1950s(?) rare(?) Waltham wristwatch

[bgallen]

Hi all,

I recently inherited this Waltham from my grandfather, and I'm having some trouble identifying it, so I was hoping y'all could help. I actually bought Shawkey's guide to Walthams and I couldn't find it in there.

My guess is that it's pre-1957 because the manual wind movement has no shock absorber, and I am guessing '50s due to the style. But I really don't know. I'd like to get it serviced and a new crystal, but I need to find a new case for the (working!) movement because the back of this one is corroded.

Ironically, I found one on ebay to cannibalize and won it for $30, but the seller canceled it once they found they'd accidentally shipped it to someone previously in a mistaken order fulfillment. Haven't seen one since, and I've been looking for a year.

Any ideas would be very much appreciated! Thanks!

 

[Jim Haney]

bgallen,
Welcome to the NAWCC Forums

WE would have to have a picture of the watch movement to help you out. You can pry off the back of the case to expose the movement and we need the information on it if you get a clear picture,. Thanks

 

[roughbarked]

While working for a company named Election, Fritz Marti began his research into protecting watches against shocks. In April 1928, he developed a so-called "unbreakable" watch, i.e. featuring a shock-absorbing system "with movable balance jewels".
In 1929 A first Swiss patent, No. 141098, was registered. This was the first system of this type and would later be used in the Incabloc ® .
On 2 March 1933, Portescap filed a new patent (Swiss patent No. 168494). By adopting a conical construction, centring precision now depended on Porte-Echappement Universel SA, and not on the blank manufacturer. This system proved to be the right one and production of the Incabloc ® began. The name Incabloc ® was registered and became a trademark on 6 July that year.
I don't think Waltham waited until 1957 to change the shock absorber.

 

[bgallen]

bgallen,
Welcome to the NAWCC Forums

WE would have to have a picture of the watch movement to help you out. You can pry off the back of the case to expose the movement and we need the information on it if you get a clear picture,. Thanks

Thanks Jim! It's currently at the shop where my local guy is going to (eventually) Frankenwatch it into a broken Waltham I picked up cheap on ebay. Not optimal since he has to lathe out the replacement case and his lathe broke and needs a fix :/

I'll ask him to send me a picture of the movement next week and post it here, thanks for offering to take a look!

 

[bgallen]

While working for a company named Election, Fritz Marti began his research into protecting watches against shocks. In April 1928, he developed a so-called "unbreakable" watch, i.e. featuring a shock-absorbing system "with movable balance jewels".
In 1929 A first Swiss patent, No. 141098, was registered. This was the first system of this type and would later be used in the Incabloc ® .
I don't think Waltham waited until 1957 to change the shock absorber.

Thanks, my assumption was that anything post 1957 would have definitely been incabloc, I have no idea of its actual vintage and was just guessing 1950s due to style. I'll try to get a pic of the movement next week.

 

[roughbarked]

Well if it was 1950's it probably would have a Swiss movement.
bidfun-db Archive: Watch Movements: Waltham 1155 (FHF 70)

 

[Shawn Moulder]

If it's American made it will most likely be a 6/0 movement. It will either be a 17 jewel or 21 jewel movement. The second hand looks very common to 6/0 movements from the late 40s or early 50s.

 

[bgallen]

If it's American made it will most likely be a 6/0 movement. It will either be a 17 jewel or 21 jewel movement. The second hand looks very common to 6/0 movements from the late 40s or early 50s.

Thanks Shawn, looks like you guessed it - - 6/0. Any way to narrow down the date and model based on the movement and the dial?

Thank you so much,
Blake

 

[roughbarked]

Certainly a nice Waltham movt. I note that they made many variations of this movement. Does it have any numbers on the case? say A-11 or A-17, something like that?

 

[bgallen]

Certainly a nice Waltham movt. I note that they made many variations of this movement. Does it have any numbers on the case? say A-11 or A-17, something like that?

Unfortunately I left it at the shop to be moved into a new case, as the current one has corrosion and damage to the caseback threading, and I don't have a picture of the back. I'll get one sometime and post it once I do.

 

[bgallen]

Unfortunately I left it at the shop to be moved into a new case, as the current one has corrosion and damage to the caseback threading, and I don't have a picture of the back. I'll get one sometime and post it once I do.

What resources would you all use to look this up and piece the details together?

 

[roughbarked]

Well, we think know because you haven't mentioned it. You didn't say: It's the Waltham 6/0 '42 that was made during WWII for A-11 spec military watches.

Production of the 6/0 started in 1938.

Try starting here. Waltham 6/0 42 Movement Alternatives?
and here:
https://watchguy.co.uk/tmp/Marshall 5.pdf

 

[Shawn Moulder]

Your watch is definitely not military but is based on the same movement. Most military movements would be either 9 jewels, 16 jewels or 17 jewels. Toward the end of American made Walthams they ramped up production of the 6/0. I see a serial number on your movement but some numbers are blocked. Your watch looks to be made probably after 1945 to 1950. Your dial looks to be from the 1950s.

 

[Shawn Moulder]

Here is a picture from "A Collectors Gudie by Bruce Shawkey" that shows a Waltham from 1955 with a similar seconds hand and a dial with similar writing as yours.

 

[bgallen]

Here is a picture from "A Collectors Gudie by Bruce Shawkey" that shows a Waltham from 1955 with a similar seconds hand and a dial with similar writing as yours.

Thanks! Good call looking at the hands. I bought the Shawkey book hoping it would have it, but unfortunately this dial isn't in there. I'm going to assume ~1955 unless I find out otherwise, then.

Thanks all for your help!