American pocket watch movement manufacturers all built the same way?

[1908]

This question is not intended as a who built it better, but just a question concerning how different manufacturer's built their movements?

As I understand it, Waltham used dedicated precision machinery to construct their movements for mass production. Did the likes of Elgin, Illinois, Hamilton, Hampden etc also use dedicated precision machinery to build their movements or were some hand built so to speak like Rolls Royce, Aston Martin in the car world?

I'm just fascinated how all these pocket watch movements from different manufacturer's look as spectacular as they do whilst being mass produced.

Stephen

 

[Clint Geller]

This question is not intended as a who built it better, but just a question concerning how different manufacturer's built their movements?

As I understand it, Waltham used dedicated precision machinery to construct their movements for mass production. Did the likes of Elgin, Illinois, Hamilton, Hampden etc also use dedicated precision machinery to build their movements or were some hand built so to speak like Rolls Royce, Aston Martin in the car world?

I'm just fascinated how all these pocket watch movements from different manufacturer's look as spectacular as they do whilst being mass produced.

Stephen

Hi Stephen, I believe all the major American watch manufacturers were heavily mechanized, and the degree of mechanization and automation steadily increased over time as one manual operation after another was automated and/or simplified. Perhaps the only partial exception to this statement was E. Howard & Company, whose output was relatively small, just a bit over a hundred thousand movements in just over forty years, and which relied more heavily than other American makers on skilled workmen to the end.

 

[Daniel Reuben]

The other way to look at it and support the answer is to relate that most post Civil War watch manufacturing in the U.S. used precision to the point that most parts are interchangeable (there's always exceptions). A 4th wheel or jewel or crown wheel or barrel from one model or grade should usually fit the same of a different watch. In the Antebellum period most watches were fewer in number and often English or Continental in origin. Some mass production of Ebauches occurred but a lot of hand fitting was required. Interchangability is a lot less possible the further back one goes.

 

[Clint Geller]

The other way to look at it and support the answer is to relate that most post Civil War watch manufacturing in the U.S. used precision to the point that most parts are interchangeable (there's always exceptions). A 4th wheel or jewel or crown wheel or barrel from one model or grade should usually fit the same of a different watch. In the Antebellum period most watches were fewer in number and often English or Continental in origin. Some mass production of Ebauches occurred but a lot of hand fitting was required. Interchangability is a lot less possible the further back one goes.

I believe full interchangeability of escapement parts took quite a while longer.

 

[thesnark17]

All American companies (except E. Howard before Keystone bought them) aimed for full interchangeability of parts as an ideal, along with minimal handwork. Hamilton and Elgin eventually succeeded, but not until the middle of the 20th century. By that time, all the other companies were out of business.

E. Howard is the Rolls-Royce of American watchmaking. Even after Keystone bought the company and changed the corporate philosophy, the very best Howard watches competed with the best handmade watches in the world.

There are some Walthams that also compete in that field. But even in those watches, the companies involved prided themselves less on the hand-work and more on the machine-work. After all, anyone can hire a master watchmaker to build a masterpiece, but it takes someone really special to build a machine that will do it for you!

 

[Bila]

Hamilton and Elgin eventually succeeded, but not until the middle of the 20th century. By that time, all the other companies were out of business.

Curious to know where you basis is for this comment regarding only 2 Companies and the time-frame mentioned?

 

[thesnark17]

I have no proof that Waltham ever reached the point of true interchangeability of all parts including escapement, but Hamilton and Elgin both did. The proof? They stopped putting serial numbers from their watches, since they were no longer needed (except RR watches because those SNs were needed by RR inspectors).

I have never heard a claim that full interchangeability of all parts happened before the 1940s with any watch company, anywhere. Assuming it happened in the 1940s or later, the only American watch companies still in business were Hamilton, Elgin, and Waltham (the latter a hollow shell of its former self).

Complete interchangeability of everything except the escapement parts is a much simpler goal, and was achieved much earlier (and by more companies).

 

[1908]

Thanks for everyone's contribution. With the company's that ceased trading, what became of their production machinery?

In the world of classic cars, some of the original tooling to make the panels and bodyshell's survived and are as far as I am aware still in use today. As manufacturer's were moving away from pocket watch designs to the wrist watch designs did the equipment become obsolete over night?

