Goal: $300, Received: $30.00 (10%) Contribute Now
Donate whatever you can or Join the 14,000 other NAWCC members for only $80 (plus $10 for hard copy publications). Check it out here.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
  1. #16

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input!

    Thank you for the link! Though they didn't show a photo of "S#132" transitioning between OF & HC, from the description it would seem that it is similar to mine. The "nickel finish" newer design certainly would have been simpler to operate. I am puzzled at the Nickel Finish "bearing the 1858 patent date" being referred to as a later design and yet my case is 1868 patent date and is supposedly of an earlier design?? Maybe I missed something. In any event, this additional info is much appreciated!
    Quote Originally Posted by Clint Geller View Post
    I remembered that pictures of the two gold Baldwin reversible case Howard keywind watches I mentioned previously are available at the link below. Both of these watches were exhibited at the 2002 NAWCC National Seminar: "Boston, Cradle of Industrial Watchmaking," in Boxborough, MA, which I chaired. Click on the links therein to "S# 132" and to "nickel finish."

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160305.../howardcat.htm
    Last edited by docbooks; 07-15-2017 at 02:52 PM.

  2. #17

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: docbooks)

    I just looked at the case signature on mine and, what looks like 1868 to the naked eye, is actually 1858 when using a 40x loupe ---- so, for whatever reason, both styles have the same patent date. Leaves me still a little puzzled
    Quote Originally Posted by docbooks View Post
    Thank you for the link! Though they didn't show a photo of "S#132" transitioning between OF & HC, from the description it would seem that it is similar to mine. The "nickel finish" newer design certainly would have been simpler to operate. I am puzzled at the Nickel Finish "bearing the 1858 patent date" being referred to as a later design and yet my case is 1868 patent date and is supposedly of an earlier design?? Maybe I missed something. In any event, this additional info is much appreciated!

  3. #18
    Technical Admin Tom McIntyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Boston. MA USA
    Posts
    19,157
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: docbooks)

    If your case pivots in the band on a 45 degree axis from the pendant, it is almost certainly the same mechanism. The difference between the first and second model that Clint described is that the release catch for the movement and band inside is combined with the HC latch release in the second model. That is a patent improvement that may not have been registered since it is a lot of work to file a patent for something that is relatively easy to think of. Putting the release button at another position allows the use of the simple form of HC cover release which is the original design.

    I am sure it is Druand's 1858 patent that we are talking about. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=0...6RS=PN/0020554

    There is also a later design patent by Wallace Durand in 1894 for putting a mermaid on the cover of a watch case.
    Tom McIntyre Click me.
    If you don't learn to laugh at trouble,
    you won't have anything to laugh at when you're old.
    Will Rogers

  4. #19

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Tom McIntyre)

    Got it! But, it was not only that the button changed positions, but also the rotation occurred within the band frame, eliminating a separate step to reconfigure the formats. That would seem enough of an improvement to warrant a new patent... but maybe not. Thanks for posting the original patent---- I'm accumulating a nice sized folder of info on my desktop!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom McIntyre View Post
    If your case pivots in the band on a 45 degree axis from the pendant, it is almost certainly the same mechanism. The difference between the first and second model that Clint described is that the release catch for the movement and band inside is combined with the HC latch release in the second model. That is a patent improvement that may not have been registered since it is a lot of work to file a patent for something that is relatively easy to think of. Putting the release button at another position allows the use of the simple form of HC cover release which is the original design.

    I am sure it is Druand's 1858 patent that we are talking about. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=0...6RS=PN/0020554

    There is also a later design patent by Wallace Durand in 1894 for putting a mermaid on the cover of a watch case.

  5. #20
    Technical Admin Tom McIntyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Boston. MA USA
    Posts
    19,157
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: docbooks)

    I think that some of the complexity of your watch is unrelated to the patent. It is a standard Liverpool movement that is intended to mount with a joint between the "case" and the pillar plate. It would be interesting to see the details of that feature. The American watches use case screws to hold the movement in the ring. The English watch also has a dust cap that further complicates the arrangement. Is there a latch opposite the joint holding the movement in the case? Or, is there something else to secure it? Or, maybe there is no joint and the movement is secured in some other way.

    I believe I have also seen a Swiss movement in one of these cases that looks much more like the American configuration.
    Tom McIntyre Click me.
    If you don't learn to laugh at trouble,
    you won't have anything to laugh at when you're old.
    Will Rogers

  6. #21

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Tom McIntyre)

    Tom, Did you have a chance to view the video I posted? I believe this will answer your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sZs...ature=youtu.be I was still learning the ins and outs of accessing the watch, so bear with my fumbling (careful fumbling though )

  7. #22
    Technical Admin Tom McIntyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Boston. MA USA
    Posts
    19,157
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input!

