Riverside Maximus - lever or pendant set?

[Jerry Treiman]

I have seen several references to the 23-jewel Riverside Maximus being mostly pendant set, with only 200 lever-set watches made (see discussion on 16 vs. 18-size for the most recent such notation). This seems to come from the production estimates in Ehrhardt's Encyclopedia and Price Guide, Vol.1 (actually showing 200 plus 200 more with winding indicator), which, in turn, must have assumed that if the Waltham list did not indicate LS than it must be pendant set. My own '99 model, 23-jewel is lever-set, although not so indicated in the list, and I have always assumed that most were lever-set. Has anyone tried to collect enough data to see if the lever-set version is really that scarce, or is it the pendant set version that is really less common?

[Jerry Treiman]

I have seen several references to the 23-jewel Riverside Maximus being mostly pendant set, with only 200 lever-set watches made (see discussion on 16 vs. 18-size for the most recent such notation). This seems to come from the production estimates in Ehrhardt's Encyclopedia and Price Guide, Vol.1 (actually showing 200 plus 200 more with winding indicator), which, in turn, must have assumed that if the Waltham list did not indicate LS than it must be pendant set. My own '99 model, 23-jewel is lever-set, although not so indicated in the list, and I have always assumed that most were lever-set. Has anyone tried to collect enough data to see if the lever-set version is really that scarce, or is it the pendant set version that is really less common?

[Tom McIntyre]

The second volume of the Waltham production record goes from 1,500,001 to 7,555,000 and therefore misses the 99 Model. That's too bad, because it does indicate LS vs PS for each production run listed.

I was taking my numbers from the Encyclopedia as you surmise. It is my understanding that Tom Fowler and Bill Tapp used the "*" notation if they were estimating production quantities and omitted the "*" if the numbers were authoritative. For authoritative numbers, I thought they had seen at least one watch from each run.

The 2 examples I currently have are HC sn 16,015,055 and an OF Non-magnetic sn 14,049,366. Both of these are pendent set. I have owned one lever set with the 1908 setting mechanism, but I don't have the serial number available at the moment.

I think Bill Tapp must have almost certainly seen more examples than anyone else with the possible exception of Jon Hanson. Perhaps they will offer an opinion.

------------------
Tom McIntyre
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)

[rrwatch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jerry Treiman:
I have seen several references to the 23-jewel Riverside Maximus being mostly pendant set, with only 200 lever-set watches made (see discussion on 16 vs. 18-size for the most recent such notation). This seems to come from the production estimates in Ehrhardt's Encyclopedia and Price Guide, Vol.1 (actually showing 200 plus 200 more with winding indicator), which, in turn, must have assumed that if the Waltham list did not indicate LS than it must be pendant set. My own '99 model, 23-jewel is lever-set, although not so indicated in the list, and I have always assumed that most were lever-set. Has anyone tried to collect enough data to see if the lever-set version is really that scarce, or is it the pendant set version that is really less common?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe that Waltham made the Riverside Maximus as lever set for entire runs.
A review of the watches in our database (non WI only) shows 110 different watches with the setting type recorded. Of these, 23 are lever set and 87 are pendant set. They do not seem to fall in specific serial number runs. For example, S/Ns 23,100,038, 070, and 159 are lever set. S/N 23,100,110 is pendant set.
Also, some of the movements are listed as being marked 'adjusted to 6 positions' while most are simply marked 'adjusted'. There are also a few movements, in both pendant and lever set, that are fitted with the Lossier Innerterminal Hairspring, which is marked on the highly damaskeened winding wheel. These don't seem to be consistant within serial number runs either. The lever set serial numbers are listed below:
8478034
9502433
10037638
10049814
10070368
11534484
12030993
13006434, 449, 484
14022608 (earliest S/N w/Lossier)
14049485
14062173
16071485
17009735
19403066
22328269
23080367
23100038, 070, 159
23101367
24919103

------------------
Ed Ueberall
NAWCC #49688

[This message has been edited by rrwatch (edited 09-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by rrwatch (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Tom McIntyre]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rrwatch:
<snip> The lever set serial numbers are listed below:
8478034
9502433
10037638
10049814
10070368
11534484
12030993
13006434, 449, 484
14022608 (earliest S/N w/Lossier)
14049485
14062173
16071485
17009735
19403066
22328269
23080367
23100038, 070, 159
23101367
24919103

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Encyclopedia lists both LS runs as 1908 model. Could the 13,006,4xx run be 1908? I am in the office and can't check the production listing. From this very limited sample, one might conclude that the 13,006,4xx run was expected to be all LS as was the 23,100,xxx. The latter was certainly 1908 Model and if it is all LS it could represent the 200 LS examples from the Encyclopedia.

As for the rest, it looks like we would need to accumulate statistics on the observed examples. Perhaps the roughly 20% Ed has observed will hold up.

------------------
Tom McIntyre
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)


[This message has been edited by Tom McIntyre (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Jerry Treiman]

#13,006,434 is mine and it is an 1899 model

[Jon Hanson]

Tom, Jerry, RRW, Waltham freaks, and interested parties, :biggrin:

Ok, OK, Tom baited me, regarding Riverside Maximus 16 size watches, so here goes:

I have seen, owned, or recorded approximately 40 lever set examples. These are mostly "at ramdom", with the exception of the last, open face run of 200 beginning at 23,100,000 of which all are known to be lever set. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the Waltham serial number lists this last run as pendant set (another error-CS and Sir George aren't the only ones!). http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I have always considered all 16 size Riverside Maximi rather common. While there are certainly less lever set ones produced, these can hardly be considered rare. The "scarcest" RM variations definitely are the ones signed "non-magnetic", but then there are signature variations of those also (one type very rare). Next in line, as far as scarcity goes, would be the 21 jewel hunter RM.

Hope this helps. I shall be happy to post some scans next week when I have the time. :smile:

Jon Hanson, nawcc#8801

PS: AND, don't forget the famous Sir George Daniels quote in that little book he wrote some years ago!

[This message has been edited by Jon Hanson (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Tom McIntyre]

I was just wondering about this topic a couple of days ago.

Last night I was doing some maintenance work on the message board and it got me to thinking about the history of the board.

The history goes back several years before this exchange, but this is the oldest pocket watch thread on the message board. (and still quite useful, I think. :))