Bigelow, Kennard & Co.

[pmwas]

For the escapement change, made on several models, Waltham printed the following illustration and explanation in several versions of their material catalog, and the revised parts have different part numbers. One can see the shape of the pallet fork in most images. The earlier forks have noticeably square profiles around the pallet stones. This change in escapement is why one has to be careful to get the proper part when replacing escape wheels or pallet forks on these models -- you can't just swap parts between 1894 models (or 1892 models) without paying attention to this or you will have a mis-matched escapement.

Changes and improvements... it's always so disappointing when you find a part and it turns out wrong. And sometimes you just don't know what's exactly wrong - looks all right, but just won't work properly

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Back in post # 17 (Feb.2015) I apparently showed a photo of four different size Walthams for Bigelow, Kennard & Co. (out of five different sizes that I know of). Unfortunately all of my attachments prior to this year seem to have disappeared from this thread when we migrated to the new board. Here again is the photo comparing four different size Walthams for BK&Co. (12-size, 0-size, 6/0 and 10-ligne). I do not have the Colonial Series watch in the array, but it is only slightly larger than the 12-size.

It would seem that BK&Co. never ordered any 16-size movements from Waltham, or at least I have never seen one. Has anyone else seen a 16-size Waltham for this jeweler?

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Jerry,

I tried to restore the missing images. I can do that for most posts that have lost them, if folks will notify me they are missing.

 

[Dave Chaplain]

In case these are of any interest ... 7M, 10M and 14M range 12s model 1894 Riverside, from stock photos which are not all great ...

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Nice Dave. It is interesting that the 7 million one does not show the jewel count (unless I have finally gone blind.)

 

[Jerry Treiman]

On that model they did not start marking the jewel count until they added two more jewels to make it 19 jewels. Initially those two extra jewels were capping the escape wheel but later they switched to the jeweled mainwheel. (I think the cap jewels are more beneficial).

By the way Dave - do those have Bigelow, Kennard & Co. dials? ... or did you mean to post those pictures to the thread on the 12-size Riverside models?

 

[johnbscott]

I think that a jewelled barrel is beneficial for isochronism by assisting to maintain the balance arc at low mainspring tension.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

On that model they did not start marking the jewel count until they added two more jewels to make it 19 jewels.

The picture of the 7 million is a little fuzzy but I had managed to convince myself that I saw a cap on the escape wheel.

As to isochronism, it applies to force delivered to the balance and the friction on the escape wheel pinions is a much greater influence than on the barrel arbor because it is moving much faster and is in oil. I agree with Jerry that the cap jewels are better features than the jeweled barrel.

 

[johnbscott]

An un-jewelled barrel would be subject to elevated static friction, which is higher than dynamic friction (as experienced at the other end of the train). I agree that cap jeweling at the escape wheel would mitigate friction, there (by preventing arbor shoulder contact), but the greatest benefit of the cap jeweling might be to control the engagement between the escape wheel and the pallet stones. If barrel jeweling can serve to maintain balance arc when mainspring tension is low, that would be a significant contribution to isochronism.

 

[Dave Chaplain]

By the way Dave - do those have Bigelow, Kennard & Co. dials? ... or did you mean to post those pictures to the thread on the 12-size Riverside models?

None of the three I show have Bigelow dials ... I was responding to the interesting discussion about the 12s model 1894 side by side comparisons made here, and an issue with the pics being available, but if the moderator wants to move or copy my post to a 12s Riverside thread that's ok with me!

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I haven’t posted to this topic in a while and thought I would post a summary of the variety of custom movements that Waltham produced for Bigelow, Kennard & Co. From 1904 to perhaps as late as 1912 Waltham made private label movements for them in five sizes (10-ligne, 6/0, 0-size, 12-size and Colonial Series) and as many as six grades (13-jewel to 23-jewel). The two attachments show almost all of the different movement styles/grades that I have been able to identify. As far as I know Waltham never made a 16-size movement for BK&Co and I have yet to see one, in any size, cased in a hunting case. BK&Co appears to have cased these movements in-house in gold, silver and gun-metal cases. I would love to be able to add pictures of the 17-jewel 0-size and Colonial Series for BK&Co. if anyone has one.

 

[DTSPatrick]

Adding to a older post — picked this 12s BK&Co up at an online (non-eBay) auction.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

How great to find one still in its gold case! I have only seen three from this serial number range, each one different -- 15j, 17j & 19j. They seemed to be phasing out the patented click at this time, so it is nice to see that yours has it.