Stephen

 

[Daniel Reuben]

Hampden's tooling and parts went to the USSR in 1930. Others went the way of any business: sold to others or scrapped. Also to employee's basements.

 

[topspin]

For the original question - my answer is that this is a period of roughly a century we're talking about here (mid-19th to mid-20th) therefore it would be easier to give a clear answer if it were narrowed down to, say, a particular decade.

Regarding the transition to wristwatches -
Generally the movements and cases were made by separate companies.
Some of the movements are interchangeable (i.e. you can generally rehome your favourite small Waltham orphan in whichever pocket watch, wristwatch, or trench watch case of the same size you think it will look best in.)

Taking the example of Waltham, over the years many models ceased production as newer models came along. So as I see it, the fact that the newer models tended to be destined for wristwatches, was maybe not such a big deal?

 

[DeweyC]

It is known from works on Waltham such as Moore's Timing a Century (1944 or so), that Waltham was still using handfitting for RRG watches into 1924. I believe Tom M. also provided similar info from an account he heard first hand (something about being unable to fill an order because master watchmakers were not available).

I can tell you that based on the technical information I have collected on over 200 Hamilton 16s from 1896 onward, that the parts were interchangeable down to the escapements. Escape wheels were interchangeable as were pallet forks with the exception of matching which is still required in the lever escapement today (since pallet jewels are moveable). Jewel sinks, jewel chatons, wheels, pinions and such all interchange. Parts from a 990 can be interchanged with parts from a 974/976/972 with the exception of arbors/pinions that ran on capped jewels.

I have documented elsewhere that from the start Hamilton standardized parts in a manner similar to the manufacturer's engineering catalogs of today. Hamilton designed models using parts already in inventory. They did not make a new screw, pinon, wheel or escape wheel for each new 16s caliber (other than brass EW vs steel).

This approach was very different from that in vogue in the late 19th cent where factories such as Hampden and Waltham had multiple production lines running to accommodate that various grades. This includes tooling libraries, machines, workers.

This should not be a surprise. Rood ,Cain and Perry took over New York Watch, turned it into Hampden and later sold Hampden in order to start a new venture. They were from Springfield Ma and were well aware of the advances made by the Singer Sewing Machine co and the state of the art of such companies such as Starret. They would have been very familiar with the problems of parts and inventory control, tooling, and multiple models by direct experience at Hampden and by following events at Waltham.

Remember, the screw micrometer was only mass produced in the late 19th century. The field of metrology was barely invented.

The period between 1888 and 1892 is a little unclear regarding Rood, Cain and Perry. We do know that Rood and Dueber visited the Aurora factory together and that when Rood decided he wanted the rest of his money from the Hampden sale so he could purchase Aurora, Dueber tried some financial machinations that ultimately failed. Cain and Rood went took over Aurora after Cain closed out the Lancaster Watch Company.

I have seen no documentation of the purpose of these latter moves, nor of what Perry was up to. Cain and Rood did move machinery and workers from Aurora. But the 16s Hamiltons required all new tooling and Rood decided against a winding design that would have allowed the use of Dueber cases (the often-discussed positive detent).

I am impressed by their ability to apply high standards of consistency of quality control 10 years before the Student's T-test was invented (an important statistical tool used in probability) which is the basis of lot testing used in production today. How they controlled tooling consistency is a marvel. The FACT they did control tooling and quality to this extent makes them stand in manufacturing.

I have taken parts from a 974 and exchanged them with 990 parts. I have taken parts from a 1906 992 and exchanged them with parts from a 1921 992. Same with a 974 across decades. The Hamilton 978 was simply a 3 pos adjusted 974. The 972 was a fully adjusted 974. Essentially, all 16s Hamiltons are derivatives of the 974 and the parts interchanged.

This would have been of high importance to Perry who was the "salesman"; which meant he had direct interactions with the stores and knew the issues related to parts availability in a sale sector where service was paramount. Compare the complete finish of an 1884 Hampden Perry (one of their highest grades) to that of the 1898 974. In the former, unseen parts are left unfinished. In the latter, the pallet fork, screws are highly finished. I suspect Perry had a say in this.

Rood, Cain and Perry all come from Hampden County MA. I have not yet been able to establish their relationships prior to New York Watch (ca 1874). But from 1874 onward they were a management team.

