Interesting Ball Ad in 1917

[BILL KAPP]

We know a lot of dials get switched and parts interchanged by collectors and those who wish to improve their product, but just imagine how many watches might have come in to Ball as a result of this Ad.

Might not he wish to market as many of the trade ins as possible? Would you be surprised if he interchanged plates, regulators, dials or fitted them out with newer on hand dials , hands and parts?

I know that 8774 Hamilton Ball was found in a special case used to convert 18 sz movements to travel clocks. I would imagine that a lot of these trade ins were canabalized for parts or fixed up for resale. If 603 came in about this time, I would speculate that the family might decide to refurbish it and keep it as a memento.

Just speculating, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. They wouldn't just throw those trade ins away.

Happy hunting,

[Kent]

Bill:

Jeff Hess posted the pages of a booklet containing Safety Meeting notes of Ball and the Operating Officials and Watch Inspectors of the Union Pacific, June 21-22, 1916. In discussing using the "new" 16-size watches for loaner watches so that the railroaders would get to try them and then accepting 18-size trade-ins, this exchange occurred:

Mr. Ball:
"...
One watch inspector I know has turned out two hundred old watches that way in the last two years, so he told me last week and put sixteen size watches in service by that method."

Mr. Koos:
"What does he do with his eighteen size old watches?"

Mr. Ball:
"He trades them off to pit men and car cleaners and dagoes; people of that class, and then he has an auctioneer that goes around the country. He will frequently send him twenty-five or thirty old eighteen size railroad watches. It is very little trouble getting nine or ten dollars out of those watches, and rarely he has to allow more than ten dollars for them. ..."

If the inspectors were getting nine or ten dollars for the 18-szie trade-ins as whole, working watches, I doubt that they were cannibalizing very many of them (if any at all) for parts.
[edit=36=1211232615][/edit]
[edit=36=1211232637][/edit]

[terry hall]

In this time frame there were many ads promoting men to trade in their woodburners....


these ads are posted somewhere here in the archives.

here is one...

[BILL KAPP]

kent,

sounds logical for the most part. But I would still imagine it would be easier to get your 9 or ten bucks if you replaced a damaged dial with a modern one that you had in stock.

thanks for that memo, I must have missed it the first time around.

Terry,

Love those old ads!

Bill

[Fred Hansen]

Bill -

What 1917 era "refurbishment" are you suggesting may have happened with #603?

Here are links to some pics of Jeff's watch ...

http://www.nawcc-mb.com/bbv2/bbBoard...=3;gtid=197962

... and I could see the glassback case being of this era but don't see anything about the dial, hands, or movement that doesn't look appropriate to the 1894 sale date of this watch to Ball.

Fred

[BILL KAPP]

Fred,

The dial seems to me to be a later replacement. I believe we discussed trademark registration dates on that style in earlier threads.

Great watch and great dial! I just don't think they started life together. I am not disparaging Jeff's watch.

Jeff does not claim it to be original, tho he does hopefuly speculate that it could be so.

With so many non matching dials and movements out there, I have many times cautioned against validating them as original without supporting documentation.

Of the 7 known survivors of the 87 produced 936 Ball Hamilton's, only Jeff's has this style, don't you think that is unlikely? Wouldn't you especialy expect 604 and 608 to also have the 999 dial if Ball decided to switch styles after 601?

Happy hunting,

Bill Kapp

[Fred Hansen]

Bill -

I might have missed the discussion on the trademark registration but would be interested in any info you have on this.

But how much later do you feel this dial might then be? With the light (not bold) overall look, "Ball & Co." signature, and wavy top 3 numeral doesn't it have the earmarks of early production?

For myself I wouldn't necessarily put much meaning to the fact that the dial is not the same as what is on serials 604 or 608 ... as this was a very small initial run and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some variation (experimentation?) with dial styles on a few of these earliest Hamilton-Ball products. And more to the point, does the dial really match to what you've seen on any other Hamilton-Ball ... or is it the singular example you've seen of this style/marking right now? If it is in a class by itself this could make it hard for any of us to say much with any type of real certainty ... but of course this type of thing is also a part of the reason collecting and studying watches is fun and interesting ...

The other factor is how to interpret the unique provenance of this watch ... coming from the Ball family's collection. What are your opinions on this?

