Tyranny of the Keystone Watch Case Co.?

[John F]

Piecing together the watch-related co. mergers and acquisitions of the late 19th and early 20th century, it seems that Keystone Watch Case Co. was the big boy on the block. Some of the dates and manner of acquisition may be off (not all the sources seem to agree), but consider this -

In 1901, the Keystone Watch Case Co., successor in 1885 to C.N. Thorpe and Hagstoz & Thorpe before it, acquired Suffolk Watch Co. - itself the successor to Columbia Watch Co. in 1899.

In 1903 Keystone acquired New York Standard Watch Co., and continued production through 1929 under the NYS and Crown Watch Co. names.

About the same time, Keystone acquired rights to the E. Howard name, producing watches through the end of the 1920s.

In 1904 Keystone acquired (or merged with) the Philadelphia Watch Case Co. (successor to Leichty & Le Bouba in 1888), which in 1901 had acquired the U.S. Watch Co. of Waltham. This was after Philadelphia Watch Case Co had itself snarfed up Bacon & Bates Watch Case Co., not long after B&B had suffered a disastrous fire a few years earlier.

Also in 1904, after gobbling up Bay State Watch Case Co. and the Waltham Case Co., Keystone merged with the Crescent Watch Case Co., successor to Chicago Watch Case Co.

So within just a few years at the turn of the century, under the Keystone corporate umbrella was the history of over a dozen watch and watch case companies & their successors (not counting all the companies in the Howard line).

It seems that if you weren't a major player in the late 19th and early 20th century (and even if you were), Keystone was a shark in the water. Interesting too that this was the work of a case company, since case companies do not seem as closely studied as the watch companies themselves (even the minor ones), though perhaps Keystone's business model was reasonably solid.

I have seen some references indicating that Keystone survived into the 1950s. Can anyone confirm this?

[John F]

Piecing together the watch-related co. mergers and acquisitions of the late 19th and early 20th century, it seems that Keystone Watch Case Co. was the big boy on the block. Some of the dates and manner of acquisition may be off (not all the sources seem to agree), but consider this -

In 1901, the Keystone Watch Case Co., successor in 1885 to C.N. Thorpe and Hagstoz & Thorpe before it, acquired Suffolk Watch Co. - itself the successor to Columbia Watch Co. in 1899.

In 1903 Keystone acquired New York Standard Watch Co., and continued production through 1929 under the NYS and Crown Watch Co. names.

About the same time, Keystone acquired rights to the E. Howard name, producing watches through the end of the 1920s.

In 1904 Keystone acquired (or merged with) the Philadelphia Watch Case Co. (successor to Leichty & Le Bouba in 1888), which in 1901 had acquired the U.S. Watch Co. of Waltham. This was after Philadelphia Watch Case Co had itself snarfed up Bacon & Bates Watch Case Co., not long after B&B had suffered a disastrous fire a few years earlier.

Also in 1904, after gobbling up Bay State Watch Case Co. and the Waltham Case Co., Keystone merged with the Crescent Watch Case Co., successor to Chicago Watch Case Co.

So within just a few years at the turn of the century, under the Keystone corporate umbrella was the history of over a dozen watch and watch case companies & their successors (not counting all the companies in the Howard line).

It seems that if you weren't a major player in the late 19th and early 20th century (and even if you were), Keystone was a shark in the water. Interesting too that this was the work of a case company, since case companies do not seem as closely studied as the watch companies themselves (even the minor ones), though perhaps Keystone's business model was reasonably solid.

I have seen some references indicating that Keystone survived into the 1950s. Can anyone confirm this?

[Kent]

John:

The evidence of Keystone surviving into the 1950's is the cases that can be found on on watches of that era. The most obvious are the Hamilton No. 2 cases on 992Bs and 950Bs. Sure, the later, similar looking case, the No. 17, was made by Star, but in the 1950s, those two watches appeared in No. 2 cases. The same goes for Ball watches. The Hamilton-Ball Official Standard 999Bs, even the last ones made in the 1950s, were all in Keystone cases. As were some of the Record-Ball 435s, 435Bs & 435Cs.

