Foot placement on dials

[Tref]

Silly questions maybe. Were the placement of the feet on the dial consistently located spanning the lifecycle of a particular movement? Would some/all movements accept more than one dial, with one having a different placement than another? Did some movements share dials consistently (eg 999, 999B)?

And finally, does anyone know of a reference that might contain such information, for the major manufacturers?

As always, thanks in advance!

Tref

[Tref]

Silly questions maybe. Were the placement of the feet on the dial consistently located spanning the lifecycle of a particular movement? Would some/all movements accept more than one dial, with one having a different placement than another? Did some movements share dials consistently (eg 999, 999B)?

And finally, does anyone know of a reference that might contain such information, for the major manufacturers?

As always, thanks in advance!

Tref

[Don Dahlberg]

I cannot speak for the other brands, but I'll try to answer based on what I have seen with Hamilton

"Were the placement of the feet on the dial consistently located spanning the lifecycle of a particular movement?"

For the most part, yes, but in 1911 Hamilton went from four foot to three foot dials in the 974. The same change was made in 1912 for the 992 and in 1915 for the 950. I believe that the same hole placement was held for the 992E and 992B. Hamilton was very much of a company with the attitude that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. It cost a great deal of money to retool, so moving holes and feet is a very expensive thing. Being stuck with a bunch of old dials when a new model comes out, is also expensive. Perhaps the other companies were more into change.

"Would some/all movements accept more than one dial, with one having a different placement than another? Did some movements share dials consistently (eg 999, 999B)?"

Hamilton offered a very large number of 16 size dials and they all had the same "foot print". They used a different foot location for their Illinois and for their Ball.

I know of no publications that list the foot locations. I have the locations for the Hamilton, Illinois and Ball dials taken from the blueprints.


Don

[Jon Hanson]

depends on the company

the model

hunting or OF

then there are the conversion dials............that need to be rotated 1/4 turn to fit.

[doug sinclair]

Tref,

If you have Ehrhardt & Meggers American Pocket Watches Identification & Price Guide, check out pages 42 to 46 for a fairly exhaustive listing of dial foot locations for American watches. If you don't have the book, GET IT! It is the most useful reference in my library on watches.

[terry hall]

I believe the Ehrhart/Meggers BEGINNING TO END book has a chart of dial foot locations for many brand movements...

Book is available ..

Sometimes in the E mart

Most times at Regional marts from book sellers

Sometimes in Chapter Web site "for sale" sections

And almost always from Heart of America Press

[Tref]

Don't know if I've ever said this before, but all you guys are great. Ask a question and get several good answers every time. Never fails.

I'll have to find that Ehrhardt & Meggers book for sure.

The primary reason I asked is that I just bought a Ball Hamilton 999B (SN 1B15575), that is in very, very nice shape except for some small hairlines in the outer part of the dial between the 11 and 12. There is a dial available on eBay, but given that I don't know what placement the Ball has (won't get it till this coming week in the mail), I'm not sure if I should spring for the cost of the dial, which is reported to be in mint condition, though I suppose that if it doesn't go for too much it might be good investment in and of itself.

Thanks again!

Tref

[Kent]

Tref:

The book is "American Pocket Watches Beginning to End...1830-1980, Identification and Price Guide," Roy Ehrhardt & William Meggers, Jr., Heart of America Press, Kansas City, MO, 1987 (commonly referred to as "The Gold Book" - A new edition is still in print, see Heart of America Press (http://www.hoapress.com)).

There are many factors to consider about the dial. First is that it is for a 16-size, Hamilton-built Ball movement. Second is that the dial is of the "Box Car" design. The earlier Hamilton-Ball dial designs are inappropriate on a 999B.

[Tref]

Thanks Kent. I sent an email to Sherry asking if they have that book in stock.

This is from the description on the dial "a mint 16s original Hamilton Ball Offical R.R. Standard Cleveland. I took this dial off a 999 Hamilton"

I'm afraid I don't know what a box car style is, being very new to the pocket watch scene.

I'm going to try and edit this after posting it in order to attach some pics.
Hmmm. Odd. I was able to add pictures in some of my other posts, but that seems to not be the case any longer.

Regards,

Tref

[Kent]

No, the "Upload an image" button is missing! Nobody has explained why yet.