What does the dial look like?

 

[DTSPatrick]

What does the dial look like?

Missing the crystal and the minute hand lost during shipping.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Here are two Walthams made for for B.K.& Co. that were consecutive movements in production but still ended up with a couple stylistic differences as complete watches.


Serial numbers 11,032,299 and 11,032,300 are from a production block of 300 12-size 21-jewel Riverside Maximus movements. Although this serial number block began production around 1902, not all of the movements were immediately finished. The private-label movements for Bigelow, Kennard & Co. were probably not completed and finished until 1904. This extended finish period seems fairly common for high-grade models which had a lower demand. Very few Riverside Maximus movements from this run have been recorded in my own records or in the Pocketwatch Database, so I don't yet know how many may have been finished for BK&Co, although it was probably no more than a dozen or so.


Bigelow, Kennard & Co. received the movements from Waltham and cased them, commonly in cases attributed (by me) to Jeannot & Shiebler. These two watches have nearly identical 14K cases, marked for BK&Co and with serial numbers that are only four numbers apart. I don't know for certain who provided most of the BK&Co private-label dials, but I suspect most were eventually provided by Waltham along with the private-label movements. These two, however, have slightly different dials. The first movement (-299) has a very typical "Empire" style dial that was used on many Waltham watches. The second, however has an atypical serpentine Arabic numeral dial made by the O'hara Dial Company.

The only other difference I have noted between these twins is in the evidently hand-engraved signature on the movements. You will note that the flourishes on the "C" in "... Co." are different between the two. The "g" in Bigelow is also executed differently.


I am nearing completion of an article on Bigelow, Kennard & Co. watches made by Waltham but would still appreciate any additional information.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Re: Bigelow, Kennard & Co.

I have what I believe to be an 8s Bigelow & Kennard open face pocket watch. It has a movement marked Bigelow & Kennard, "Adjusted", Serial # 15110131. It comes in a 18K gold case marked Bigelow Kennard & Co. Boston. It has an inscription on the movement cover "Presented to Edmund P. Phinney by the Assistant Clerks of the Superior Court October 1919. Case #407.
View attachment 258237 View attachment 258238 View attachment 258239

Can You tell me anymore about this watch? Year it might have been made? Is this a Waltham Movement and can I check the serial number on the Waltham database? What would the going price for this watch be? I'm not selling as it was passed down to my father from my grandfather then to me. I have to provide estate value if any. Any information would be greatly appreciated. The movement looks identical one of the ones in Your picture and the serial number is very close.

But, not only is your watch a less-common (for BK&Co) Colonial Series (14-size dial plate) and a fine 19-jewel movement, but it also happens to be in an interesting case made by Henry Matalene - my principal collecting and research passion.

I was so excited when Clarems shared his wonderful watch several years ago. More recently I found the next, identical movement in production -- same grade, same dial -- but with damage showing that the gold case had been crudely snipped off of the movement. The case was almost certainly another of Matalene's scarce and innovative cases, now lost due to ignorance and lust for money above history. (You can see the nick in the dial where the big pincers clipped the gold case).

 

[musicguy]

Great find, sorry about the case


Rob

 

[Jerry Treiman]

This is my newest Bigelow, Kennard & Co. acquisition - #14,087,104. It is a Colonial Series movement which is basically the same as a 12-size movement except that it has a 14-size pillar plate, but the size difference is probably not relevant to this post. The serial number falls in a run of open-face Riverside grade movements.


What is notable about this movement is that, in spite of the finish for Bigelow, Kennard & Co. (BK&Co) it has Waltham's standard (non-recoiling) click and star-wheel regulator. BK&Co's arrangement with Waltham was to finish their movements with a whiplash regulator and with BK&Co's patented recoiling click, as in this next movement from 1907 (#15,110,132).


A later movement, ca.1910 (#18,028,088), still has these distinctive features -


By 1912 Waltham was producing movements for BK&Co with most of the same features, but now including Waltham's own recoiling click (#19,084,506).


Now, I know this is minutiae that will not pique the curiosity of most collectors, but I find myself wondering when #14,087,104 was finished and why it lacks some of BK&Co's most distinctive features. Waltham was not above using older unfinished movements to fulfill special orders, so the serial number of this movement only tells us it was finished some time after ~1905. I can only postulate that at some time between regular movement orders BK&Co needed more movements and Waltham quickly finished some for them that were already milled for their standard click and regulator.