Information on Brooklyn Watch Case Company . . .

[Will Roseman]

Hi Everyone:

I am looking for information about B.W.C Co. (Brooklyn Watch Case Company).

Was B.W.C. Co. considered a premium case manufacturer and can anyone tell me if they had made any cases for Hamilton pocket watches?

Thanks,

Will

[Will Roseman]

Hi Everyone:

I am looking for information about B.W.C Co. (Brooklyn Watch Case Company).

Was B.W.C. Co. considered a premium case manufacturer and can anyone tell me if they had made any cases for Hamilton pocket watches?

Thanks,

Will

[Kent]

Will:

The Brooklyn Watch Case Co. is discussed in the book, "History of the American Watch Case," Warren H. Niebling, Whitmore Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, 1971 (available on loan by mail to members from the NAWCC Library & Research Center (http://www.nawcc.org/Library/library.htm)). Mr. Niebling describes the firm as starting in New York City in 1865 and moving to Brooklyn (at that time, a separate city, one of the country's largest) in 1866. The company started out by making gold and silver cases, but production of the silver cases eventually ceased. Brooklyn made gold-filled cases, and 14-karat solid gold cases, but is best known for its line of Eagle, solid 8K or 9K gold cases. Sometime in the late 1890s or early 1900s, Brooklyn was bought out by the Joseph Fahys Watch Case Co. who had been listed in Brooklyn ads since 1896 as their selling agent.

Brooklyn Case Grades
14K: - - - - 14K solid gold.
old ref::Wheat[/url]: - - Double Stock - 14K outer layer, 8K inner layer. Discontinued in 1893.
Granger: - Double Stock - 14K outer layer, 8K inner layer. Possibly introduced in 1889.
[url="http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/,s,2386079361,a,ga,ul,1796038885,ic,Y/1887_March_Brooklyn_Eagle___Wheat_LR.jpg"]Eagle: - - - 8K solid gold. Discontinued in mid-to-late1890s.
A1 Eagle: - - - 8K solid gold. Introduced in 1898.
Bristol - - 25 Year, 14K gold-filled. Introduced around 1905 (date approximate).
Windsor - 20 Year gold-filled. Introduced around 1902 (date approximate).

Its possible that Fahys made solid 14K gold Brooklyn cases for Hamilton, but I don't remember seeing any documentation to support that possiblilty.

Kent

[Kent]

Brooklyn's Granger case is described in the link below.

[Kent]

At the start of 1909, Brooklyn's "14-karat" cases assayed at just under 14K. They claimed that this was finer than others in the industry, pointing out that Federal law required the stock claimed to be 14K must be at least 13.50.

[Kent]

Shortly thereafter, Brooklyn felt the need to refine to 14.29 assay to stay ahead of the competition.

[Kent]

Earlier Brooklyn ads fail to mention the actual assay of their 14K cases.

[Kent]

In addition to making standard American case sizes, Brooklyn also furnished cases sized for Howard watches.

[Will Roseman]

Kent:

You are a prince!!!

That's exactly the information that I was looking for. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I am currently working on a project researching Hamilton "0" sized movements utilized in early men's Hamilton wrist watches. I have several examples of each model variation and I have found that all cases that housed the Hamilton 981 "0" 17-jewel movement where Fahys cased and made in silver (Hamilton did produce a very amount of gold-filled cases as well). I recently was able to acquire a 14K gold 981 and it is cased in a heavy BWC Co. 14K case and I found it unusual that Hamilton would use Fahys for the silver cases but not Fahys for the gold cases. All 981's were timed and cased in the factory and since there were only 212 14K 981 wrist watches made, I had only one example to examine.

Upon close observation of the inside of the BWC Co. case, I found that the 981 movement fits the case perfectly (as most "0" sized watches of that period should) however, and most importantly, the screw marks holding the 981 movement fit perfectly and there are no other marks indicating another movement was resident. This is an indication that the Hamilton 981 was the only movement housed in that particular case and further indicated that Hamilton did use BWC Co. for their 14K early wrist watches.

In addition, I spent a great deal of time reviewing Hamilton's early cash journals but had only found payments made to Fahys and none to BWC Co. which I found confusing. But because of your assistance, I now understand why that is. Since Fahys acted as BWC Co. agent and later bought BWC Co., it is understandable that Fahys would be paid as agent to BWC Co., and because Fahys purchased BWC Co. prior to the time that these wrist watches were made, there would be no reason for BWC Co. to appear in Hamilton's journals. Naturally the Fahys/BWC Co. relationship further validates Hamilton's usage.

I spoke to Mr. Niebling about this conundrum and he too was helpful, but your finding documentation which you generously attached to your posts was the clinch I needed. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the time and effort you put in your posts to me. I hope some day to return the favor.

Kindest regards,

Will

[Kent]

In going back through the Brooklyn ads, I found something that I hadn't noticed before: In 1896, Brooklyn advertised that they fit and adjusted cases to a running movement, prior to shipping the case (see link below). This shouldn't be taken to mean that one had to ship one's movements to Brooklyn in order to have them cased, nor does it mean that the movements were adjusted in the cases. The best guess I could come up with for the meaning is Brooklyn ensured that a standard sized movement (the 1896 identity of which is unclear) fit into the case and tightening the case screws didn't stop the movement. However, one wonders why this didn't leave case screw marks (or maybe it did leave faint marks).

Kent

[Kent]

Another interesting ad (link below) shows that Brooklyn was making 14K dust-proof cases (the picture of which looks like a pair case) in 1890. Apparently, these were for pendant-set watches since no lever slot is visible in the picture.

Edited to correct spelling.

[Will Roseman]

Hi Kent:

The Hamilton 981 movement was made between 1919 and 1922 and the BWC Co. "0" sized case would have been made about that period. Also, it appears that by 1919, Fahys owned BWC Co. so it stands to reason that Fahys which made Hamilton's "0" sized silver cases used BWC Co. cases for the 14K versions. I have posted a picture of the case which is a wire lugged 14K case in my earlier post.

There are no indications that another movement was ever in the case. I say this because another movement would have left screw marks where the movement is anchored to the case. The only screw marks on this case are those for the 981 "0" sized Hamilton.

Additionally, early Hamilton records state that Hamilton had the cases shipped to Lancaster, PA and put the movements in the case themselves where they were timed as well.

Thanks for the additional information. It was very helpful and was integral in my establishment that Hamilton did indeed utilize BWC Co. 14K cases for their 981 "0" sized men's wrist watch.

Again, many thanks.

Will