18s Waltham Vanguard 17j

[John Cote]

I bought this 18s, 17j Vanguard yesterday. It seems to be from the second run of VG hunters and from a group which contained a mix of 17 and 21 jewel movements. The strange thing that attracted me was that it had no jewel marking. I have one from the same run in my collection marked 17 jewels. Are there others out there with no jewel count marking? I don't remember seeing one but....

 

[Greg Frauenhoff]

John,

Are you asking about only the second run mvts being umarked. The first run 17j Vanguards that I've seen are all unmarked as to jewel count.

Greg

 

[John Cote]

John,

Are you asking about only the second run mvts being umarked. The first run 17j Vanguards that I've seen are all unmarked as to jewel count.

Greg

I should have looked at my pix from the first run. You are correct as usual Greg. My first run examples are all un-marked as to jewel count.

Thanks

 

[Kent]

Hi John:

Nice watch. Ed and I first saw it in an Ashland catalog in April 1991. At that time, it was in a gold-filled, engraved box-hinge case.

Ed Ueberall and I have the following serial numbers listed in our data base of surviving examples of railroad watches and other interesting (to us) watches. Unfortunately, we didn't note the marking of jewels until lately. What's the other watch from your collection that has the jewel marking?

Jwl - Serial Number - Notes
17 - 7,001,006 -
17 - 7,001,113 -
17 - 7,001,114 - NOT Marked "17J" - Note just added
17 - 7,001,125 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
21 - 7,001,269 -
21 - 7,001,278 -
17 - 7,001,281 -
17 - 7,001,473 -
21 - 7,001,588 -
21 - 7,001,588 - "Non-Magnetic"
21 - 7,001,640 -
21 - 7,001,657 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,666 -
21 - 7,001,666 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,852 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,904 -


As always, the data listed is subject to possible errors of reporting or recording.

 

[John Cote]

Kent, the number ends in 174 and not 114. It is in a GF fancy case but not box hinge. It has the typical two line script DS dial. My others are already in your list, (this list and the lists from the first runs).

 

[34Ford5W]

Hi John:

Nice watch. Ed and I first saw it in an Ashland catalog in April 1991. At that time, it was in a gold-filled, engraved box-hinge case.

Ed Ueberall and I have the following serial numbers listed in our data base of surviving examples of railroad watches and other interesting (to us) watches. Unfortunately, we didn't note the marking of jewels until lately. What's the other watch from your collection that has the jewel marking?

Jwl - Serial Number - Notes
17 - 7,001,006 -
17 - 7,001,113 -
17 - 7,001,114 - NOT Marked "17J" - Note just added
17 - 7,001,125 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
21 - 7,001,269 -
21 - 7,001,278 -
17 - 7,001,281 -
17 - 7,001,473 -
21 - 7,001,588 -
21 - 7,001,588 - "Non-Magnetic"
21 - 7,001,640 -
21 - 7,001,657 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,666 -
21 - 7,001,666 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,852 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,904 -


As always, the data listed is subject to possible errors of reporting or recording.

Kent please add if not already.
17J Vanguard OF serial # 6027282
17J Vanguard OF serial # 6027577
17J Vanguard HC serial # 7001303
17J Vanguard HC serial #7001352

 

[Kent]

John:
Oops - thanks fir the correction (I hate making silly mistakes like that - that's why I've started adding the disclaimer).

34Ford5W:
Thanks for reporting the watches


Here's the corrected list (and by the way: I've corrected today's data base entry):

Jwl - Serial Number - Notes
17 - 7,001,006 -
17 - 7,001,113 -
17 - 7,001,114 -
17 - 7,001,125 -
17 - 7,001,174 - NOT Marked "17J" - Just added
17 - 7,001,231 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
21 - 7,001,269 -
21 - 7,001,278 -
17 - 7,001,281 -
17 - 7,001,303 - Just added
17 - 7,001,352 - Just added
17 - 7,001,473 -
21 - 7,001,588 -
21 - 7,001,588 - "Non-Magnetic"
21 - 7,001,640 -
21 - 7,001,657 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,666 -
21 - 7,001,666 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,852 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,904 -


As always, the data listed is subject to possible errors of reporting or recording.