Meanwhile, here's the old ref::Ball "Box Car" Dial[/url]. I think that the same dial was still being used on the 999Bs.

For comparison, here's the [url="http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/groupee_files/attachments/3/8/8/38810096/38810096_1919_May.jpg?ts=42631F6A&key=D7B93AE4BACAAC446D78644094F3A7A3&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnawcc-mb.infopop.cc%2Feve%2Fubb.x%2F%2Cs%2C2386079361%2C a%2Cga%2Cul%2C38810096%2Cic%2CY%2F1919_May.jpg"]Older Style Hamilton-Ball Dial.

[Don Dahlberg]

Here is the Hamilton - Ball 999B dial

http://home.comcast.net/~dbdahlberg/ham_999b_dial


Don

[Tref]

I'm glad I asked. The pictures show a different dial. I wish I could show them to you.

The 1's have little arrow shaped caps on them and the other numbers are in a fancy script. The top foot is on the other side of the 12, though the bottom two seem to be in the same positions. The dial does say Ball RR Standard in the center, straight line, with Ball Watch Co. Cleveland curved below that, and Trade Mark curved above it. Doesn't sound like it would fit on my watch though. Thanks Guys!

Oh, and it certainly appears that the watch I bought does have the box car dial on it, though the hairlines do detract. I can't tell yet but it looks as if they will mostly be hidden by the bezel.

Regards,

Tref

[Larry Seikel]

Were the dial bases actually made out of aluminum, as the print suggests, or am I falling into the old proverb about assuming....(making an A** out of U and ME)? The notes about soldering also make me wonder.....I think aluminum CAN be soldered, but I believe it's more of a chore than copper or brass. Any thoughts?

[Don Dahlberg]

Note that the drawing that I posted in a 1954 modification. Earlier melamine dials used Gilders metal (90% copper alloy) for the blank, but these went to aluminum in the 54 as well. Before 46 they used brass or copper.

Don

[Kent]

Tref:

If you wish, you could give use the item number for the eBay auction so that we can see the dial.

Here's the introductory ad for the 1925 Style Case & "Box Car" Dial (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9763104&size=o).

The appearance of the hour figures in the drawing that Don posted is correct. The 1925 is an earlier design of Ball's "Box Car" dial and is not appropriate on the 999B.

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kent:
Tref:

If you wish, you could give use the item number for the eBay auction so that we can see the dial.

Here's the introductory ad for the 1925 Style Case & "Box Car" Dial (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9763104&size=o).

The appearance of the hour figures in the drawing that Don posted is correct. The 1925 is an earlier design of Ball's "Box Car" dial and is not appropriate on the 999B. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the item number, 4985596057. According to the serial number of the watch I bought it should be approximately ca. 1896/97, so I assume (yes a dangerous proposition), that I'd need to be especially careful about trying to match up a dial from a more recent lot?

Thanks,

Tref

[terry hall]

This dial is from an early 999 from hamilton.. pre 1925 ish....

If you search the seller's other sales, you can probably find the movement...
this seller disassembles existing watches for profit :frown:

[Kent]

Tref:

The dial being sold at that eBay item number dates back to the 'teens, or possibly early 1920's, as shown in this May 1917 Ball Ad (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9782093&size=o).

Also, you've misunderstood the Ball serial number sequence.

Table of Ball serial numbers, listed by manufacturers, can be found in "American Railroad Watches," George E. Townsend, Col. G.E. Townsend, Alma, MI, 1977 (still in print, see Heart of America Press (http://www.hoapress.com)).

The Ball 'B' prefix series of numbers, for 16-size watches, starts in 1896 with Waltham-Ball watches which run to about 1922. The 'B' prefix serial numbers are truncated Waltham serial numbers (the "millions" digits are chopped off) and do not appear to be in an ascending sequence until about 1903 with serial number B202001. They then follow in ascending, chronological sequence to B271000 in about 1922. However, there are Waltham-Ball 'B' prefix serial numbers from 1896 to about 1903 that appear to be above or below that sequence. A few Waltham-Ball serial numbers overlap some of the Hamilton-Ball serial numbers in the neighborhood of B640001 - B643500.

