A Quiz for the Experts [Archive] - National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors Message Board

View Full Version : A Quiz for the Experts

Russ Snyder

11-01-2002, 04:35 AM

It's Friday so that means it's time for a surprise quiz! [NOTE: The teacher-instinct in me just won't die!]

QUESTION: What's wrong with this picture?

http://pallus.cic.uiuc.edu/db2ksite/5510841_small.jpg (http://pallus.cic.uiuc.edu/db2ksite/5510841.jpg)

Disregard the fact that the mainspring barrel is missing -- that's not important. The "error" is not even in that area of the watch!

The serial number is 5,510,841 but that won't help either.

Use Jon's approach: "Stare and compare."

Terry: If you know the answer, don't blurt it out! Give 'em a chance to guess.

Enjoy!

Russ

Russ Snyder

11-01-2002, 04:35 AM

mikeh

11-01-2002, 04:52 AM

The damaskeening doesn't seem to match and I don't see the word Elinvar under the balance or on the train bridge. Has the barrel bridge been switched?

Regards,
Mike

Russ Snyder

11-01-2002, 05:03 AM

Mike: Good guess, and you're half right -- no "Elinvar" marking. Not unlike one of the factory variants of the "161A" Bill Meggers shows in his Illinois book.

But what else is missing???

Russ

lots of time

11-01-2002, 05:06 AM

jewel count not marked?

John F

11-01-2002, 05:11 AM

I was also going to say that the jewel count isn't marked.

John

Russ Snyder

11-01-2002, 05:17 AM

Bingo!

The similar Factory Variant (p. 125-5) was not marked "Elinvar", but was marked "Double Roller" twice -- on the pillar plate AND on the train bridge. It was also marked "21 Jewels" on the train bridge.

This one, for some unknown reason, is neither marked "Elinvar" or "21 Jewels".

My assumption is that quality control was letting a few mis-marked watches get by. The twice-marked "Double Roller" must have simply been stamped wrong, and this watch didn't get stamped enough.

BTW, the photos on p. 125 and 127 got switched in Meggers & Ehrhardt "Illinois Watch Co." book.

The description of photo 125-6 actually goes with the watch shown as 127-4. (This should be the second FV Bill mentions for the 161A Type II B -- the one without the "A".)

The description of photo 127-4 goes with the watch shown as 125-6. (This should be the 163 Type I E.)

Russ

Jerry Treiman

11-01-2002, 05:22 AM

Are you sure the train bridge matches the barrel bridge? With a 5-million serial number I am guessing this is a Hamilton era product, in which case it should be marked merely "Illinois Watch, Springfield". (I may be wrong on this timing). The "Illinois Watch Co." marking would indicate pre-Hamilton ownership.

mikeh

11-01-2002, 05:36 AM

Russ,

That doesn't even appear to be a real Elinvar balance. It's cut and the hairspring appears to be blue, although I am aware that some early Hamilton E's had blue springs. There weren't 161A variants with conventional balances were there?

Regards,
Mike

P.S. Regarding the subject of this thread, not even in my wildest hallucinations do I consider myself and expert on Illinois RR's! :wink:

[This message has been edited by mikeh (edited 11-01-2002).]

Jerry Freedman

11-01-2002, 06:32 AM

It should be marked Illinois Watch, and not Illinois Watch Co.

John F

11-01-2002, 06:51 AM

Interstingly, and coincidentally, there's a 161A up on you-know-where that's very similar - same markings & omissions, same split balance, and similar mis-matched damaskeening (though the pattern's slightly different). The SN is also close, just off by 100 - 5,510,941. And in another strange coincidence, this one is also missing the mainspring barrel (musta been having some serious quality-control issues... http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/eek.gif )
http://ebay0.ipixmedia.com/abc/M28/_EBAY_f27929dabc3e5dc778e5f227e1eb1a9f/i-1_B.JPG

John

terry hall

11-01-2002, 07:22 AM

FRANKENWATCH.........

Jerry Treiman

11-01-2002, 07:38 AM

Maybe interchangeable parts wasn't such a good idea, after all? :wink:

Jerry Treiman

11-01-2002, 07:59 AM

http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/eek.gif I just took a look at the movement on ebay -- the seller was kind enough to show the pillar-plate, too. You can see that the serial numbers do not match. Russ, is this the movement you showed us?

John F

11-01-2002, 08:24 AM

Actually, on closer inspection, the one in Russ' picture and the one on ebay look the same. Twins? Same watch? (hard to make out the SN on Russ')

John

Russ Snyder

11-01-2002, 08:27 AM

You are all just TOO sharp!

(1) It's not marked as to jewel count.
(2) It's not marked Elinvar.
(3) The balance bridge is marked "Illinois Watch Co." -- not "Illinois Watch" as would be appropriate for a Hamilton-made 161A from 1931.

This watch was reported to me about a year or so ago when it showed up on eBay. I doubted that the serial numbers matched, but never personally saw it -- only this photo.

It was suggested to me that this was a newly discoverd "Factory Variant" like the ones Meggers showed in his book.

I didn't buy this story, just like none of you would fall for my "explanations".

Also, the serial number WAS 5,510,941 -- I mis-read my notes. Sorry.

If it's on eBay now, I haven't seen it yet. If I remember correctly, the bidding got up over $600 a year ago.

Russ

Jon Hanson

11-01-2002, 08:32 AM

As I asked earlier on the chapter 149 MB do the numbers match? In my opinion it is 99% that the train bridge won't match the cock or the other plate serial number.

The big question to the Illinois and RR collectors/experts-when was (if ever?) the last time you actually saw or owned a 16s Bunn which had unmatched damaskeened bridges that was correct???

This is really easy stuff; however, as I have always said, "It is easily determined when the watch is in one's hand."

Jon Hanson, nawcc#8801

Fred Hansen

11-01-2002, 01:49 PM

Russ -

I seem to recall having seen a few 60 Hours from the runs immediately before the switch to being marked 161 and 163 that were marked "Illinois Watch" rather than "Illinois Watch Co.". Have you also noticed this in those final runs? Have you pulled one apart to see if the serial numbers match?

Fred

terry hall

11-01-2002, 02:23 PM

looks like I missed out on most of the test today... looks like y'all have it under control.

I Have these notes scribbled in the margins of my Illinois book
5252532
5252783
5252455
5252047 All marked 'ILLINOIS WATCH CO'

5254900
5254761 Marked 'ILLINOIS WATCH'

Mike Chamelin has a pretty good handle on this, will get his attention.....

michael chamelin

11-01-2002, 05:39 PM

Oh so easy, Ladies and Gentlemen, First clue : Damasceen pattern is mismatched, second clue: the balance bridge has a checkerboard pattern at the regulator which changed to a slash pattern at the run of serial #4,322,001-4,323,000,(this run contains both designs) if the screws on the balance cap had been up instead of down, one could date it to between 2.6 million to about 3.1 million third clue: cut balance and one can easily at this point see that this is nothing but a put together parts watch even if every thing looked MINT it would still be junk!! The art of knowing your subject is in the details and I don't even have time to get started with all that is wrong or mismatched with this watch '''er uh shall we say "untimely" piece of whatever is left of probably several movements.......factory variant?....that's the best laugh I've had all day and I just came in from a flea market today where lies usually exceed merchandise.....