 

[Kent]

34Ford5W:

Thanks again for reporting the watches. Is the jewel count marked on any of them?

 

[grtnev]

Some additional info here:

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/waltham-model-1892-17j-vanguard-hunting-case.177783/

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/waltham-model-1892-17j-vanguard-grade-s-n-6026588-from-the-first-run-of-vanguard-grade-model-1892.179034/

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/waltham-18s-model-1892-17j-hunting-case-riverside-s-n-7013571.187661/

Richard

 

[34Ford5W]

34Ford5W:

Thanks again for reporting the watches. Is the jewel count marked on any of them?

Kent: No jewel count.

 

[John Cote]

John:
Oops - thanks fir the correction (I hate making silly mistakes like that - that's why I've started adding the disclaimer).

You and Ed never need to apologize for the fantastic work you have done for the NAWCC and the watch collecting community in general.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

The strange thing that attracted me was that it had no jewel marking. I have one from the same run in my collection marked 17 jewels.

A look at the handwritten ledger shows that this large block of 2000 movements was finished over a five year period (Nov.1894 to Jan.1900) and I believe that is the key to the differences between movements in the same "run". Finish specifications, including marking the jewel count, changed with time so some of the earlier-finished movements (like the preceding run) did not have the jewel count marked and so this run is mixed in that respect. I think this is the same pattern we see in the Non-Magnetic grade 45 movements discussed in this other thread - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/an-unusual-waltham-riverside.175388/ where finish details apparently changed over the four years that that block of movements was finished (1896 to 1900).

 

[34Ford5W]

John:
Oops - thanks fir the correction (I hate making silly mistakes like that - that's why I've started adding the disclaimer).

34Ford5W:
Thanks for reporting the watches


Here's the corrected list (and by the way: I've corrected today's data base entry):

Jwl - Serial Number - Notes
17 - 7,001,006 -
17 - 7,001,113 -
17 - 7,001,114 -
17 - 7,001,125 -
17 - 7,001,174 - NOT Marked "17J" - Just added
17 - 7,001,231 -
17 - 7,001,231 -
21 - 7,001,269 -
21 - 7,001,278 -
17 - 7,001,281 -
17 - 7,001,303 - Just added
17 - 7,001,352 - Just added
17 - 7,001,473 -
21 - 7,001,588 -
21 - 7,001,588 - "Non-Magnetic"
21 - 7,001,640 -
21 - 7,001,657 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,666 -
21 - 7,001,666 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,852 - "21 Ruby Jewels"
21 - 7,001,904 -


As always, the data listed is subject to possible errors of reporting or recording.

Kent: Please add 21 Ruby jewels Vanguard HC serial# 7001719

 

[Kent]

Thanks!

 

[grtnev]

s/n 7001441 17j Vanguard, hunter, unmarked

 

[Bryan Eyring]

Anyone ever seen a 17 non-mag?

 

[34Ford5W]

Anyone ever seen a 17 non-mag?

Yes, I have 2 serial # 7013882 and 7013886 17 jewel HC. There are no jewel count marks.

 

[Bryan Eyring]

Yes, I have 2 serial # 7013882 and 7013886 17 jewel HC. There are no jewel count marks.

Thanks. My question really only pertained to the thread title - 17J Vanguards.

 

[Fred Hansen]

I have not seen a 17J Vanguard marked non-magnetic, or a 19J for that matter.

 

[Kent]

Yes, I have 2 serial # 7013882 and 7013886 17 jewel HC. There are no jewel count marks.

Thanks for showing these grade No. 45 watches.

 

[Kent]

s/n 7001441 17j Vanguard, hunter, unmarked

View attachment 720579

Thanks!