16-size Hamilton-Ball serial numbers start in 1910 with serial number B600001 and end at B655200 in about 1943 when the 999B came out. The 999B starts their own, new series of serial numbers having a '1B' prefix. These start with 1B001 in about 1943 and run up to about 1B27600 in the 1950s. A sample of serial numbers and dates, starting with serial number 1B451, can be seen in an Excerpt from Hamilton Production Ledger #376 (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9785197&size=o). An exception is 700 999Bs made in 1943-1944, having a '2B' prefix: 2B001 - 2B700.

I hope that this helps,

[Tref]

Originally posted by terry hall:
This dial is from an early 999 from hamilton.. pre 1925 ish....

If you search the seller's other sales, you can probably find the movement...
this seller disassembles existing watches for profit :frown:

I kind of thought that might be the case (no pun), when it was mentioned on several of their auctions that a dial had been removed from a "mint 999", or a mint xxx had been removed from a case that was for sale. I had no idea that the sum of the parts could be greater than the value of the whole. That's sad when you think about it given that these wonderful pieces of creativity and ingenuity are not being produced any longer, and we may never see their equal.

originally posted by Kent:
The Ball 'B' prefix series of numbers, for 16-size watches, starts in 1896 with Waltham-Ball watches which run to about 1922. The 'B' prefix serial numbers are truncated Waltham serial numbers (the "millions" digits are chopped off) and do not appear to be in an ascending sequence until about 1903 with serial number B202001. They then follow in ascending, chronological sequence to B271000 in about 1922. However, there are Waltham-Ball 'B' prefix serial numbers from 1896 to about 1903 that appear to be above or below that sequence. A few Waltham-Ball serial numbers overlap some of the Hamilton-Ball serial numbers in the neighborhood of B640001 - B643500.

I said earlier that the SN on the watch I bought was 1B15575. That's where my assumption may be making an a** out of me. The listing actually says B15575, and I had assumed that the seller had inadvertently left off the leading 1, which I then "added" in my statement earlier in this post (I can't tell for sure from the picture if there actually is a leading 1 in front of the B, though I'm pretty certain there is.). I must admit that I'm more than a little overwhelmed in this "hobby". There is so much to know, and it has to come from so many different places, that I may never become proficient at it.

Aside from the serial numbers, is there anything on the movement that would unequivocally identify a Ball watch as having been produced by one particular manufacturer? Would it be the model number, as in 999B? Is the movement itself unique or did all of the manufacturers produce movements completely to Ball's requirements and design (and therefore they looked the same)?

At any rate, I surely appreciate your help, and fortunately for me you folks either are passionate about your hobby and enjoy sharing your knowledge, or you just like a darn good mystery ;o)

Thanks,

Tref

[doug sinclair]

Tref,

If you have a copy of the Shugart, Engel, and Gilbert book, the actual manufacturer of a Ball watch can usually be identified by the hairspring stud, and I suppose the S# as well. But you can home in on the manufacturer without the S# by the stud. Look under "Regulators Identification". The information there will help you identify pocket watches in general, but the authors specifically point out Ball regulators. This is very helpful, particularly on 16-size Ball where Webb Ball specified the plate layout, and the 16-size Ball watches for the most part, bear a strong similarity in appearance, regardless of who made them.

[Kent]

Tref:

Now that you mention it, I checked back and had no trouble finding where you said that the serial number was 1B15575.

I saw that watch (and made some notes about it) while the auction was still going on. If I took good notes, the movement is in a Hamilton #16 case (case serial number 2965995) that has the incorrect bow for that case. I believe that your watch should be Keystone J Boss "Oficial RR Standard" case, similar to the one shown in this 1928 Ad (http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/groupee_files/attachments/9/1/2/91210627/91210627_1928_Dec_LR.jpg?ts=42642196&key=08CEB6957A881685D248E8E38F1B2264&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnawcc-mb.infopop.cc%2Feve%2Fubb.x%2F%2Cs%2C2386079361%2C a%2Cga%2Cul%2C91210627%2Cic%2CY%2F1928_Dec_LR.jpg) (my apologies for not having a more recent picture readily available).

Aside from the serial numbers, is there anything on the movement that would unequivocally identify a Ball watch as having been produced by one particular manufacturer? Yes. Even the most similar of the Ball watches, the 16-size Waltham-Ball and Hamilton-Ball Official RR Standard movements, have differences that can be used to tell them apart. In the instance of the 999B, with the exception of the decorative finish, and markings, on the plates, it appears identical to Hamilton's grade No. 992B.

