Evidence of ladies wristwatch in the US in the 19th.C.

[bobbee53]

Here is a thread on WTF where my nom de plume is thumbs.
After a request for help finding evidence of the earliest wrist watch, imagine my surprise at finding these articles. The snippets are there, but pdf's can be sent on request, all are full page copies of the originals.
The evidence and provenance is impeccable.
Other posts made I have made here:
http://vintagewatchforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3893&start=10


Here is the WTF link:

http://www.watchtalkforums.info/forums/thread85993-3.html



I

 

[Squite]

Even the Wikipedia article on the wristwatch has an ad posted on it making reference to trench watches being worn in the Battle of Omdurman, which was in 1898. I don't think there was ever a doubt that wristwatches existed then so much as a question of when their use became widespread.

 

[bobbee53]

Even the Wikipedia article on the wristwatch has an ad posted on it making reference to trench watches being worn in the Battle of Omdurman, which was in 1898. I don't think there was ever a doubt that wristwatches existed then so much as a question of when their use became widespread.

Belief is O.K. but I like something with a little more substance.
Another of my posts with even more article excerpts, these have proof of wristlet watches and ladies wrist watches being worn and made in the US as far back as 1890.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112.html

Several of the articles provide varied info, some suspected, some unknown, some entertaining.
All are genuine.
Bob.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

... proof of wristlet watches and ladies wrist watches being worn and made in the US as far back as 1890. ...

I tried to swim through the multitude of links and images but still cannot find where you get that wrist watches were "made in the US as far back as 1890". What lines in that 1890 article led you to that conclusion? I have no doubt that ladies were wearing watches on their wrist that early but until I see something to the contrary I will hold 1912 as the start of American manufacture of wristwatches (i.e. coming from an American factory, not just assembled by a jeweler or jobber). At least, 1912 is the date I have established for Waltham (my area of research); I do not have anything from other manufacturers.

 

[Don Dahlberg]

The earliest I have for a ladies' Hamilton wristwatch is 1914. We do not have a 1913 catalog.

The earliest I have for a men's Hamilton wristwatch is 1916.

Of course, European imports would be coming in much sooner than this.

Don

 

[bobbee53]

Who made most small movements for ladies chatelain and pocket watch movements?
The Swiss, whose movements were then imported by American manufacturers.
These "jobbers", whoever they were, were the ones with the foresight and nous to buy Swiss movements, and the cases to put them in,
and then put them on the strap. If you actually read the whole "Nelly Bly" 1890 snippet, the jeweler talking to the reporter explains the whole procedure.

 

[Squite]

I don't see anything at all in those articles referring to a US manufactured wrist watch. Am I missing something?

 

[bobbee53]

I don't see anything at all in those articles referring to a US manufactured wrist watch. Am I missing something?

See above.

 

[Squite]

"Above' doesn't prove a thing, except that jewelers are sometimes mistaken for watchmakers. I can pop a watch movement into a case, add a dial, hands, crystal, even change a mainspring or fix a band. But I'm no watchmaker.

 

[bobbee53]

"Above' doesn't prove a thing, except that jewelers are sometimes mistaken for watchmakers. I can pop a watch movement into a case, add a dial, hands, crystal, even change a mainspring or fix a band. But I'm no watchmaker.

If a jeweler, or anyone, buys a watch movement, buys a case to fit that movement into, then buys a pouch strap to hold them and it can be worn on the wrist, then that person has just made a wristwatch.
This is the birth of the wristwatch in the US, and it is that simple.

 

[Squite]

And this is where many wrist watch people and pocket watch people disagree, I think, is pocket watch collectors focus on the origin and manufacture of the movement separate from the case. A movement can still function without being in a case, and therefore the case is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the crafting of the timepiece. The heart of the watch will always be the movement, in my eyes. The rest is just window dressing and does not constitute 'making' a watch, rather just making it wearable.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

As Squite has said, in the world of American watches the mechanism is the heart of the watch. If it does not have an American-made movement most of us do not consider it to be an American watch. Many jewelers and jobbers imported and cased Swiss movements, and many of these were even custom-marked with the American jeweler's name -- Tiffany, Mermod-Jaccard, J.E. Caldwell, etc -- but they are still Swiss watches. A. Wittnauer (New York) imported and cased many different brands ( for example Agassiz, Longines, Audemars Piguet, Touchon) and also marketed some under their own name, but I do not think anyone is claiming that those are American-made watches. I know that wristwatch collectors like to think of watches from some major importers/assemblers - such as Benrus, Bulova, and Gruen -- as American watches, and on this we will probably continue to disagree. To me it would be just a small step to say that a Longines or IWC cased in the U.S. is also an American watch and that is a step that I don't think many would take. I think these are just Swiss watches assembled by American importers.

Admittedly there are some hybrids in early American/Colonial watch history where English ebauches were finished by American craftsmen, and these fall into their own category of pre-Industrial American watches, but they are not in the same category as the later American designed and manufactured watches.

 

[Hawk53]

So is this a case of "made" and "manufactured" being two different animals, so to speak? If so I can understand the difference.

 

[bobbee53]

I understand all of the above, but when we come right down to it, we are talking about wristwatches, not pocketwatches and these are two different areas. Because the wristwatch originated in Europe, the movements of these were European manufactured. Then when the wristwatch made it's way to the US, the movements were still Swiss. American wristwatches are American, you cannot be a purist where the early wristwatch is concerned.
As you say, the pocket watch people are seperate to the wristwatch people, and the pocketwatch people think only of the movement. But I disagree with your statement about the case being "arbitrary", because a watch, be it pocket or wrist, was made with one function in mind, and that is to be able to carry something around so as to tell the time wherever you are. A watch simply cannot be a watch without a case, it turns into something without any discernible use or purpose.

Gentlemen, let's not forget this thread is all about the early wristwatch, and not pocketwatches.
Two totally different subjects.

 

[Hawk53]

And let's not forget that some company's (like Bulova) were American based but had their own "plants" in Switzerland. So would the movements made in Switzerland at a American owned plant technically be American or Swiss?

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I think we agree on the origins of the watches and their components, it just gets down to semantics. So, would the wristwatch community call a Wittnauer watch an American wristwatch? How is that different from a Longines movement cased by Wittnauer? ... or an IWC cased by Cressarrow? Are all of those American wristwatches?

Shouldn't there be a distinction between watches wholly made in the U.S and those merely put-together in the U.S., perhaps with an American case?

 

[bobbee53]

This is the early history of the w/w in the US. I think semantics are out the window!
"Anything goes" would have been the order of the day, everyone was out to make a buck any way they could.
Jumping on the w/w "bandwagon", taking advantage of what was thought to be a passing fad.
How wrong can you be? Within forty years the p/w was virtually a nonentity, and the roles reversed.

 

[Hawk53]

I think we agree on the origins of the watches and their components, it just gets down to semantics. So, would the wristwatch community call a Wittnauer watch an American wristwatch? How is that different from a Longines movement cased by Wittnauer? ... or an IWC cased by Cressarrow? Are all of those American wristwatches?

Shouldn't there be a distinction between watches wholly made in the U.S and those merely put-together in the U.S., perhaps with an American case?

Jerry, it's not that I'm disagreeing with anything that's been brought forward at this point in time, which is why I used Bulova as a example and a question. My thinking, was and is, that since Joseph Bulova was a American citizen, and owned a factory that made movements which just happened to be located in Switzerland and shipped said movements here to the US for final assembly in watch cases produced in a factory he also happened to own (American Standard) should be considered American made. I can't speak to Longines, Wittnauer, or any of the other makers as I'll be the first to admit to having absolutely no knowledge to their heredity.
But I'm also the guy that couldn't tell a Canadian diamond from a South African diamond, to me they're just diamonds.

