Illinois Bunn Special

[Larry Treiman]

Thanks, Ed, for your kind comments and suggestion. I have hand-copied it in a spiral notebook that I keep near the computer where I can easily find it. What I have been doing recently is instead of going over it carefully before posting and worrying about the "small stuff", I just post and immediately bring it back on edit to check over. That gives me more time, though it might be a somewhat unorthodox computer method. I could also learn to be less wordy and less fussy about my writing, but I won't count on that ever happening!

Thanks, again.

Larry,
Still living blissfully back in the 1960's, technologically speaking.

[Robert Sweet]

Larry,

Thanks for all the in-depth information. You mentioned earlier that you were of the opinion that the 161B was made in 1935 or a little later. What is the very latest date you feel the 161B's were made?

Robert

[Peacefullacres]

My watch has a silver hairspring. In light of the serial number and manufacture date (1948?) can you hazard a guess where it was during this change? There might have been some (very few) exceptions during this time when manufacturing might have been turned around.

[Robert Sweet]

Originally Posted by Peacefullacres

My watch has a silver hairspring. In light of the serial number and manufacture date (1948?) can you hazard a guess where it was during this change? There might have been some (very few) exceptions during this time when manufacturing might have been turned around.

The white (silver) hairspring is the Elinvar-Extra that was first used in the 992B when it was introduced in Nov, 1940.

Your 161A movement would have been 1 of the 809 movements that was advertised in the Hamilton No. 12 case as mentioned earlier. Keep in mind that these movements (except the Aurium balance and Elinvar-Extra hairspring) were from old inventory from the Illinois factory in Springfield made in the mid-30's.

Robert

[terry hall]

Larry,
hang in there with the typing thing... we'll wait

Art Z in his 2003 talk at the Pacific Northwest regional mentions the unfinished movements were assembled in 1948 with "friction jeweling and Hamilton hairsprings" as well as a damaskeen trial on a single 992B (model)with Illinois marking and sunray damaskeen.

I think the friction jeweling is the key to 'when' on these movements, regardless of the hairspring...

yes, this could have been a trial in the late 30's during the development of the 992B, but i think later... (no proof though)

Now for one question on this 161B... "claims and estimates" of 50 or less... the Hamiton memo certainly does not help with this, as the memo just says 'limited quantity"

If there were a 'lot' of these finished... seems like we would SEE more of these 161B movements... Meggers noted (4) in 1985... So "where" did Roy get the 809 number

[Larry Treiman]

Terry,

I tried to point out that the 161B was intended to test friction jeweling, and that the friction jeweling on the 161B was an earlier method (maybe I didn't make that point clear) that was discarded before the 992B and the other B's went into production. On thinking about it, even the 10-size Hamiltons used the same cap jeweling with screws and friction jeweling for hole jewels that was used on the 992B et. al. and they came out in 1936. For what reason would they have made the 161B with an inferior method of jeweling after they had come up with a better system that they boasted about when theyintroduced the 992B? Why do you think "later"?

I can't see where the memo that you mention was referring to the 161B's at all, but rather the 161A's.

Roy didn't "get the 809 number". I was told that he simply reproduced tables that were part of some report that turned up at Hamilton. He just reproduced the tables as he got them. The 809 figure appears where the 161A is listed at the bottom of the table on p.9 of Roy's Hamilton book, and is explained in note 8 near the top of p 10. Again, those are NOT Roy's figures or notes, but came from Hamilton in that form as I recall (it has been over 30 years).

I doubt that any MORE than 50 were finished of the 161B's, and maybe less. No other documentation has turned up (as far as I am aware) that mentions the 161B's or indicates that they were offered for sale. That is all the more reason that I believe they were sent to watch inspectors for field testing and feedback on friction jeweling. I hope something turns up in all those Hamilton papers at NAWCC. Maybe the answer is buried somewhere in the catacombs (or basement) at NAWCC.

Time for dinner now; it seems like I'm always eating.

Larry Treiman

[terry hall]

Larry,
I do (and did) note your reference to the improved cap jeweling used on the 992B and agree that it was an improvement... however, that alone can't rule out the later finishing of the 161B movement... the plate layout was established by the existing plates... Woud the existing plate layout accepted this new jewel fitment and its plate readily?


Asking for an opinion here... Do y'all think Hamilton was actively promoting the Illinois product line in this time frame? Or at least giving it as much emphasis as the Hamilton product line?


I am going to play 'devil's advocate' for a second...

The Memo Robert posted does not specifically mention 161A... or 161B think it just says 161

Ok on the numbers by Roy... I checked my copy of that reference... I was mistaken.. (wrong) and it does provide evidence for the reference in the memo to these being 161A movements... so all should be taken into context

and to the best of my knowledge, the table was from a Sales Report dating to late 1950's / 1960.

[Robert Sweet]

Originally Posted by terry hall

The Memo Robert posted does not specifically mention 161A... or 161B think it just says 161

Terry,

Do you think the excerpt below supports the memo as being a 161A? This is an excerpt from the Halligan files.

Robert

[Larry Treiman]

Hi, Terry,

I hate to repeat myself, but Hamilton knew by the late 1930's, and possibly much earlier, that they would not be able to continue to manufacture the Illinois-design Bunn Special which is why the design team came up with the single prototype or model of the Bunn Special 161B based on the 992B before production ever began on the 992B (probably c. 1939). I'll play the devil and ask you why on earth Hamilton would have wanted to make a small run of the Illinois-design 161B when it would serve no purpose, and they would have had to supply the special jewels for it in the future. It makes NO business sense at all! And the fact that those 161B's almost all have the inferior (flawed) old blued Elinvar rules out their having been made after the development of Elinvar Extra in 1940 anyway.

Do I think Hamilton was actively promoting the Illinois line or giving it as much emphasis as the Hamilton line? A letter shown in Robert's post #27 in this thread from Illinois Watch dated February 1, 1935, introducing the 161A in the 118 case indicates that all other models in all sizes had been discontinued and their "construction" had ceased in 1934. Consider that, Terry, when answering your own question!

Don't forget that Hamilton also made a version of the 992E (no ser. no.) with the same friction jeweling as the 161B. I'm not sure HOW that is relevant, but I think it is!

As for the sales report that Ehrhardt got those tables from, it was likely from early 1949. The asterisks in the columns indicate production as of Dec. 31, 1948, and the tables do not include any grades that were introduced in 1949 or later.

Robert, thanks for your last post. That answers Terry's question much better than I could. As for your question about the latest date that the 161B's could have been made, I could only make a very wild guess, and I'd rather not.

Larry Treiman

[terry hall]

Robert... Thank you... all of the items in context of course support the identity of the movement in the memo...

nuff said there.

Larry...

Your points are well made and do give reason for serious thought on my part... the point of a fricton jeweled E does tip the scale



The sales report... i found a reprint of it here.. and title states thru 31 december 1956...there is a 1957 date on it, june...

I understand 'most' of the hamilton files have been cataloged... 'maybe' one day a memo of the 161B will show.