The earlier 16-size Ball watches can be identified by the shape of the hairspring stud, the projection on the balance cock that holds the outer end of the hairspring. There are other differences that an experienced eye can pick up. The reference books we've mentioned above contain diagrams that will help you learn to distinguish these things.

If you are going to be spending large amounts on watches, it will be well worth your effort, and a moderate cost, to learn about the watches before you spend the money. One way to do so is to Join The National Association of Watch And Clock Collectors (NAWCC) (http://www.nawcc.org/headquarters/members/Meminfo.htm). As a member, you'll gaining access to the NAWCC Library and Research Center (http://www.nawcc.org/Library/library.htm). Membership entitles you to borrow, by mail, circulating copies of books, back issues of the NAWCC Bulletin, microfilms, DVDs and video tapes from the NAWCC Library. You'll find both books, DVDs and tapes on basic (and also more complex) watch cleaning and repair, as well as ones on history and collecting. Many commercial video tapes are available on loan from the library.

P.S. I see that my friend Doug responded with essentially the same answer while I was writing another wordy answer. The book he mentions is also a good one to have.

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by doug sinclair:
Tref,

If you have a copy of the Shugart, Engel, and Gilbert book, the actual manufacturer of a Ball watch can usually be identified by the hairspring stud, and I suppose the S# as well. But you can home in on the manufacturer without the S# by the stud. Look under "Regulators Identification". The information there will help you identify pocket watches in general, but the authors specifically point out Ball regulators. This is very helpful, particularly on 16-size Ball where Webb Ball specified the plate layout, and the 16-size Ball watches for the most part, bear a strong similarity in appearance, regardless of who made them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug,

I do have the book, and I had perused that page, but did not recognize the significance between the shape of the stud and the manufacturers that used them. I don't have the watch yet, and the pictures that I do have aren't clear enough for the likes of me to be able to identify the hairspring stud conclusively. But thanks for the tips!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by Kent:

I saw that watch (and made some notes about it) while the auction was still going on. If I took good notes, the movement is in a Hamilton #16 case (case serial number 2965995) that has the incorrect bow for that case. I believe that your watch should be Keystone J Boss "Oficial RR Standard" case, similar to the one shown in this 1928 Ad (my apologies for not having a more recent picture readily available). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kent,
You got it right Sir, that is the watch that I bought, perhaps when I shouldn't have? I'm a bit confused now though. The Shugart book, as Doug pointed out, shows the part of the Regulator that applies tension to the regulator via the screw, (is this called a tensioner?), as having a different shape than that which of the one that is on the watch. What I mean by that is the piece that loops down and around the regular pointer. I apologize for my description being so amateur-ish, but that is who you are dealing with here. Anyway, the book shows the bottom of that tensioner as being rounded, while your notes show, if you saved the pictures the seller posted, the tensioner actually flattens out as it follows the case around until it reaches the other side of the requlator before moving back inwards toward the center of the watch. It basically follows the shape of the balance cock as opposed to simply being rounded at its bottom. Now I don't doubt that the movement is what it is supposed to be (do you?), but why would the Shugart book be in such obvious contradiction to what is actually on the watch? Could it be that that piece (tensioner?), is not original to the movement?

If the case is not original to the watch, and the bow on the case is not even original to the case, then I guess I'll have to be happy if the movement and dial are at least original. If so then maybe the damage I've done to my budget can be limited to trying to find a J.Boss case that is typical for that movement.

I obviously do need to learn more before spending more. I'm not sure to what extent I will go to invest in the learning, but I rarely hesitate in buying reference books for whatever it is that piques my interest. I also intend to donate to this forum, if only because I've begun to rely on it more, but I have not made a decision yet as to actually joining the NAWCC. If my interest continues and my time permits I will, but until I know that a year's membership seems like such a long time.

In any event, as I've said I really appreciate the willingness of all of you on this forum to lend your time and expertise to those of us who obviously don't have knowledge or experience.

Regards,

Tref

[Jon Hanson]

Next to knowing the next best thing to know is who to ask! (saves alot of money and unpleasantness)

Jon

[Kent]

Tref:

The "Complete Price Guide to Watches, No 24," has a drawing of seven different balance cocks (with their associated regulators - the caption is misleading) on page 155. Each balance cock has a uniquely shaped hairspring stud on the top, left side, immediately left of the circular jewel setting/regulator assembly. The Waltham-Ball's hairspring stud is very different in appearance from the two Hamilton-Ball designs. In each case, the function is to hold the outside end of the hairspring (the hairspring is the coiled spring nested inside of the balance wheel).

