Month's Goal: $300, Received: $45.00 - (15%) Contribute Now
Donate whatever you can or Join the 15,000 other NAWCC members for only $72 (plus $10 for hard copy publications). Check it out here.


NOTICE Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 851 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Default Waltham 1872/1888?

    Hello all,

    I bought a Waltham 1872 movement,Royal Grade, just because I didn't have one. By the way, my wife loves that reason as much as I love "because it was on sale."'

    Anyway, when I got the movement I noticed that the staff was trashed (standard gripe) and the balance table was missing (a new gripe).

    A little research shows that the dimensions of the 1888 staff are the same as the 1872's staff. The issue of the pivots aside, can you use a 1888 balance assembly in an 1872?


    Lorne

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,857

    Default Re: Waltham 1872/1888? (RE: Lorne)

    Lorne, according to my information source the 1872 staff is not the same as the 1888. The 1872 staff is 5.86mm long whereas the 1888 staff is 6.10mm. The Waltham Pt Nos are different with the 1872 being # 2844 and the 1888 #4251. I think the answer to your question is - no.

  3. #3
    Registered User Harold Visser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Scottsdale
    Posts
    376

    Default Re: Waltham 1872/1888? (RE: DaveyG)

    From the Otto Frei watch material site,

    16 Size 1872 Model, Description: Large Shoulder ("G" 1.31 mm), Large Waist (Hub 2.00 mm)
    Dimension: A 6.09 mm, B 3.10 mm, F 0.92 mm, G 1.31 mm, H 0.62 mm The 16 size 1872 model used four different staffs: 4251, 4252, 4253 and 4254
    4251 is small shoulder with large waist
    4252 is small shoulder with small waist
    4253 is large shoulder with large waist
    4254 is large shoulder with small waist

  4. #4

    Default Re: Waltham 1872/1888? (RE: Harold Visser)

    Nuts, I found a reference that stated both were 5.85...

    Oh well...

  5. #5
    Technical Admin Tom McIntyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Boston. MA USA
    Posts
    15,640
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: Waltham 1872/1888? (RE: Lorne)

    Perhaps they needed to make room for the double roller.
    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. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,857

    Default Re: Waltham 1872/1888? (RE: Tom McIntyre)

    Re my Post #2. My error, I transposed the whole data sets from Col Townsends booklet, which should read:

    1872 - #4251 Length 6.10
    1888 - #2844 Length 5.86

    Apologies for any confusion that I caused.

    This information source does actually give the length of the #4252 as 6.20. #4253 & #4254 as 6.13

Similar Threads

  1. Do all Waltham Model 1888
    By Wayne C. Anderson in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 11:43 AM
  2. Stem problem on a Waltham model 1888
    By Randy Becker in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2006, 06:04 AM
  3. Help identifying Waltham Model 1888 case
    By Decoy Carver in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 01:08 AM
  4. Waltham Model 1888, Riverside, two tone
    By uhries in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 02:29 AM
  5. Waltham Model #1888 movement size
    By Spike in forum American Pocket Watches
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2002, 01:44 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
  •