    OK, I see the operation now. It has been a long time since I handled one of these. I cannot remember if the American ones have two pivots or one as yours does. The other thing that has me struggling to remember is how you open the back for winding . I seem to recall that when it is in the HC configuration you can just open both back covers (outer gold and inner glass and then the winding hole is exposed. Possibly, one cannot open both back covers to get to the winding when it is in the other configuration.

    Of course, I could have that backward or be out in left field on all of it. It has been about 15 years now since I have handled one.

    It is a very neat watch and I think you got a mid-Summer bargain.

    OK, I took a second look and, of course, saw that you wound it in the OF configuration by opening both back covers. (I would recommend pushing in on the latch button in the pendant whenever opening the outer cover.) Can you do the same thing when it is in the closed HC configuration and open the back for winding?
    Last edited by Tom McIntyre; 07-15-2017 at 11:47 PM. Reason: second look at video
    Tom McIntyre Click me.
    If you don't learn to laugh at trouble,
    you won't have anything to laugh at when you're old.
    Will Rogers

  8. #23

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Tom McIntyre)

    When in the HC configuration, first the outer bezel (ring) is released with the case opener, then the rear cover is released with the case opener. The cover with the winding hole is now exposed, and it is fixed, that is, it is attached to, and part of, the inner frame and forms the bottom of a bowl which holds the movement. Also, I always push the release button on the pendant when opening the signature cover, which of course can be either the front or rear cover depending on which configuration the watch is in. When in the OF setting, the signature cover becomes the rear, rear cover, then there is the next cover and finally the fixed winding hole cover. Hope that is all clearer than mud!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom McIntyre View Post
    OK, I see the operation now. It has been a long time since I handled one of these. I cannot remember if the American ones have two pivots or one as yours does. The other thing that has me struggling to remember is how you open the back for winding . I seem to recall that when it is in the HC configuration you can just open both back covers (outer gold and inner glass and then the winding hole is exposed. Possibly, one cannot open both back covers to get to the winding when it is in the other configuration.

    Of course, I could have that backward or be out in left field on all of it. It has been about 15 years now since I have handled one.

    It is a very neat watch and I think you got a mid-Summer bargain.

    OK, I took a second look and, of course, saw that you wound it in the OF configuration by opening both back covers. (I would recommend pushing in on the latch button in the pendant whenever opening the outer cover.) Can you do the same thing when it is in the closed HC configuration and open the back for winding?
    PiersLawrence
    In the end, time makes fools of us all...some more than others.'

  9. #24

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Tom McIntyre)

    I still haven't figured out the 1858 Patent dates. Here is the link to the watch with the supposedly later, improved version of the convertible mechanism, but it is marked 1858 just like mine and yet is a totally different design. Maybe they got 2 patents in the same year for 2 different designs?? https://web.archive.org/web/20160305...dTheme/h13.htm Maybe I am missing something??
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom McIntyre View Post
    If your case pivots in the band on a 45 degree axis from the pendant, it is almost certainly the same mechanism. The difference between the first and second model that Clint described is that the release catch for the movement and band inside is combined with the HC latch release in the second model. That is a patent improvement that may not have been registered since it is a lot of work to file a patent for something that is relatively easy to think of. Putting the release button at another position allows the use of the simple form of HC cover release which is the original design.

    I am sure it is Druand's 1858 patent that we are talking about. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=0...6RS=PN/0020554

    There is also a later design patent by Wallace Durand in 1894 for putting a mermaid on the cover of a watch case.
    PiersLawrence
    In the end, time makes fools of us all...some more than others.'

  10. #25
    Registered User Clint Geller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    894

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input!

    Tom is indeed correct that the two Howard watches I showed have reversible cases with the differences between them that he described. The Howard Catalog of the 2002 NAWCC Seminar exhibit, linked here earlier, comments on these same differences.