Here's a picture of a 999B in its Correct Case (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9908744&size=o). The 999B does not just belong in a Ball J. Boss case, it belongs in the specific case just mentioned, with the Ball Official RR Standard Keystone J. Boss (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9908745&context=photostream&size=o) markings inside the back. There's no mistaking the origin of the Ball 999B, except for the markings and plate decoration, it appears identical to Hamilton's 992B, as can be seen in this Side-By-Side Comparison (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9908165&size=o).

One of the key benefits of NAWCC membership is the Bulletin which contains detailed information for watch collectors. You can equate a year's worth of issues to a reference book. If your interest continues, you really need to learn more before you buy too many more watches.

Edited to correct dates in pictures.

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon Hanson:
Next to knowing the next best thing to know is who to ask! (saves alot of money and unpleasantness)

Jon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Jon, since you're offering, if you'd like to leave your number I promise I won't call during dinner ;o)

But seriously folks, as you well know there are a lot of forums like this where information about any number of topics can be obtained. And the thing that makes them all work is the great people who frequent them, and who are also willing to share what they've learned. And it's usually the attitude of the one doing the learning hat helps the knowledge flow more freely. At least that's what I used to tell my apprentices when I worked in construction so long ago.

I will have more questions in the future, and hopefully I'll become wise (and patient), enough to ask before I make a deal. In the meantime if you folks keep up the good work, I'll do my best to pay attention!

Regards,

Tref

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kent:
Tref:
...
One of the key benefits of NAWCC membership is the Bulletin which contains detailed information for watch collectors. You can equate a year's worth of issues to a reference book. If your interest continues, you really need to learn more before you buy too many more watches.

Edited to correct dates in pictures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Kent,

I've been battling a cold and have been off-line for a couple of days.

You're absolutely right Kent, I do need to learn more. I've just now ordered the "American Pocket watches Beginning to End" from Sherry. I'm still contemplating the NAWCC membership.

Would it be worthwhile for me now to find and invest in a "correct" case for this watch or would doing so add no value to it at this point, if only because it wouldn't be the original case?

Thanks,

Tref

[Kent]

Tref:

That's a hard choice. Conventional wisdom is to set it aside and eventually buy another example with the correct dial and case, all in good condition. Then, sell off the first one. Keep in mind that there were about 28,000 of these made. Its not an uncommon watch by any reckoning (except for the sales hype one sees in sales descriptions).

There is always the desire on the part of a large number of collectors to try a put a watch back in a state as close to original as possible. These collectors (and in some instances, I'm one of them) take pride in doing this. The problem is that although there were a number of correct-looking cases and dials made as replacements, if they're available now, their prices, plus the watch's initial cost, are much more than what the watch would be worth once you get it all together. After all, those cases are identifiable as replacements and the watch will never be all original.

The only real "original" cases available are those stripped off of other 999Bs (there are no lesser watches that they were used on) and there's no real advantage in ruinning an original movement and case combination to create an unoriginal movement and case combination. Its extremely rare that a 999B movement would be damaged beyond repair while its case would remain in good condition. Maybe this would occur if a watch went through a washing machine in somebody's pants pocket - its been known to happen - and would end up all rusted.

There are dealers who part out watches, selling the movements, dials and cases separately, for a higher total value than obtainable for complete watches. This is a sad practice, but its done because there are people who will pay the premium for "original" items with which to fix up their own watches. Its generally looked down upon, but collectors have been doing this themselves for as long as I've been in the hobby (the `70s), buying lesser watches to obtain dials and cases to fix up more desirable watches. So much of this has occurred, over so long of a time (even the original owners replaced the dials and cases when necessary 70 years ago, or more), that unless the provinence of a watch is known, its difficult to believe that any high grade watch is all original. The best that can be said in most instances is that the watch looks all original - that is, the dial and case are correct for the serial number of the movement.