It is my hypothesis that they sold Hampden with the intent of designing a completely new way to produce watches. This is certainly what they told reporters from the journals of the day. I think they were watchmakers in personality; very intentional. I am hoping that correspondence survives that sheds light on what they were doing as a group between 1886 and 1892. And certainly, they were in no rush to get product "out the door" since that only started in 1895.

In essence, I think Cain Rood and Perry foreshadowed the approach the Japanese took toward the steel industry after theirs was destroyed. Rather than use old technology and processes. use the most advanced techniques and processes available. Established manufactories such as Waltham and Bethlehem Steel had too much invested in physical plant to tear it all down and start over. They had to "make do" with incremental improvements while maintaining sales.

While Elgin and Illinois had the same issues, it seems they managed the transition better. But they were still at a disadvantage compared to Hamilton by trying to be all things to all people. It seems the motto of Hamilton should have bee "simplify".

Other than the ill fated 976, Hamilton never made a "cheap" 16 size watch. In fact, if I were a retailer interested in establishing a reputation in my community, I would have purchased 974s and adjusted them before sale.

 

[1908]

This approach was very different from that in vogue in the late 19th cent where factories such as Hampden and Waltham had multiple production lines running to accomodate that various grades. This includes tooling libraries, machines, workers.

Many thanks Dewey. Fascinating insight. Some manufacturers like Waltham must have had many production lines to deal with the many grades and sizes that were on offer!

Stephen

 

[Jim Haney]

It is my hypothesis that they sold Hampden with the intent of designing a completely new way to produce watches. This is certainly what they told reporters from the journals of the day. I think they were watchmakers in personality; very intentional. I am hoping that correspondence survives that sheds light on what they were doing as a group between 1886 and 1892. And certainly, they were in no rush to get product "out the door" since that only started in 1895.

Dewey,
You certainly have a lot of hypothesis's, but you need to base these on FACTS. Hamilton started in 1892 and started producing watches in THE fall of 1893.
I appreciate reading your theories about Hamilton . however they should be based on actual facts, not assumptions.

 

[Daniel Reuben]

I re-read Mr. Clark's paragraph and I have no trouble with it. He demonstrates numerous facts. He also shows what pieces of data are missing. He also brings up hypotheses. Ths is exactly what scientists do. I have published professionally (outside our Bulletin as well as submitting currently) and it is completely legitimate to state what one doesn't know. That's how others pick up the trail and can use data they know that we don't. I can also attest the interchangability with Hamiltons; it is the manufacturer I have the most experience with. Why are you attackig him?

 

[Jim Haney]

I quoted Dewey's paragraph in which he said Hamilton started in 1895 getting product out the door, which is incorrect.

Where is the attack in that. I would suggest you reread your posts for errors before posting to avoid using the wrong words .

 

[DeweyC]

While it is solely referenced throughout the article, to be clear, I am referring to Hamilton's 16 size production. While the date may be referenced as perhaps a misquoted fact if one refers to 18s production (which I was not), it does not meet the definition of an assumption.

Apologies if anyone was confused by this.

 

[Daniel Reuben]

Mr. Haney, Touchee as the French say. I am not here to start controversy. I thought Mr. Clark's input was useful, I don't know him but know he is talented and have visited his website. You may be talented too. You mentioned theories and hypotheses which are pleural in nature. If it is one date which is incorrect then simply dispute it "err, you mean 1895". What are the other incorrect points mentioned then? Additionally snce I do scientific writing at times it is wholly possible and legitimate to base scientific hypotheses on both facts and also assumptions - so long as one discloses and of course so long as one attempts to later research it to get to the truth. Einstein and many others are famous for making assumptions. Anyhow, I don't mean to keep this going but I made no errors in my post. If you are jesting so be it - that may be the case. It sounded like jousting to me.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

Daniel, this message board would be ruined by too much bickering and vituperation. That's why I completely agree with everything you said, except one thing, your statement that you "made no errors in [your] post." I laughed when I read that because you erred in your post when you said that theories and hypotheses "are pleural in nature". We all know that you meant plural. (Pleural refers to outside lining of our lung and lung cavities, i.e., pleural cavity.) We all make errors like that, I've committed some doozies.