Dating Ingersoll pocket watches?

Alexander_

Registered User
Feb 16, 2007
110
0
0
Hello

Is there any way of dating Ingersoll pocket watches? More precisely I mean Triumph ones. Thank you
 

Tom Huber

NAWCC Member
Dec 9, 2000
3,089
226
63
76
Indiana PA
Country
Region
The English made Ingersolls that I have seen have a two digit number stamped on the back plate, ie 77 would be 1977. Remove the back and look for this two digit number.

Tom
 

Bosquehunter1

New Member
Apr 8, 2010
1
0
0
I'm trying to determine the manufacture date of a Ingersoll Radiolite pocket watch. Serial number 48110573 pat Jun 29,09, May 24,10, and Nov 12,12. Thanks.
 

nath

New Member
May 22, 2010
1
0
0
Hi,

I also have an Ingersoll Ltd Triumph that I'm trying to date.

It's British made but when taking off the back plate, there wasn't a 2 digit number inside. The engraving is 5310M. Does anyone have a rough idea when this watch would have been made?

Many thanks!
 

Jesse Charboneau

New Member
Jun 7, 2010
1
0
0
Hi I have an ingersoll pocket watch I can't identify due to the serial numbers missing part way I can tell you that its a 7 jewel and the face and back cover say reliance and case was made by illonois watch case co if I had to guess what the serial # was 20082 and last number is either a 2 or 8 also is it more valuable to leave it broken or to fix it thank you Jess
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Hello,
Unsure if this thread is active enough to be read considering the last post date but rather than start a new one I figured I'd try posting here first.
I am also trying to date an Ingersoll Reliance 7j 16s watch with a very low serial# (75416). I haven't located a chart for the Reliance specific marque. This watch is also unique in that the dial only reads "Reliance" as opposed to what I've seen elsewhere which shows the inclusion of the Ingersoll name as well on the dial.
My watch needs repair but I do want to learn more about it's pedigree first.
Any info out there would be most appreciated...
 

MartyR

Registered User
Dec 16, 2008
11,072
338
83
UK
Country
Welcome to the board, Mat :)

It doesn't matter that the thread is old - your request is relevant to the thread, so the previous discussion will help everyone put a context to the answers to your questions.

I can't help with Ingersoll, but others will be able to. What I can tell you is that their ability to help you will depend on their seeing some good photos, especially of the movement and dial, and also the case and any marks on the case.
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Thanks for the welcome and the advice, Marty. Here is what I have:
Hopefully someone can help me ID and date this piece.


photo3.jpg photo1.jpg photo2.jpg
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Thanks for the welcome and the advice, Marty. Here is what I have:
Hopefully someone can help me ID and date this piece.


146958.jpg 146959.jpg 146960.jpg
The serial number would date that watch movement to 1894, which based on the dial that looks metal and later looks early to me. Interested to hear any other comments
That said 1894 seems correct

Regards
Adam
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,805
3,071
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
The serial number would date that watch movement to 1894, which based on the dial that looks metal and later looks early to me. Interested to hear any other comments
That said 1894 seems correct

Regards
Adam
1894 is NOT correct. This watch is much later. Shugart indicates that the "Reliance" name was introduced in 1917, so Mat's watch should be from 1917 or later.
 

MartyR

Registered User
Dec 16, 2008
11,072
338
83
UK
Country
The serial number would date that watch movement to 1894, which based on the dial that looks metal and later looks early to me.
Adam, there are obviously a number of typos in that sentence and I don't understand what you're saying :(
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
What I was saying that the serial number given would date that movement to 1894.
But
the watch, based on the dial (metal) appears much later than that.

jerry later pointed out the reliance name became in 1917 - which makes sense.. Which substantiates my concern movement versus dial.

hope that is clearer.
ladam
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,805
3,071
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
What I was saying that the serial number given would date that movement to 1894.
But the watch, based on the dial (metal) appears much later than that.

jerry later pointed out the reliance name became in 1917 - which makes sense.. Which substantiates my concern movement versus dial.