[Tref]

Kent,
I'm glad to hear that what you said, seems to validate my intentions as being above board. I'm not out to be a dealer and do not intend to buy and sell pocket watches as a hobby or for income. I would like to pass on what I ultimately collect to my kids when they are old enough to appreciate what I've collected, or possibly as an investment that could one day be used to offset college costs (I'd better learn much more about what I'm doing if that's to be anything more than a fantasy). But what I don't want to do is to spend money to buy or create something that is either not right in a historical sense, or inappropriate or misleading in an ethical sense. So to hear you say that even the original owners had to replace their cases at times, says to me that for me to do the same is fine, so long as I don't try to pass off the end result as something that it is not (as in all-original). Am I correct in that?

That being said, if I can find a good deal on a 999B that has a better case than movement (similar to what you described), and use that case with my movement then I'd have the best of both. Then if I either keep the lesser of the movements for spare parts, or sell it for exactly what it is, then I believe I will have stayed well within the bounds of being ethical and if lucky will to some degree have corrected the mistake I may have made in my current purchase.

Thanks again for all your time and effort in helping me to identify the right case, and enlightening me on the situation I have bought my way into.

Best Regards,

Tref

[Jon Hanson]

did you get your diagram of this?

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon Hanson:
did you get your diagram of this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon,
Not sure what diagram you mean. I am hoping to get the actual watch today or tomorrow though.

Regards,

Tref

[Jon Hanson]

there is a table with dial feet placement somewhere--I also have a tool to degree these feet.

[Tref]

Jon,

Perhaps you mean the diagram reported to be in the "Beginning to End" book? If so I have ordered that book, and Sherry tells me it will ship the first of next week. In the meantime I've ceased efforts to try to locate a replacement dial. After receiving the book and the movement, if the movement is in as good of condition as it appears to be then I will likely try to replace the dial and case in the near future. If not I may do as Kent suggested and just lay the whole thing aside, and concentrate on trying to locate another example that is closer to, or all orginal.

Thanks,

Tref

[Jon Hanson]

what exact dial do you want as I have many of these.

[Tref]

Jon,

I'm looking for a replacement dial for my watch that would match the original. The SN on my watch is, I believe 1B15575, though as I stated in an earlier post:

"I said earlier that the SN on the watch I bought was 1B15575. That's where my assumption may be making an a** out of me. The listing actually says B15575, and I had assumed that the seller had inadvertently left off the leading 1, which I then "added" in my statement earlier in this post (I can't tell for sure from the picture if there actually is a leading 1 in front of the B, though I'm pretty certain there is.)."

I still don't have the watch in hand so I can't be certain about that. I am also uncertain what the original dial would look like on the back side. I have no reason to believe the one on it is not original, and it is a boxcar dial, though that really has no bearing on your question, except that the one on it does have hairlines, and that is why I would like to replace the dial.

My goal, as I've also said would be to restore the watch to as near perfect condition as I could using a nos dial and case, and in such a way as is proper and ethical.

I hope that answers your question sufficiently Jon.

Regards,

Tref

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kent:
Tref:
...
Here's the introductory ad for the 1925 Style Case & "Box Car" Dial (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=9763104&size=o).

The appearance of the hour figures in the drawing that Don posted is correct. The 1925 is an earlier design of Ball's "Box Car" dial and is not appropriate on the 999B. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kent,
The drawing that Don provided shows what I believe to be a Montgomery dial (6 in the sub seconds dial). Were all 999B's so configured? And did I understand you to say that the boxcar dial in the 1925 add was inappropriate for the 999B? Were there 3 different dials used? The add speak s of an "official Standard dial as furnished on previous models". So if I'm reading the ad correctly and there was an earlier dial as well as the 1925 dial, and the one in the diagram that Don provided is different than either of those, that makes at least 3 right?

The Ehrhardt and Meggers book does not appear to have an illustration of a dial for the 999B (EA 144).

And finally can you tell me where can I learn what year SN 1B15575 was produced?

Thanks again!

Best Regards,

Tref

[terry hall]

according to references i have,

1B15575 is from about 1949..

No, not all 999B movements were provided with a montgomery (or numerical) dial... it was a 'choice'...

[Tref]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by terry hall:
according to references i have,

1B15575 is from about 1949.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Terry

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

No, not all 999B movements were provided with a montgomery (or numerical) dial... it was a 'choice'... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still makes me wonder if there were 3 dials available at times from the start of the ball hamilton's to the 999b.

Regards,

Tref