Then, somebody gave me, an undated article from an unknown newspaper that discusses the tower clock at the Keystone Watch Case Co. plant in Riverside, NJ. It talks about "... Robert Knoll. As a former employee at the watch (case) company from 1959 to 1966, Knoll was responsible for winding the clock's crank each week." So it seems that Keystone was in business at least until 1966.

Kent

[Kent]

Keystone wasn't the only one to be careful of. There was a long-standing marketing trust formed by the largest watch and case manufacturers. This also included jobbers. Although the following may seem local to New York City, bear in mind that this was the focal point of the industry. The New York Times carried an article on July 15, 1892 entitled:

"Amenable For Conspiracy
...
"The combination which has existed for the past seven years among the manufacturers and jobbers of watches, by means of which the price of timepieces in this county has been kept in the control of the makers, is just now receiving the attention of District Attorney Nicoll. The probable result of the investigation will be the indictment of several well-known New Yorkers for conspiracy.

"Two associations are responsible for the present condition of affairs. One is an organization in which are included the principal manufacturers of watch movements, and the other is the National Association of Jobbers of American Watches. In the former are the American Waltham Watch Company, the Columbus Watch Company, the Elgin National Watch Company, the E. Howard Watch and Clock Company, the New-York Standard Watch Company and the Seth Thomas Clock Company. The Trenton Watch Company was formerly a member, but withdrew several months ago.

"The association of jobbers includes nearly all the largest handlers of watches in the country. ...

"The purpose for which the association of jobbers was formed is expressed in a circular mailed to its members, in which the names of the manufacturers of movements and cases precede the following words:

'<span class="ev_code_brown">Please remember that only the above manufacturers are in co-operation with the association, and in return for such co-operation the members have agreed to handle no American movements or gold, filled, silver, or base metal cases except of their manufacture. Job lots of movements and cases, made by other manufacturers, are thrown upon the market from time to time, and have been offered to our members. Therefore, I desire to call your attention to the fact that it will be contrary to the agreement made with the manufacturers at the annual meeting if you purchase such goods under any circumstances, either from the manufacturers of them or from any other party or parties who may offer them for sale.</span>'

"This was signed by James H. Noyes, Secretary and Commissioner."

This affected a number of companies. Dueber-Hampden is a good example. One of John Dueber's main reasons for buying into Hampden was to be able to offer movements and cases to independent jewelers. One of the means used by the jobbers to control the market was to only sell nearly equal amounts of cases and movements to dealers. Without a supply of movements, for which the jewelers had no cases, Dueber was having trouble getting his cases sold.

Several years after the above described trust fell apart, another attempt got started. The N.Y. Times reported, on June 18, 1896 that Mr. J.H. Noyes (Secretary and Commissioner of the former trust) told a reporter:

"Efforts have been made for a number of months to organize a new association of watch jobbers throughout the country. ... Mr. Noyes wished it understood that the new association was in no sense a trust."

Nevertheless,
" ...the essential features of the association will be as follows:

"Membership will be open to every dealer in the wholesale watch or jewelry business who keeps a stock of American watches, movements, and cases in proportion to the amount of his general business. Each member of the association shall place with the Secretary during the month of January in each year a true and complete printed copy of his price lists of all American watches watch movements, and gold, filled, silver, and base metal watch cases in which he deals, and shall not make any change whatever in the list without first communicating the change to the Secretary.

"The officers and Directors are to urge both manufacturers and retailers to do business with those jobbers who are members of the association,

"Each manufacturer is to pay to the Treasurer of the association on the first day of each month a sum equal to a certain per cent on his price list of all goods purchased of him by members of the association.
"The plan, it is declared does not provide for any regulation of the output or for any combination of manufacturers."

This sure sounds like a trust, with the manufacturers paying rebates to the jobbers. Apparently some body or some organization had significant negative input to the association. On July 16, 1896, the N.Y. Times carried an item under the heading:

"No Watch Trust At Present
...
"It was decided at a meeting of watch jobbers at 130 Broadway yesterday that it was inexpedient for them to organize an association. About twenty-five jobbers from all over the country were present and it was said that they represented $20,000,000 of capital."

Be all that as it may, trusts and similar organizations continued, such that in the `teens, the Burlington Watch Co. was selling mail-order, using a fight against "The Trust" as a major selling point. This started at least as early as 1910 (see link below) and continued for a year or more (see link in following reply). The was a lot of truth in Burlington's claims, but there was a certain amount of advertising hype as well. Nahum Lewis wrote an excellent article, "The Burlington Watch Company's Fight Against the Trust," which appeared in the December 1997 NAWCC Bulletin on pages 706-9.

Kent

P.S. Edited to add the watch company names.

[Kent]

Burlington continues to fight the trust.

[4thdimension]

Trust was the name but combination was the game
starting in the late 1800's. Burlington Watch Co. put up a fight but the Burlington Route
succumbed to the Rock Island Crowd who, beginning with the Rock Island Line, began a series of aquisitions with the hope of creating a coast to coast road under single ownership.
Ambitious and audacious and, in the end, not
successful.
This is the story of the big fish eating the little fish which has played out for many years and continues to this day. It isn't always wrong evolution but there are usually victims.
-Cort

[Jerry Treiman]

Although Keystone may not have merged with Philadelphia until 1904, Keystone owned all of the stock in the Philadelphia Watch Case Co. as early as 1900. Also, one man was associated with both companies well before that date. Theophilus Zurbrugg was the owner of the Philadelphia Watch Case Co. since the 1880s. In 1899 the T. Zurbrugg Company merged with the Keystone Company. So it appears that it was only as corporate entities that Keystone and Philadelphia merged in 1904 - they were already under common control.

[By the way, my sources (Sanderson and opinions stated in Federal antitrust case) indicate that it was Keystone that bought the U.S. Watch Co., not Philadelphia (although it was still Zurbrugg, either way). The antitrust case also cites slightly different years for some of the other mergers and acquisitions.]

[terry hall]

One point...........

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The most obvious are the Hamilton No. 2 cases on 992Bs and 950Bs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The model 2 hamilton case was not a Keystone case, but a Wadsworth case...
attached below is a shot of a late model 2 case marking.. note the J prefix and the lack of a patent date... sorry in advance for the quality

The replacement for the model 2, the model 17, was a Keystone case at first, then Star produced the case. This was to have occurred 'about' 1953 or so and is supported but Hamilton Product Lists and examples of surviving boxed watches...

[terry hall]

This is a model 17 Keystone case marking...

[Kent]

:redface: Oops - Boy am I embarrassed! What really hurts is -I knew that!

*sigh* Such is the folly of writing answers after midnight.

Thanks Terry,
Kent

[Kent]

Jerry:

It appears that the common control of many of the companies continued. For those who haven't read the fine print in Burlington's letter, it reproduces a May 6, 1910 article from the Chicago Tribune, which documents, in part:

"Morgan interest in the watch trust is said to be represented by Edward T. Stotesbury, who is a member of the firm of J.P. Morgan and Co. of New York and Drexel and Co., which is Mr. Morgan's Philadelphia house. Mr. Stotesbury is connected with the following watch companies: Vice president and director of the Keystone Watch Case company, director of the United States Watch company, director of the Crescent Watch Case company, director of the E. Howard Watch company, director of the New York Standard Watch company, director of the Philadelphia Watch Case company."

[Greg Frauenhoff]

FWIW, here is a c. 1883 view of the Keystone case factories:

http://members.aol.com/gfrauen/keyfactory.jpg

It is from a large flyer titled "How Watch Cases Are Made, Illustrated." This flyer also has some early history of the Co.

[Kent]

There are links to a series of New York Times articles on Keystone's monopolistic activities over a period of about 20 years in the Wiki article on the Watch Trust.