 

[Squite]

I'll say it again. It doesn't take a watchmaker's skill to drop a movement in a case. That isn't watchmaking. Therefore, these watches were made in Switzerland, and exported to the US for finishing.

So, if a watch is finished by a jeweler, did they 'make' it? If that's the case, then using the same logic, the argument could be made that Waltham, Elgin, and the like, didn't actually make watches (except for those that were cased and timed at the factory), because they were finished by the jeweler, which is, of course, completely preposterous.

I guess if the 'what constitutes manufacture' question is extended to other industries, like the modern automotive industry, that question would easily be answered yes (take the Toyota Camrys made in Tennessee from imported parts, for example). However, if the entire frame of a car was shipped to the US, complete with seats, engine, tranny, suspension, etc, all fully assembled and functioning, and then a body slipped over it when it got here, that would be hard, for me at least, to be considered 'US made', and that's more what we're talking about in terms of early wrist watch finishing. Now, one could ride around in the 'unfinished' completely functioning car, but not without certain inconveniences. The same could be said with carrying an unfinished movement. I would never do it, but that's not to say it couldn't be done.

 

[bobbee53]

The WUS thread has come along in leaps and bounds since yesterday.
I found the earliest picture ad of an Ingersoll wristwatch from 1912, plus much more.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f11/ver...s-1034112.html

 

[bobbee53]

Here is the 1912 American manufactured wrist watch advert.




Here is the earliest advert for the leather wristlet and true ladies wrist watch in the US, if not anywhere else. For the time being, anyway!
May, 1888.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Bobbee - what is the source of your 1888 ad? Likewise the 1912 Ingersoll ad?

I have posted this before, but this is the earliest American-made wristwatch I have yet seen. It has a pin-set Waltham movement in a case made by H.W. Matalene (New York) in the early part of 1911. The band and buckle are original. This was retailed by Black Starr and Frost - a high-end New York jeweler.
[I have seen a 1914 ad for a similarly configured Elgin man's watch].

 

[Hawk53]

I'll say it again. It doesn't take a watchmaker's skill to drop a movement in a case. That isn't watchmaking. Therefore, these watches were made in Switzerland, and exported to the US for finishing.

So, if a watch is finished by a jeweler, did they 'make' it? If that's the case, then using the same logic, the argument could be made that Waltham, Elgin, and the like, didn't actually make watches (except for those that were cased and timed at the factory), because they were finished by the jeweler, which is, of course, completely preposterous.

I guess if the 'what constitutes manufacture' question is extended to other industries, like the modern automotive industry, that question would easily be answered yes (take the Toyota Camrys made in Tennessee from imported parts, for example). However, if the entire frame of a car was shipped to the US, complete with seats, engine, tranny, suspension, etc, all fully assembled and functioning, and then a body slipped over it when it got here, that would be hard, for me at least, to be considered 'US made', and that's more what we're talking about in terms of early wrist watch finishing. Now, one could ride around in the 'unfinished' completely functioning car, but not without certain inconveniences. The same could be said with carrying an unfinished movement. I would never do it, but that's not to say it couldn't be done.

Squite, I'm not clear on what you're asking? In the first part of your comment you refer to "It doesn't take a watchmaker's skill to drop a movement in a case." Do you consider Bulova a "Jeweler"? I don't (although that's exactly how he started out). As I stated Bulova manufactured their own movements & cases & did their own in-house assembly.

Now if you're questioning the "Swiss" labor used to actually make the movement, then that's another can of worms. My contention would still be that since they were Bulova employees, paid by Bulova, in a Bulova owned plant, they are still American movements. Bulova did all of this to circumvent the tariff's that were placed on imported goods and is well documented across the board for all the watch company's. Jewelers on the other hand had their own methods by buying movements through importers and slapping them in "jobber" cases and selling them under their own name. Like yourself, I don't consider this last example as a factory made watch.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? What am I missing?

 

[Squite]

I'm wondering what constitutes 'making' a watch? Who is a watch maker? What was their part in manufacturing a watch? What is finishing? Is that part of the manufacturing process, or is it considered a separate process? What is the jeweler's role?

Bulova's one of the rare examples where the manufacturer was the one responsible for casing the watch. Even more confusing was the fact that the movements were made overseas and finished here, both, as I understand things, by actual Bulova employees. So, if that's the case, I would then consider them the manufacturers (in Switzerland) and finishers (in the US). But I wouldn't, by my definition, say that they were 'made in the USA'.

I think some of us have different ideas regarding the above questions, and I was just kind of wondering where the general consensus leaned. To me, these questions are somewhat important ones if we are to use a common language to help outsiders understand the history/origin/makeup of the watches that are discussed in this forum. I don't want to be the one giving out 'false' information to anybody searching for answers is all.

 

[S.Humphrey]

I think some of us have different ideas regarding the above questions, and I was just kind of wondering where the general consensus leaned. To me, these questions are somewhat important ones if we are to use a common language to help outsiders understand the history/origin/makeup of the watches that are discussed in this forum. I don't want to be the one giving out 'false' information to anybody searching for answers is all.

I see what you're saying Squite, and I'd have to (I think) agree with you. If you are trying to define something, strictly for the purpose of definition it is better to be definitive. Draw the line in the sand.

Bulova is a great example Hawk53, but I'd have to agree with Squite that it is more the exception than the rule.

Consider if Steve Jobs had the different colored cases put on iphones in San Francisco. Even if they manufactured them(the case) here in the USA, I still would never consider them "American Made" or even made in America.
And I still wouldn't, even if he brought all American workers with him to China and they made them. Even if they brought all the materials with them to China from America and Steve Jobs himself ran it and Joe-Bob Migillicutty made every phone by hand, sent them back to San Fran to be cased, by more Americans. Still not American made.

Made by an American, sure. But for the sake of definition . . .I'd go with, not American.

 

[Squite]

And that's kinda my point. Cased in America? Sure. 'Finished' in America? No problem. Made in America? No chance. Which gets back to the original point. Putting a movement in a case is not making or manufacturing a watch. It is finishing one. A movement that has a face and hands is perfectly functional without a case, albeit extremely impractical, as is a car without a body, a phone without a shell, etc. The difference is substantial enough, for accuracy's sake, to make that distinction in every circumstance IMHO. If we want to still consider the American manufacturers as watch makers, that is.

 

[bobbee53]

Jerry,
The Strap watch & ladies wrist watch ad is in the "Capital City Courier", Lincoln Nebraska, May 19, 1888 edition, found in: "Chronicling America:Historic American Newspapers." LoC.
The Ingersoll ad is from The Sydney Morning Herald, NSW. November 11, 1912 edition. (I know, a US watch first seen in an OZ paper?)

"Can of worms" indeed!
If we look at the original heading of this thread, I originally started out providing proof of the use of w/w's by women in the US earlier than was originally generally believed.
This then expanded into the earliest known articles and ads for men wearing wrist watches or wristlets in the US.
Then I found the earliest known picture ad for a known US manufacturer's wrist watch.
Then I found the earliest known ad for both the ladies proper wristwatch and man's wristlet, not just for the US but, as far as I know, the World. Found in a US newspaper!
I have been pooh-poohed on other sites with statements like: "please stop posting articles for ladies' wrist watches/bracelets" and: "1892, earliest known ladies wrist watch advert!", which is followed by: " this brings nothing new to our knowledge of Horology" after I posted the 1888 US advert.
And also demands like: "What I want is", "I also want", and "I then want".
After producing all this info, to be told " we know all this" and "we knew it existed" on my finding the Ingersoll ad.
To be told my hard work searching out new and previously unheard of or only guessed at information "shows us nothing new" when it patently does, is totally exasperating.

I am only trying to put MY ideas forward from what I have seen in all of these articles, and my take on them. I have studied them, and as a researcher of articles and adverts, I think by now I have a basic grasp on these old watches and the articles the info is found in.
Now, as I see it, jewelers were buying in parts from both at home and abroad, movements, cases, straps, and, in a recently developed area, totally new to the American market, were using the tools and materials available to them, to produce something that previously could only be found on the Continent!

This is wrist watch production and manufacture in it's infancy, pioneered by "jobbers", if you will.
Then "jobbers" went on to produce watches and/or wrist watches under names like Bulova, Gruen, Wittnauer et al.
I would not look down my nose at any of these brands, and I accuse anyone who does of being an elitist.

Whooo! And off the soap box!

I do not mean to upset anyone. This is, after all, a forum where we put forth our opinions.

 

[Squite]

We do, indeed, share opinions here, and all are valid. I don't mean to upset anyone, either.

I'm just here to learn for myself, and to help others when I can, & I don't want to steer anyone on the wrong path when I try and help, so I'm looking for some clarification/standardization on the terminology so that I don't misuse it.

 

[bobbee53]

1899 Royal Canadian Regimentals bound for South Africa onboard the "Sardinia", November 1899.



Posted here first.
Second-oldest known Photo of the wristlet watch in use.

EDIT- I have zoomed in, looked a little closer and it actually looks like a genuine wrist watch with wire lugs, on top of the band, Depose style, like this:



If so, it is the earliest photo of an actual wristwatch.

 

[Hawk53]

See, this is what I get for going to sleep overnight. I (almost) missed all this insight

 

[bobbee53]

See, this is what I get for going to sleep overnight. I (almost) missed all this insight

Not like you to miss something anyway!

What do you think of the pics? Depose or wristlet?

 

[bobbee53]

Can the photos on the last page dated 1899 that I posted be seen?

WUS members say they have not uploaded.

 

[Hawk53]

Can the photos on the last page dated 1899 that I posted be seen?

WUS members say they have not uploaded.

I'm pretty sure all your images uploaded, at least I can see them.

 

[bobbee53]

Cheers, hawk.
Everyone must be scrutinizing them pretty closely, posted on four major sites and no comment as yet.
I am positive it is a Depose strap wire lugged watch. The Depose was patented in 1903, only four years later.

 

[Hawk53]

Makes sense, look at how many other company's didn't patent something until a few years after actually bringing something to market.

Jerry had mentioned "semantics" in one of his earlier posts, I believe he may have hit the nail on the head, there seems to be no "ONE" accepted terminology used across the board. Until "opinions" change (don't see that happening anytime soon), I think the differences in understanding between the continents are starting to come together.

 

[Hawk53]

Cheers, hawk.
Everyone must be scrutinizing them pretty closely, posted on four major sites and no comment as yet.
I am positive it is a Depose strap wire lugged watch. The Depose was patented in 1903, only four years later.

Forgot to mention in my last post, in answer to your question, I'm leaning towards Depose with the evidence you've posted.

BTW, great research work you've done over the last week or so!You remind me of a "pitbull on a lamb chop"

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I have seen the word "Depose" used in several of the last posts as if it refers to a style or brand. Depose is just the French word (sorry I can't insert the proper accents) for registered and usually applies to patents or trademarks. One sees this term on numerous Swiss watches and so it is unclear what is meant by its use in these posts.

 

[Hawk53]

So would this term "depose" kinda fall into the category of misuse like "brevet"??

 

[bobbee53]

Certainly looks like it!
Thanks for putting me straight Jerry.

1903 patent.

And all the patent is for is the strap not the watch, as the application translates to "wristwatch belt".

 

[S.Humphrey]

Cheers, hawk.
Everyone must be scrutinizing them pretty closely, posted on four major sites and no comment as yet.
I am positive it is a Depose strap wire lugged watch. The Depose was patented in 1903, only four years later.

I would agree that is not a wristlet. It's a little hard to make out in the photo, as seen here at my end, and Jerry Treiman makes a good point about "Depose". though I can't even offer opinion about that. For all I know, it could have been a common terminology applied to such a configuration at the time.

And I'd like to say, regarding your comment previously, that I'm very appreciative of, and intrigued by your research. Thank you very much for all your work on this subject.
I think the evolution of the thread conversation is obvious and I don't think that anyone is "looking down their nose" at Bulova, Gruen, or Wittnauer. And in the context or your thread they are perfectly legitimate to discuss.

But if we want to establish the earliest "American Made" wrist watch, be it mens or ladies, or any other nuance details, these do not qualify, despite whether or not they are made by Americans or cased in America etc., that is just not what is implied when you define something as "American Made". In my mind at least.
I am totally of the mind that it IS sort of a murky, grey area, a sort of semantic bs, and not applicable to a conversation about earliest w.w. in general, which this really seems to have become. But if we are talking "definitions" and getting down to brass tacks, as it were, there you have it.

 

[Hawk53]

Kinda like the " Chicken or the egg" debate. All I know is the more new discoveries that are found, the more I like it!!!

 

[bobbee53]

Thanks for the comments, the fact that the articles are enjoyed, and people are intrigued by them is much appreciated.
I became frustrated after at least 36 hours of researching this subject and posting on WUS ended up with basically a "meh" from someone over there who is also well known on this site.
But, the tablets have worked and I feel better now.
Thanks all for taking an interest.
Bob.

 

[bobbee53]

The website where I found the photograph of the RCR guy with the wrist watch has already updated his blog with the information on this site and WUS!

http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer20d_techofwar_watch.html

Have a look.

 

[S.Humphrey]

THAT is super cool, Bob!
Fascinating and awesome. Very good work, Sir.

 

[bobbee53]

Not according to someone else.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-post7872713.html#post7872713

 

[S.Humphrey]

Not according to someone else.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-post7872713.html#post7872713

Humf.
In my personal, non-expert opinion, that is very clearly a watch with wire lugs. It does have the appearance of a curve like a bow has, but there is no crown there, very clearly. It also lacks the leather top cover that I typically would associate with a wristlet.
And my eyes work pretty good, as long as I have my glasses on ;-)
With all due respect, Adam is simply wrong. And if his rebuttal immediately launches into a personal attack on your credibility because someone else thought you were an expert he's already on shaky ground.

 

[S.Humphrey]

And this is priceless and telling.

Quote " There are even earlier pictures I am told of 1895, but I have no evidence."


So basically we have ," neener, neener, neener. I know you are but what am I."

 

[Hawk53]

Not according to someone else.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-post7872713.html#post7872713

Remind you of someone else?

 

[Squite]

Come on guys, please don't start pointing fingers. Just appreciate the information shared for what it is. I've had personal convos with this gentleman when he used to post regularly here. I think many people just don't get his 'no nonsense' style. He's perfectly willing to share what he knows when it's appreciated and not frowned upon. Doesn't he regularly contribute to the NAWCC museum? Let's give credit where it's due.

 

[S.Humphrey]

Come on guys, please don't start pointing fingers. Just appreciate the information shared for what it is. I've had personal convos with Adam when he used to post regularly here. I think many people just don't get his 'no nonsense' style. He's perfectly willing to share what he knows when it's appreciated and not frowned upon. Doesn't he regularly contribute to the NAWCC museum? Let's give credit where it's due.

I'm sorry if that comes off as mean or inflammatory. I remember Adam posting here a lot and contributing plenty. I always have liked and appreciated his contributions. But in this case he does not seem to be contributing anything more than a hysterical "he's NO expert. I was a guest curator once!!! and I'M telling you. I don't have any evidence, but trust me"
And that is simply no argument at all.

Bob has put forth documented, and referenced facts. Attack that if you want, but show some facts, politely offer opinion, or stfu.
Is that too harsh?