Usage of Hamilton "0" size movements . . .

[Will Roseman]

Hi Everyone:

I am not new to the NAWCC but am new to this site and am hoping that someone could help me with information I am looking for. My question concerns the usage of a Hamilton "0" size movement utilized in an early wrist watch Cushion case. Because of the usage of an "0" movement, I am hoping that pocket watch aficionados may be able to help me.

I am currently researching early Hamilton "0" size 981 Cushions (circa 1919 to 1923) and am attempting to verify case manufactures for the three 981 "0" sized Cushion variations which were all cased and timed in the Hamilton factory.

Hamilton utilized silver, gold-filled and 14K solid gold cases for the 981 movement in three distinct case variations:

The "narrow" wire lugged version in silver (18mm lugs)
The "spring bar" lugged version in silver
The "wide" wire lugged version (22 mm lugs)

I am able to verify Fahy's as the case manufacturer for both the "narrow" wire lugged silver variation and the "spring bar" lugged silver variation through examining several examples of each.

My research is now concentrated on the 14K solid gold example of which only 212 were manufactured (I have attached a picture to this post). I was recently able to acquire this rare example and discovered that the case manufacturer was B.W.C. Co. (Brooklyn Watch Case Company) and this example is a "wide" lugged variation (the first "wide" lugged variation I have seen on a Hamilton 981 Cushion although they are illustrated in early Hamilton catalogs). My question is - Would Hamilton have utilized Fahy's for the silver "narrow" lugged version and simultaneously utilized B.W.C. Co for the 14K solid gold "wide" lugged version?

Thus far, all "narrow" lugged versions I have examined have been silver and manufactured by Fahy's (although I have seen "wide" lugged silver Fahy's Cushions but not utilized with Hamiltons). Due to its rarity, this "wide" lugged version is the only version I have been able to examine and it is solid 14K gold.

I am hoping that through the NAWCC member's many years of collecting, someone may have seen examples and through their experience, may be able to give me their thoughts on if the B.W.C. Co. case is original to the Hamilton 981 14K gold Cushion or would the correct case be a 14K gold Fahy's.

Thanks a bunch,

Will

[Will Roseman]

Hi Everyone:

I am not new to the NAWCC but am new to this site and am hoping that someone could help me with information I am looking for. My question concerns the usage of a Hamilton "0" size movement utilized in an early wrist watch Cushion case. Because of the usage of an "0" movement, I am hoping that pocket watch aficionados may be able to help me.

I am currently researching early Hamilton "0" size 981 Cushions (circa 1919 to 1923) and am attempting to verify case manufactures for the three 981 "0" sized Cushion variations which were all cased and timed in the Hamilton factory.

Hamilton utilized silver, gold-filled and 14K solid gold cases for the 981 movement in three distinct case variations:

The "narrow" wire lugged version in silver (18mm lugs)
The "spring bar" lugged version in silver
The "wide" wire lugged version (22 mm lugs)

I am able to verify Fahy's as the case manufacturer for both the "narrow" wire lugged silver variation and the "spring bar" lugged silver variation through examining several examples of each.

My research is now concentrated on the 14K solid gold example of which only 212 were manufactured (I have attached a picture to this post). I was recently able to acquire this rare example and discovered that the case manufacturer was B.W.C. Co. (Brooklyn Watch Case Company) and this example is a "wide" lugged variation (the first "wide" lugged variation I have seen on a Hamilton 981 Cushion although they are illustrated in early Hamilton catalogs). My question is - Would Hamilton have utilized Fahy's for the silver "narrow" lugged version and simultaneously utilized B.W.C. Co for the 14K solid gold "wide" lugged version?

Thus far, all "narrow" lugged versions I have examined have been silver and manufactured by Fahy's (although I have seen "wide" lugged silver Fahy's Cushions but not utilized with Hamiltons). Due to its rarity, this "wide" lugged version is the only version I have been able to examine and it is solid 14K gold.

I am hoping that through the NAWCC member's many years of collecting, someone may have seen examples and through their experience, may be able to give me their thoughts on if the B.W.C. Co. case is original to the Hamilton 981 14K gold Cushion or would the correct case be a 14K gold Fahy's.

Thanks a bunch,

Will

[Jerry Treiman]

Will, is part of your question whether Hamilton would use different case manufacturers for different cases during the same time period? It was 10 years later, but Hamilton simultaneously used three different manufacturers (Schwab & Wuischpard, Solidarity and Wadsworth) to case their grade 400 pocketwatch. The first two companies provided 18K cases and the latter provided gold-filled cases.

[Will Roseman]

Hi Jerry:

Indeed, on occasion Hamilton utilized different case manufactures for their wristwatches as well (i.e., Langley in 1929 and the Barrel in 1927).

My question pertains specially to the 981 Cushion and the usage of BWC Co. which was not one of the typical case manufactures that Hamilton used in later years (i.e., Wadsworth, Fahy's, Solidarity, Perrin, S&W, etc.). Certainly they could have used BWC Co. since it was one of Hamilton's first cased watches (1919) but that's the big question. I suppose what I am looking for is confirmation from someone who has handled a 14K 981 wire-lugged Cushion and knows who the case manufacture was for this watch.

Thanks,

Will