Fred

[Kent]

Getting back to the topic, did anyone wonder why Ball was out to get rid of the 18-size watches? Here's one thought (please excuse me if I repeat one or more of the posted ads):

Picture this:

- You are Webb C. Ball and you own various companies which make money specifying, distributing (jobbing) and retailing high grade railroad watches. And, you own another company that sets the rules that determine which watches will pass inspection (as long as the management of the individual railroads don't object).

- It's 1917 and the railroad industry has already passed its peak of expansion. From now on, the number of railroaders (and consequentially the number of watch sales) will continue to decrease.

- Except for those old timers whose older watches have been grandfathered forward, everybody under time service rules already has 17-jewel (or higher) open-face watches, fitted with a double roller and adjusted to five (or more) positions that meet the specifications.

- With the watches receiving the required maintenance, they'll last long enough to be passed on to the railroaders' great-grandchildren in good working order. There'll be little need for replacement watches.

- In the face of declining profits, what do you do?

It's obvious, You've discontinued 18-size Ball watches in 1914, now you attack the 18-size watches!
[colour=red]May 1917 Ad[/colour]
[colour=red]Another May 1917 Ad[/colour]
[colour=red]April 1918 Ad[/colour]
[colour=red]October 1918 Ad[/colour]
[colour=red]February 1919 Ad[/colour]
[colour=red]March 1919 Ad[/colour]

[BILL KAPP]

Kent,

No question that Ball was a merchandiser. He may have invented planned obsolesence! Later generations would manufacture less sturdy items and make maintenence more expensive than replacement.

Fred,

The fact that it is Ball and co makes it even more of a mismatch. According to Kent and Ed, citing Winslow in Bulletin 338, The Ball watch co was formed in 1894, succeeding The Webb C. Ball Co. " However, Ball Watches were signed Ball & Co". This coincided with Ball becoming a VP with Hamilton in 94.

However 601-15 left the finishing room in 93.

All the evidence (while incomplete) points to the obvious, this is a mismatch that was done aftermarket.

IMHO, these suspect mismatches should bear the burden of proof.

We know that Ball liked standards and mismatches were unlikely to originate at the factory.

The only evidence we ever get on these are statements like," no one alive was there, so therefore anything is possible".

The first Hamilton Ball and Co matched movements and dials occur in the 938 ORRS run and continues to about 170k.

The first use of the designation 999 occurs in the 13k .

the wavy 3 ceases in the 42K run. Thus it is my opinion that Jeff's dial was produced at some time between the 13k and 42K runs. The fact that it was never seen, may well indicate it was a prototype one of a kind.

As to the family connection, wouldn't you expect that they would have saved 601 if they wanted a memento from the first run? My opinion is that 603 came back to the shop at a later date, perhaps with a damaged dial and that the original dial was replaced with the one it has now.

You are right, thinking and researching items like this are one of the fun parts of this hobby.

Btw, pinning down Ball and Co to 94 should also apply to Howard watches, thus early Hamilton's slightly predate Howard's.

Regards,

Bill Kapp

[Fred Hansen]

Bill -

One change to your info is that serial #603 is actually listed in the Hamilton ledger records with a date received of April 10, 1894 and a date sold (to Webb C. Ball) of April 17, 1894.

Do you know more specifically when in 1894 the Ball Watch Co. was formed? It would be interesting if it was before or after April in the year ... though if a name change was planned (but not quite yet formalized) might it also be possible that a marking could be ordered anyway?

I understand the logic that given his choice in 1894 Ball could have more wanted to keep #601 as it was the first number ... but in looking at the family collection, were any of the other watches besides the open-face Howard the first of their types or runs? Also I had heard talk that serial 601 was one of Webb's personal watches for some time ... do you know if this is the case or if there is any strong evidence either way?

To an extent I agree that oddball items should be held to a solid degree of proof for validation ... but in the other direction I think that an equally solid degree of proof should be needed to invalidate them. The reality is that many items will probably fall into a gray area between these two points and be open then to each collector's opinions and ideas.

My thought is that it is a shame that potentially correct but more unusual items may be written off because they do not match to the "norm". I might be sensitive to this issue since I've seen many discussions (not by yourself, but other individuals) in the past that have "proclaimed" watches as incorrect ... when the reality was the watches were completely legitimate, only rare enough to not be familiar.

I certainly don't have anything to "prove" or even evidence that #603 has a dial specifically of 1894 vintage (rather than perhaps mid to late 1890's vintage) ... but just the same I don't want to see the discussion turn too far against this dial's possible originality unless this discussion includes solid evidence against an 1894 date.

Fred


[edit=723=1211296311][/edit]