it through--except Larry, Kent, Greg and ....)

Jessica

[Larry S]

These proposed guidelines are a great start, but without a grass roots change in values, they might just fall on deaf ears. A quote from

Edwin H. Friedman:

The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choices words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech.

[Jeff Hess]

Larry,

You are correct in your thoughts that not ALL people will fall in line with this.

Greg's ideas are admirable and a *terrific* start.

Well done. Greg.

Question, does "liberal" definition in your case mean "wrong" or just a liberal definition that are guidelines as well? Is there ANY "wiggle room" for some of the "greyer" areas of this?

As in Kents queries.
JPH

[Greg Davis]

Jeff,

I intended "liberal" to me "on the loose side" of the definition, where "literal" means "on the firm side". To my way of thinking, the wiggle room is the space between those two markers.

Personally, I am hoping some folks will assert definitions of their own and let us know where those gray zones are. I know they exist... and most likely there are additional terms that can be defined to fill the gaps between the definitions already asserted. Lots of room for other opinions here... mine is simply one of many.

- Greg