hope that is clearer.
ladam
Whatever you were trying to say, you concluded your post (#12) with the statement that "1894 seems correct". This statement would be very misleading to a novice. What this points out is that one cannot blindly use serial number tables or other resources without looking at the watch itself. According to some tables 75,000 would actually be 1892. This watch was clearly much later, based on style alone. I have a somewhat later Reliance movement with a serial number in the 500,000s (1893 in Ingersoll tables). It seems evident that the Reliance model was not numbered in the standard Ingersoll number series and likely had its own serial number sequence.
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Whatever you were trying to say, you concluded your post (#12) with the statement that "1894 seems correct". This statement would be very misleading to a novice. What this points out is that one cannot blindly use serial number tables or other resources without looking at the watch itself. According to some tables 75,000 would actually be 1892. This watch was clearly much later, based on style alone. I have a somewhat later Reliance movement with a serial number in the 500,000s (1893 in Ingersoll tables). It seems evident that the Reliance model was not numbered in the standard Ingersoll number series and likely had its own serial number sequence.
Well Jerry
The date 1894 was the correct date from two sources for that serial number - hence I used the words "seems' i.e appears NOT IS correct. I then added that because of the dial (metal) this watch would be later than that.
Again, I DID point out the two facts
1) Serial number shows 1894
2) That, that serial number (in my opinion) did NOT tie up to the later metal dial.

Finally I added, due to those ambiguities "Lets here what others think/say"

Based on that, I rest my case - not that I have a case to rest.

PS: Just going to answer your PM.

Regards
 

MartyR

Registered User
Dec 16, 2008
11,072
338
83
UK
Country
Thanks Adam - I understand it now :)

So you are suggesting maybe the dial is a later replacement. I know zero about Ingersolls (for which you obviously have a serial number base) but my instinct simply from looking at the style of the signature on the movement would be that it is not earlier than 1917. I have the same feeling for the style of numerals on the dial.
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Thanks Adam - I understand it now :)

So you are suggesting maybe the dial is a later replacement. I know zero about Ingersolls (for which you obviously have a serial number base) but my instinct simply from looking at the style of the signature on the movement would be that it is not earlier than 1917. I have the same feeling for the style of numerals on the dial.
Yes, exactly.
I wanted to say, 'this is a marriage' watch and would have done so in the wristwatch forum.

To be honest, I am getting 'scared' to say anything here, but the watch movement surely dates from 1894 - Indeed I checked the dates given prior on this thread for other timepieces to ensure my data was correct, as I was so sure that the dial was NOT 1894 but a 1920 metal dial.

Regards
Adam
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,805
3,071
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
Yes, exactly.
I wanted to say, 'this is a marriage' watch and would have done so in the wristwatch forum.

To be honest, I am getting 'scared' to say anything here, but the watch movement surely dates from 1894 - Indeed I checked the dates given prior on this thread for other timepieces to ensure my data was correct, as I was so sure that the dial was NOT 1894 but a 1920 metal dial.

Regards
Adam
Again, this is incorrect information. The dial, case and hands all appear correct -- this is not a marriage. This 7-jewel movement is from around 1917 or later. Based on the introduction date of this model it is evident that the serial numbers used on this model do not fit the published Ingersoll date charts and I surmise they may have been numbered in their own series.


Secondly, a 75-thousand serial number would be from Ingersoll's first year of production in 1892. Which two lists did you check that indicate 1894 rather than 1892? I don't believe that they were making jeweled lever movements at that time.
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Jerry
This is guaranteed not a marriage watch or your opinion that the movement is definitely not 1894?
1894 started at 650,000.
1895 started at 1,000,000

In my opinion based on the facts I have (not based on facts I do not have) the movement is older than the face/dial/hands
Anyway, I gave my opinion, I don't argue on the internet.


A
 

ben_hutcherson

NAWCC Member
Jul 15, 2009
3,182
392
83
Kentucky
Country
Region
The "gold book" listing for Ingersoll watches carries a serial number chart with similar numbering to what Adam has posted, but carries a note at the bottom that the chart can ONLY be used to date dollar-type watches and not jeweled lever watches.

Therefore, the dating chart would not apply to the watch in question. I would trust Jerry's opinion on the age of the movement.
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
The "gold book" listing for Ingersoll watches carries a serial number chart with similar numbering to what Adam has posted, but carries a note at the bottom that the chart can ONLY be used to date dollar-type watches and not jeweled lever watches.

Therefore, the dating chart would not apply to the watch in question. I would trust Jerry's opinion on the age of the movement.
Hi Ben
Thanks excellent post
Can you point me to the "gold book"
I am always ready to learn.
Its not a matter of "trusting opinion" its just a matter of fact.
My facts DID say 'something strange here'

Anyway a link to that "golden book" appreciated

Best
A
 

Kent

Gibbs Literary Award
NAWCC Fellow
NAWCC Silver Member
Aug 26, 2000
18,544
1,990
113
Country
...
Can you point me to the "gold book"
I am always ready to learn.
...
Anyway a link to that "golden book" appreciated
...
That would be American Pocket Watches Beginning to End...1830-1980, Identification and Price Guide, Roy Ehrhardt & William Meggers, Jr., Heart of America Press, Kansas City, MO, 1987 (commonly referred to as “The Gold Book”).
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
That would be American Pocket Watches Beginning to End...1830-1980, Identification and Price Guide, Roy Ehrhardt & William Meggers, Jr., Heart of America Press, Kansas City, MO, 1987 (commonly referred to as “The Gold Book”).
thanks. I don't have a copy of that book.
will see if I can purchase it, if its still available thanks Adam
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Hence my confusion. Seems there are differing opinions about which serial database works most accurately for this watch.
That being said there are fundamental problems. If the "Reliance" name was introduced in 1917, then there must be a more relevant dating chart. There must be one specifically for the 7j line....Seems that as a line it's unique enough within Ingersoll to merit it.
As for the metal dial, that is a clue deserving further scrutiny. Additionally, at what point was the Ingersoll namesake dropped from the Reliance dials? Ingersoll as a name was kept throught the acquisitions of the Company as far as I know.
I would love to think that this watch is pre-1900 but my instinct is saying otherwise. This may be a watch from the later years however this doesn't adequately explain the very low serial number, except it be that the 7j Reliance line should have its own serial dating chart.
For accuracy's sake, this is not a lever set piece.
I think the key to figuring this out is why/when the Ingersoll name was dropped from the dial. Serial number wise I still have an early production watch even if within its own line, which may warrant more consideration in its peservation.
 
Last edited:

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Hence my confusion. Seems there are differing opinions about which serial database works most accurately for this watch.
That being said there are fundamental problems. If the "Reliance" name was introduced in 1917, then there must be a more relevant dating chart. There must be one specifically for the 7j line....Seems that as a line it's unique enough within Ingersoll to merit it.
As for the metal dial, that is a clue deserving further scrutiny. Additionally, at what point was the Ingersoll namesake dropped from the Reliance dials? Ingersoll as a name was kept throught the acquisitions of the Company as far as I know.
I would love to think that this watch is pre-1900 but my instinct is saying otherwise. This may be a watch from the later years however this doesn't adequately explain the very low serial number, except it be that the 7j Reliance line should have its own serial dating chart.
For accuracy's sake, this is not a lever set piece.
I think the key to figuring this out is why/when the Ingersoll name was dropped from the dial. Serial number wise I still have an early production watch even if within its own line, which may warrant more consideration in its peservation.
well I think Ben correctly answered that in his post 22

For certain the watch NEVER looked a 189x or even early 1900 timepiece. The metal dial and style of the face is later after 1920.
Three possibilities exist, and in priority of percentage.

1) As Ben explained, that model used an out of sequence serial plan than that used in dollar watches.
2) Ingersoll used an old, new stock movement when they made this watch. That is very common on early wristwatches, where old pocket watch movements got fitted in wristwatch cases. I don't know if this was common on pocket watches.
but I doubt a 189x movement would find its way into a 192x timepiece
3) it's a marriage watch. This was my first thought, but based on bens post seems least likely.

I will do some more looking tomorrow for this model.

hope above may clear some confusion, that possible I caused. But in Horology nothing is that ststraight forward regards.
Adam
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,805
3,071
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
Mat - I am sorry that you have been confused by conflicting information posted here. Comparing your watch to illustrations and examples of the Reliance model, everything about your watch looks original - dial, movement, hands and case. It is nearly identical to mine with serial #531,248, except mine is marked Ingersoll Watch Co. on the movement. The Reliance model is not mentioned in a reprint I have of a 1914 Ingersoll booklet and catalog, from which I infer that the Ingersoll Reliance is later than 1914. However, in searching vintage ads and publications through Google Books I have found evidence that the Reliance model came out before the 1917 date cited in several other sources. In the April 1916 issue of the Journal of the Franklin Institute I found an article on the watch industry which included the notation that "The Ingersoll-Trenton watch factory will soon reach the 1000 per day output of the new Ingersoll Reliance watch." Note that this describes the Reliance as a new model in 1916. I have not been able to ascertain whether the Ingersoll name was added to the dial later or dropped from later production. All of the ads I have looked at so far that show illustrations of this model (1917 to 1925) show both names on the dial.

An article by Donald Summar in his article on Ingersoll-Trenton in the December 1984 NAWCC Bulletin (vol.XXVI, no.6, p.677-684) notes that Ingersoll-Reliance movement serial numbers range from below 100,000 to near 1,000,000. He also observed that numbers were repeated and that the numbering machinery at the Trenton factory where these were made may not have been capable of 7-digit numbers and so they just started over again. Summar also noted the change in name of the movements and stated his belief that the Ingersoll Watch Co. name (as on my example) came later. He also speculates that the "Reliance" only name on the dial was later, perhaps after 1922. I suspect yours is close to this date as it has the same screws to hold the dial from the back that my movement has, a feature that appears to be a later modification of this model, but has the earlier name on the movement.
 
Last edited:

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Jerry, no apologies needed for any confusion. Research is not linear and add to that a curious example like this watch which has brought to light facets of this company's history which is making direct referencing difficult at best.
This research is part of my fascination with this field of interest. Much like genealogy.
Either way, I appreciate all of the input thus far from everyone. It seems my particular watch may be the result of "Choice 'D'; all of the above" meaning it's got to be a very late production run evidenced by the metal dial sans "Ingersoll", yet having the earlier-named movement, and to top it off a recurring and possibly untraceable 5 digit serial number.
I wonder if this is a salesman's demo piece or some such thing. For some reason we have the later dial and name change with a NOS movement. If the serial numbers do repeat as posited by Summar, that renders the serial ineffective as a dating tool without a line specific chart showing the repeat sequencing. Only then can it be used in conjunction with the dial design change timeframe to narrow down the date of manufacture.
Adam, I look forward to any other you may come across.
 

Adam Harris

Moore NWCM Award
May 3, 2012
3,282
89
48
68
Costa Blanca - Spain
highercailber.com
Country
Yes Jerry did a great job
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PW Collector

Registered User
Aug 3, 2003
589
745
93
PICT0001.JPG PICT0002.JPG PICT0004.JPG PICT0005.JPG PICT0006.JPG PICT0008.JPG PICT0009.JPG I just saw this post and surprised to see it in the European section since these are American manufactured watches.
As mentioned previously, these Ingersoll watches cannot be dated using the serial numbers and matching them to the published approximate production dates. George Townsand's book, Dollar Watches The Watch That Made The Dollar Famous, states below the serial number / date list, "This list applies only to dollar watches non-jeweled."
The Complete Price Guide To Watches by Gilbert, Engle & Shugart states the "Reliance" was introduced in 1917.
Shown above is an advertisement from 1916 showing the new Ingersoll Reliance.
The first watch shown, (sorry, but I do not have The hands for this one yet) has an enamel over metal dial marked, Ingersoll Reliance. The movement is marked Robt. H. Ingersoll & Bro. and the serial number is 45927(6 or 8) as the last number is under the screw. If you used the Ingersoll serial number table it would date this at 1894 which is definitely not correct.
In post #8, Jess states his has a partial serial number 20082 with the last number either 2 or 8.
In post #11 by Mat68046, in photo #3 there appears to be a number under the screw also. I could be wrong though.
The second watch shown has only Reliance on the metal dial and the seconds dial is different. The movement is marked, Ingersoll Watch Co. The serial number is fully visible and is 177026. This serial number is 282,250 lower than the first watch shown and I would think this movement marked Ingersoll Watch Co. would be later than the one marked Robt. H. Ingersoll & Bro.
Both watch cases are marked Made For Reliance by Illinois Watch Case Co.
I just thought I would through another twist to this thread.
Thanks,
Dave
 

Tom Huber

NAWCC Member
Dec 9, 2000
3,089
226
63
76
Indiana PA
Country
Region
I have one of these with SN 705,128. These were made at the former Trenton Watch Co factory after Ingersoll bought it. I have always figured the date on mine to be 1921. Mine has the enamel dial like Dave's first pic above.

These are a special size watch and require a special "Reliance" case.

Tom
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Okay, Tom...Your watch has a much higher serial number than mine but yet has the enamel dial...I'm SO CONFUSED!! Also of note is that my case says nothing except "Made in the US", but for all appearances looks original....
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Dave, the watch I have is the same as the watch in the left-hand lowest corner of your last post. However mine has the "Rob't H Ingersoll & Bros" movement with very low serial number and silver metalloid case (I'm assuming). The case only has the "Made in US" notation but nothing else. Definitely a 7-jewel.
Quite the mystery, continued....
i do not believe there is an additional number under the screw so I'm still hopeful that this is a 5-digit serial, if even untraceable and assumed to be NOS....
Either way the balance wheel shaft has a problem and needs repair/ replacement which, at this stage, is over my head.
 
Last edited:

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
My case has no markings except the Made in the US notation. Assumption now is that the case is not original, contrary to Tom's post #32 which posited that these Reliance timepieces had a special size case....
Let's summarize the mysteries surrounding my particular watch:
1. The low serial number Rob't H Ingersoll movement may be NOS IF
2: The metal dial showing lack of the Ingersoll name is later in production...as per your post #31
3. The metalloid or silver case may or may not be original, depending on the above reference by Tom regarding size and your most recent post showing the manufacturer's mark...mine says nothing about Illinois...
4. The factory of production is unknown as the Trenton watches seems to all possess the "Ingersoll" marked porcelain dials...

What we do know IS:
1. This is a watch possessing a low serial Robert H Ingersoll 7j movement
2. This watch has the metal dial sans "Ingersoll" name which seems to be dating it later in the production run.
3. The case is metalloid or silver with no markings except made in the US. Case has screw down crystal and back.

I'm packing this watch up and sending to ONE of you to take a look at....!

Who:???:
 

Jerry Treiman

NAWCC Member
Golden Circle
Aug 25, 2000
6,805
3,071
113
Los Angeles, CA
Country
Region
There really should be no reason for confusion nor to assume that anything about your watch is not original. First, the serial number is not useful for dating the Ingersoll-Reliance watches, so forget about making sense of that. You have to date your watch approximately by the features of your particular watch. The Rob't. H. Ingersoll & Bro. name on the movement suggests it was made in Trenton prior to 1921. The metal dial marked only Reliance tells us it was probably late in this period. I am not sure where you got the information that all watches from Trenton had enamel dials; Summar tells us that the transition to the metal dials was probably not at the same time as the move to Waterbury, and he does not say if it was before or after the move. [I misinterpreted his text in this regard in my post #28]. There is no reason to believe your dial is not original.


The case is just fine and also probably original. Some were gold-filled, like Dave's case in post #35, but most were cheap base metal cases. I suspect that only the gold-filled ones were made by the Illinois Watch Case Co., although the cheap cases may have been made there, too, and they did not want to acknowledge that. My own case appears to be nickel or chrome-plated brass marked only "MADE IN U.S.A"


Your watch appears to be in good original condition and I think it is certainly collectable.
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Thanks, Jerry.
I guess there is a point when available information to establish some degree of provenance has to be enough. Determining value or collectibility has been accomplished via this thread so I will continue on toward getting the watch functional. Personally I like the watch very much, which adds some intrinsic value as well, but deciding whether the piece is so rare that wearing it isn't smart versus having a wearable piece was one of my goals.
Now to go about getting this watch's balance wheel repaired. As a novice my other concern is how far I should get into a watch's mechanicals as I don't want to ruin any timepiece, much less one that's quite rare and valuable...I was given this watch by a friend because I'm a novice and very interested in pocket watches but looking into it on this forum has shown me that the watch is deserving of more than my current skillset can provide.
I welcome any further direction from here including the appropriate thread within which to continue.
 

PW Collector

Registered User
Aug 3, 2003
589
745
93
This is in response to the postings by Mat68046.
In my posting above, with the two Ingersoll Reliance watches I have been searching for correct hands for the one without hands. A watch repairman in my town said he probably had some that would work but may not be exactly like the ones on my other watch and he wanted $15.00 per hand (hour, minute & second). While searching online, I found a movement & dial with hands for $15.00, so I bought it. It is a non-working movement but I was just interested in the hands anyway. I received it yesterday and this is the reason for this post.
I now have three different dials.
The movement & dial I just received (photo 1 & 2):
Movement Marked:
7 JEWELS
ROBT. H. INGERSOLL & BRO.
U.S.A.
Serial No. 79543 (5-digit number like the one Mat68046 has (75416). (11,497 numbers higher).
Dial Marked: INGERSOLL RELIANCE and the MADE IN U.S.A. above the seconds dial. White enamel dial.

Photo 3 shows the three different dials & photo 4 shows the movements.
Top Left: (without hands) is marked INGERSOLL RELIANCE and the MADE IN U.S.A. is below the seconds dial. White enamel dial. The movement is marked, 7 JEWELS ROBT. H. INGERSOLL & BRO. U.S.A. Serial No. 45927(6) or (8). Last digit under the screw.
Top Right: Non-Enamel metal dial marked RELIANCE and the MADE IN U.S.A. is below the seconds dial which is different than the INGERSOLL RELIANCE dials. The movement is marked, 7 JEWELS MADE IN U.S.A. BY INGERSOLL WATCH CO. Serial No. is 177026. This is a later style marked movement and dial but the serial number is 282,250 numbers lower than the top left one.
Bottom Center: Is the movement & dial only I just received.

Photo 5 shows the way my two cases are marked.

So trying to date theses by serial number, dial style or movement markings seems a little confusing.
Dave

PICT0002.JPG PICT0001.JPG PICT0003.JPG PICT0004.JPG PICT0005.JPG
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Dave, welcome to Club Confusion! Your watch is actually 4,127 numbers higher than mine. Uncanny close numbers which suggests that our two watches should be fairly identical yet you've managed to come up with yet a third face style...!
Seems your latest acquisition has hands that are very close to what you need although the hour hand looks slightly shorter...(?)

PM me about the movement...

The revolving serial number theory may make more sense now but the retooling required doesn't add up to support the theory since recycling serial numbers would also mean that they'd stay 5 digit, not 6.

Don't quite know what to make of all this. Dave, is the only difference between the two enameled dials the different seconds face regarding the position of the "Made in the US" designation?
 
Last edited:

PW Collector

Registered User
Aug 3, 2003
589
745
93
Mat68046,
My eyes sure aren't what they used to be. I don't know where I got the 11,497 number or how I missed the short hour hand. Oh well, at least I have the minute and second hands.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two enamel dials shown is the placement of MADE IN U.S.A.. I have also seen Ingersoll Reliance dials without the MADE IN U.S.A. on the dial.
Dave
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Mat68046,
My eyes sure aren't what they used to be. I don't know where I got the 11,497 number or how I missed the short hour hand. Oh well, at least I have the minute and second hands.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two enamel dials shown is the placement of MADE IN U.S.A.. I have also seen Ingersoll Reliance dials without the MADE IN U.S.A. on the dial.
Dave
Dave,

I'd assume you could use the "shorter" hour hand, too...it should still be authentic...??
As many variations as there are in these watches from what we've seen who's to say? There's no standard to go by that one could use as a reference.

Thanks for the posts....
 

Mat68046

Registered User
Nov 15, 2012
11
0
1
Well, my marginally educated guesses are as follows:
1. My watch date of manufacture is somewhere in the range 1917-1921.
2. Serial number dating of these pieces is not applicable.
3. The watch is most likely completely original owing to the unique case size and other evidence that no manufacturer's mark was used on any of the non-precious metal cases.
4. As a 7j movement, overall good condition and interesting history the watch is definitely collectible.

Can someone direct me to anyone interested in reviving the movement for me? Understandably this should go to another thread but whomever has been following this thread may have a jump start answer before I go the new thread route, unless necessary by admin protocol. As much as I'd like to use this as a learning experience in watch repair it doesn't fit with my plans for the timepiece in terms of time to dedicate to the work needed. I have other pieces I can cut my teeth on later...

Thanks to all who replied on this thread; I'll post any future developments.
 

Kent

Gibbs Literary Award
NAWCC Fellow
NAWCC Silver Member
Aug 26, 2000
18,544
1,990
113
Country
You might consider The Escapement
1.jpg
(Click for info.)

Happy New Year,
 

ryusvo

New Member
Jun 25, 2013
3
0
0
so iv just been given a ingersoll pocket watch by my step father as he knows i enjoy my antiques well he gave me a ingersoll pocket watch which i cant find any images online and have looked extensivly maybe can get help here?? i opened the back and on the inside of the back panel it has 744716 and thats all and on the time piece by the mechanism on the top left it has . R H INGERSOLL & BRO NEW YORK PATENTED APR 23 01 MADE IN THE USA. and also has dates JAN 13 91 AND DEC 23 90. are the final two dates when it was fixed or majorly serviced or what?? any advice would be greatly appreciated:)
 

Jim Haney

NAWCC Member
Sep 21, 2002
6,948
1,720
113
71
Decatur, TN.
Country
Region
ryusvo,

I am moving this thread to the American Pocket Watch forum. It was in the European Forum because in the 1950-60's a Britsh company bought the Ingersoll name and produced watches under, Ingersoll Ltd.

The old Ingersoll Dollar Watches are what you have.

Your serial number would be about the 3-4 th year of Robert Ingersoll's Dollar watch production.1894-95.

They produced about 100 million watches and went out of business about 1944.

If you can post a picture of the movement & dial we may be able to tell you more.
 

4thdimension

NAWCC Member
Oct 18, 2001
2,651
504
113
Country
Region
I just found this thread and can offer one good clue to dating Reliance watches if the dial is held to the movement with springy dial feet like the one pictured here. That was a patent (#1338745) by W.T Maloney for Ingersoll granted May 4, 1920. -Cort
 

Attachments

ryusvo

New Member
Jun 25, 2013
3
0
0
ryusvo,

I am moving this thread to the American Pocket Watch forum. It was in the European Forum because in the 1950-60's a Britsh company bought the Ingersoll name and produced watches under, Ingersoll Ltd.

The old Ingersoll Dollar Watches are what you have.

Your serial number would be about the 3-4 th year of Robert Ingersoll's Dollar watch production.1894-95.

They produced about 100 million watches and went out of business about 1944.

If you can post a picture of the movement & dial we may be able to tell you more.
pocketwatch3.jpg
pocketwatch2.jpg pocketwatch1.jpg can you help with these pictures?? if its fake or not very old thats okay just tell me your assessment just love to know what i have:)
ryan aka ryusvo
 

Jim Haney

NAWCC Member
Sep 21, 2002
6,948
1,720
113
71
Decatur, TN.
Country
Region
ryan,
Your pictures won't enlarge but I can see that it is what the serial number indicates, 1894 made watch.

These were inexpensive and not worth the trouble to fake. Today they are still not very collectable but there are some who do collect the, myself included.

They trade for about the value of a lunch.
 

learo

Newbie
May 5, 2014
1
0
0
Hello I was wondering if someone can help me please?
My partner has just inherited a box of his late Grandads belongings and inside was an Ingersoll pocket watch, we are trying to date this time piece and my search led me to this website! I have had a look at Ingersoll's website and can tell you it is identical to the 'Yankee Dollar' watch on their history time line.
The information on the inside of the watch is: Made in GT Britain 606EM
I hope someone can help?
Many Thanks :)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
166,983
Messages
1,455,116
Members
87,216
Latest member
ChelseaJane
Encyclopedia Pages
1,057
Total wiki contributions
2,914
Last edit
E. Howard & Co. by Clint Geller