    In 1858, open face cases were slowly gaining in popularity, so it is not unreasonable to think that enterprising persons in both the US and England saw the same marketing opportunity nearly simultaneously. However, as both I and Tom had mentioned, the swing-out style of case, in which the movement ring is hinged to the watch case, would have required different specific arrangements. Several watchmaking innovations emerged at roughly the same time on both sides of the pond, driven by the same technical issues and marketing opportunities. For example, the first American watches with Reed's patent mainspring barrel reached the market in 1859, and a very similar mechanism was patented in England (Powell's patent) in 1862. Powell may have been aware of Reed's invention, or the ongoing shift in England towards going barrel watches without fusees may simply have motivated a similar solution to the common problem of watch movements without fusees being damaged by too-frequent mainspring breakages. Other instances of parallel development could be cited.
    Last edited by Clint Geller; 07-16-2017 at 10:32 AM.
    Clint Geller, FNAWCC, # 84,947

  11. #26

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Clint Geller)

    Clint, so if I understand your post correctly, you opine that both designs could have been developed more or less at the same time, hence both having the same same 1858 patent date.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clint Geller View Post
    Tom is indeed correct that the two Howard watches I showed have reversible cases with the differences between them that he described. The Howard Catalog of the 2002 NAWCC Seminar exhibit, linked here earlier, comments on these same differences.

    In 1858, open face cases were slowly gaining in popularity, so it is not unreasonable to think that enterprising persons in both the US and England saw the same marketing opportunity nearly simultaneously. However, as both I and Tom had mentioned, the swing-out style of case, in which the movement ring is hinged to the watch case, would have required different specific arrangements. Several watchmaking innovations emerged at roughly the same time on both sides of the pond, driven by the same technical issues and marketing opportunities. For example, the first American watches with Reed's patent mainspring barrel reached the market in 1859, and a very similar mechanism was patented in England (Powell's patent) in 1862. Powell may have been aware of Reed's invention, or the ongoing shift in England towards going barrel watches without fusees may simply have motivated a similar solution to the common problem of watch movements without fusees being damaged by too-frequent mainspring breakages. Other instances of parallel development could be cited.
    PiersLawrence
    In the end, time makes fools of us all...some more than others.'

  12. #27
    Registered User Clint Geller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    894

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: docbooks)

    Quote Originally Posted by docbooks View Post
    Clint, so if I understand your post correctly, you opine that both designs could have been developed more or less at the same time, hence both having the same same 1858 patent date.
    Yes, that is possible. It may also be that the two designers knew each other somehow. In my opinion, the idea that one stranger simply copied the other is actually made somewhat less likely by the fact that both patents seem to have been granted in 1858. It normally takes a little time for a cross-Atlantic copycat to catch wind of a new idea from across the pond and then modify it to fit local conditions (i.e., the differences in the way watch movements were attached to cases in America and in Europe).
    Clint Geller, FNAWCC, # 84,947

  13. #28
    Technical Admin Tom McIntyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Boston. MA USA
    Posts
    19,157
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Clint Geller)

    In looking further into the patent information, I found this reissue of the Watson patent that was licensed to Baldwin. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=R...6RS=PN/RE00586

    The further one digs the more confusing it gets. Watson was an Englishman who licensed the patent exclusively to Baldwin and Bliss of New Jersey. The Watson patent also incorporates two pivot points.

    Watson references prior work, so the term Magic Case was older than this invention. The more common Cabriolet case is certainly older and may date from before 1830.

    I also have a recollection of a case where both of the back covers opened if in the open face configuration but that may be my imagination running away with me.
    Tom McIntyre Click me.
    If you don't learn to laugh at trouble,
    you won't have anything to laugh at when you're old.
    Will Rogers

  14. #29

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: Tom McIntyre)

    Not your imagination Tom if you are talking about the watch I used to have. That case had more hinges than I'd ever seen before.-Cort

  15. #30
    Registered User Clint Geller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    894

    Default Re: 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input! (By: docbooks)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom McIntyre View Post
    In looking further into the patent information, I found this reissue of the Watson patent that was licensed to Baldwin. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=R...6RS=PN/RE00586

    The further one digs the more confusing it gets. Watson was an Englishman who licensed the patent exclusively to Baldwin and Bliss of New Jersey. The Watson patent also incorporates two pivot points.

    Watson references prior work, so the term Magic Case was older than this invention. The more common Cabriolet case is certainly older and may date from before 1830.

    I also have a recollection of a case where both of the back covers opened if in the open face configuration but that may be my imagination running away with me.
    Interesting. American and English watchmaking were certainly very intertwined.

Similar Threads

  1. 1860's Fusee in 18KT CONVERTIBLE case , runs fine, would like input!
    By docbooks in forum European & Other Pocket Watches
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 07:26 PM
  2. A. Rossel minute repeating and cased pocket watch in 18kt Help
    By miaggi2 in forum European & Other Pocket Watches
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-27-2015, 03:16 PM
  3. Cronómetro supremo in a "convertible" fogel case
    By jjea in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2014, 06:45 PM
  4. small numbers in Pocket Watch cases
    By VisionAirey in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-18-2007, 09:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •