New York Standard

[doug sinclair]

Wayne,

In reply to a query about Progress watches which were made by New York Standard, a contributor to this list named Virgil responded that he researches New York Standard, and collects them. Virgil, if you are still around, perhaps you could help Wayne?

Regards,
Doug S.

------------------

 

[pwcintx]

Wayne & Doug:

This is what I can tell you about this watch. The DB serial number prefix was one of the largest production series. The lowest number in my database is DB001777 & the highest number is DB481567. This will put production to at least .5 million. The series is broken down like this:

Series 94-Hunter mvmt, 7 jewel, pendant set
Series 1594-Hunt mvmt, 15 jewel, pendant set
Series 95-open face, 7 jewel, pendant set
Series 1595-open face, 15 jewel, pendant set

Most that I have seen are in sivlerode cases, but some are in 15 & 20 yr gold. Almost all will have plain black numered dials, but there may be a few multicolored dials out there.

I have only seen 4 variants of the top plate signatures. All the 15 jewel series will have a stylized NYS logo / U.S.A. with the train bridge cut to appear as a 3 finger bridge as well as a whip spring regulator. The 7 jewel series will just say New York / Standard Watch Co. / U.S.A. Two other signatures are known to be out there - one with a single letter - (H) and the other that says "Keystone / logo / U.S.A."

Dating the watch is an ongoing project with me, with dates becoming more accurite as my database grows. Your watch was likely made between 1910 & 1916. This is just my guess based on the data I have. I am sure this will stir up a debate with others.

This watch is very common. You will not find anything fancy or rare in this series - just a working mans utility watch. I have several in my collection, none of which I paid more than $20-30 dollars for. Hope all this helps.

Virgil

 

[pwcintx]

Wayne:

I just realized I made an error on my post.
Here is the fix. All series 94 & 1594 (BC prefix) are Hunter movements. All series 95 & 1595 (BD prefix) are open face movements. Production for BC prefix is about 100,000. The BD prefix is correct at about .5 million. And of course, all BC & BD series are 16 size.

Sorry for the mess-up. After a while, the numbers all just kind of roll together.

Virgil

 

[doug sinclair]

Virgil,

I wondered when I sent that note re: your NYS database if I had overstepped the bounds a bit. You are a good sport!

I have a parts catalog for NYS, Crown, and Howard (Keystone) watches dated circa 1915. Did Keystone own Crown and NYS at about that time? The Crown movements do not seem to bear a strong resemblance to the NYS movements. How might the names NYS and Crown have been connected?

One thing that has always intrigued me is the distinct similarity in appearance between the 16 size (Keystone) Howard Series II Railroad Chronometer, and one of the 12 size NYS movements. It looks to me like a dead ringer. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.


Thanx,
Doug S.

 

[Steve Maddox]

Doug,

I believe that Crown was just a name used by New York Standard on watches that were intended to be some of their "better" models. They're about equal in overall quality to Ingersoll Reliance watches, and except for the shape of their bridges, their parts are interchangeable with other regular NYS movements of the same size.

As for the similarity between the Howard Series 11 "Railroad Chronometers" and the NYS models, however, I think you actually have the "imitation" idea backwards. Of course, the Keystone Watch Case Company owned NYS at the same time it owned the E. Howard Watch Company, and at some point, the management team realized that sales of their Howard railroad watches were suffering because they were not competitively priced. In their quest for a solution to this problem, they began searching for ways to reduce production costs, and the result was the Howard Series 11 "Railroad Chronometer," which was designed like contemporary NYS 3/4 plate models.

For those not familiar with the Series #11 "Railroad Chronometers," they're intended to look like regular 3/4 plate movements, but they're actually constructed more like full plate ones. Instead of their bridges being machined from thick solid brass or nickel stock, they're made from thin (flimsy) plates that are supported by pillars permanently attached to the main (pillar) plates. Essentially, the Series #11 is a mirror image copy of the 16s New York Standard "grade 175" movement, which also looks a great deal like the 16s "grade 174," the 12s "grade 172" and "173," and the 10s "grade 9175" and "9176" models.

Today, the Series #11 "Railroad Chronometers" seem to be highly desirable, but they're really the most cheaply made abominations ever produced by a company whose other products included some truly fine watches. The series 0, 1, 5, 10, and every other railroad model ever produced by the E. Howard Watch Company, were infinitely more nicely made and finished.


------------------
Steve Maddox
VP, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Doug, the similarity between one of NYS 12-size models and the Howard Series 11 is not so much imitation as that they were designed by the same man, Joseph Freund. At this time both companies were owned by the Keystone Watch Case Co.

 

[doug sinclair]

Steve,

I STILL like my Howard Series 11! It has the nicest dial (INMO) in my collection. And, yes, as an esthetic tour de force, the 11 is not the prettiest Howard movement by any means. But abomination? Really!

Thanks for that tidbit Gerry. It really is amazing what one can learn on this board, isn't it?

Regards,
Doug S.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Doug Sinclair (edited 11-09-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Doug Sinclair (edited 11-09-2001).]

 

[Steve Maddox]

Well Doug, certainly no offense is intended to you or any other owners, but Series #11 Howards were exactly what they were designed to be -- cheap Howard railroad models with a fancy sounding name. To their credit, they did have nice looking dials, and they were adjusted to meet railroad standards just like all other railroad models. They also seem to have been relatively durable and dependable, but if you ever have to work on one, I think you'll note a significant difference between it and the other Howard models, which probably cost twice as much to produce.

SM

------------------
Steve Maddox
VP, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas