I've been thinking recently about how collectors decide how to collect and why. Here's what I mean: To the average person who knows very little about mechanical pocket watches, most such watches are "the same." However, the more one knows about watches, the more differences one sees. After nearly 40 years, I'm still learning. In fact, the activity of watch collecting is all about making successively finer distinctions between groups of increasingly similar watches. Just like kids attempting to fill in their coin books with an example of every date and mint mark of Jefferson nickel, or to assemble complete sets of baseball cards, many (though by no means all) pocket watch collectors often strive to assemble "complete" sets of every variety of a particular make or model of pocket watch. However, watches are far more intrinsically complex than coins or baseball cards, and the notion of "completeness" quickly becomes very subjective and elastic.
Now speaking specifically about pocket watches, the minimum definition of a complete set of any particular make or model of watch usually is based on the manufacturer's own nomenclature as expressed through their trade advertising and sometimes, surviving factory records. Sometimes this information can be quite detailed, specifying a series of particular named or numerical grades and/or specific finishing details of various watches in the group. Hamilton and Illinois both come to mind in this category, just to name two prominent examples. In other cases, manufacturer information can be quite limited and not always reliable. Early Howards especially come to mind here. But in all instances, period advertising and surviving records are only the starting point for contemporary watch collectors. Factory production records were created to keep track of inventories and to make it possible for repairmen to order the correct replacement parts, whereas advertising typically listed only that information of potential interest to contemporaneous consumers and resellers. Conversely, collectors often are interested in details and even minutiae that would not have been of much interest to either the manufacturer or their direct customers. In many cases, earlier generations of collectors have published books laying out as best they could, based on all the information they could then accumulate, all the specific "types" and varieties of watches of particular makes and models. Colonel George Townsend and Mr. William F. Meggers were especially influential pioneers in this regard. Their categorization schemes respect manufacturer nomenclature, where known, but they go on to make fine distinctions between watches about which the manufacturer would not have cared. Their seminal works constituted the basis for how subsequent generations of collectors defined what a "complete" set was of various makes and models of watch.
Ah, but the process of subdividing pre-existing watch categories into ever finer subcategories can never truly end, because devoted collectors always need a reason to keep on collecting and a rationale to view "duplicates" in their collections as actually distinct! And because watches are so much more inherently complex than coins or baseball cards, it is usually that much easier to find such new distinctions to care about. New subdivisions in old watch categories can be based on nontrivial technical innovations or finishing improvements in a watch model that for whatever reasons escaped earlier categorization schemes. (Sometimes a manufacturer may not have publicized certain changes for fear of making their existing inventory harder to dispose of.) To my mind, distinctions based on design changes are the most sensible new subdivisions to make. Dials and cases give collectors a plethora of additional reasons (excuses?) to collect more watches. However, strictly with respect to watch movements, collectors of American watches confront the irony that the great achievement of the American industry and its greatest technological contribution - the efficient, cost-effective mass manufacture of quality watches to interchangeable parts standards - made the products of the industry increasingly more similar and indistinguishable over time. And so, with 20th century pocket watches, the exact location in which a particular word is engraved on a particular make and model of movement can define a new subtype and significantly impact its value. I understand Hamilton collectors have even taken to prizing original watch boxes of certain particular colors. Confronting even greater degrees of similitude, coin and stamp collectors even prize rare production mistakes (double strikes, off-center strikes, upside-down images, etc.) But, of course, unlike coins, stamps, or baseball cards, nearly all American watches possess at least one uniquely distinguishing feature - their serial numbers. Inasmuch as serial numbers often correlate, at least loosely, with production dates, collectors often can use serial numbers to identify particular early examples of particular watch models or subvarieties. Such early examples can be especially consequential when they introduce new technical features or prominent finishing improvements into either the manufacturer's product line, or into the American watch industry as a whole. Many collectors also prize consecutive serial numbers, especially when consecutively numbered movements exhibit conspicuous differences.
Which particular distinctions between watches matter to most collectors and which do not has never been entirely rational or logical. That's not surprising, since the collecting pastime itself is neither entirely rational nor logical. As a general rule, design features tend to matter to most collectors in direct proportion to how easily and directly visible they are, other things being equal.Thus, with the possible exception of differences in jewel count or jewel configuration, differences in technical features or finishing details requiring disassembly to view tend to stimulate less collector interest than more apparent changes. Various unusual combinations of features are also of special interest (e.g., nickel keywind movements). As with most collectors, nothing excites me more than finding a new or unexpected feature in a watch. Examples from my own collecting experience would include: an apparently original stopwork in a Samuel Curtis, a Cole's resilient banking escapement in a nickel Howard keywind, a Moorhouse signature on the back of a Howard black dial, and a 21'st jewel in a Waltham 20 Size keyind.
.
I look forward to reading other people's thoughts on this broad subject.
Now speaking specifically about pocket watches, the minimum definition of a complete set of any particular make or model of watch usually is based on the manufacturer's own nomenclature as expressed through their trade advertising and sometimes, surviving factory records. Sometimes this information can be quite detailed, specifying a series of particular named or numerical grades and/or specific finishing details of various watches in the group. Hamilton and Illinois both come to mind in this category, just to name two prominent examples. In other cases, manufacturer information can be quite limited and not always reliable. Early Howards especially come to mind here. But in all instances, period advertising and surviving records are only the starting point for contemporary watch collectors. Factory production records were created to keep track of inventories and to make it possible for repairmen to order the correct replacement parts, whereas advertising typically listed only that information of potential interest to contemporaneous consumers and resellers. Conversely, collectors often are interested in details and even minutiae that would not have been of much interest to either the manufacturer or their direct customers. In many cases, earlier generations of collectors have published books laying out as best they could, based on all the information they could then accumulate, all the specific "types" and varieties of watches of particular makes and models. Colonel George Townsend and Mr. William F. Meggers were especially influential pioneers in this regard. Their categorization schemes respect manufacturer nomenclature, where known, but they go on to make fine distinctions between watches about which the manufacturer would not have cared. Their seminal works constituted the basis for how subsequent generations of collectors defined what a "complete" set was of various makes and models of watch.
Ah, but the process of subdividing pre-existing watch categories into ever finer subcategories can never truly end, because devoted collectors always need a reason to keep on collecting and a rationale to view "duplicates" in their collections as actually distinct! And because watches are so much more inherently complex than coins or baseball cards, it is usually that much easier to find such new distinctions to care about. New subdivisions in old watch categories can be based on nontrivial technical innovations or finishing improvements in a watch model that for whatever reasons escaped earlier categorization schemes. (Sometimes a manufacturer may not have publicized certain changes for fear of making their existing inventory harder to dispose of.) To my mind, distinctions based on design changes are the most sensible new subdivisions to make. Dials and cases give collectors a plethora of additional reasons (excuses?) to collect more watches. However, strictly with respect to watch movements, collectors of American watches confront the irony that the great achievement of the American industry and its greatest technological contribution - the efficient, cost-effective mass manufacture of quality watches to interchangeable parts standards - made the products of the industry increasingly more similar and indistinguishable over time. And so, with 20th century pocket watches, the exact location in which a particular word is engraved on a particular make and model of movement can define a new subtype and significantly impact its value. I understand Hamilton collectors have even taken to prizing original watch boxes of certain particular colors. Confronting even greater degrees of similitude, coin and stamp collectors even prize rare production mistakes (double strikes, off-center strikes, upside-down images, etc.) But, of course, unlike coins, stamps, or baseball cards, nearly all American watches possess at least one uniquely distinguishing feature - their serial numbers. Inasmuch as serial numbers often correlate, at least loosely, with production dates, collectors often can use serial numbers to identify particular early examples of particular watch models or subvarieties. Such early examples can be especially consequential when they introduce new technical features or prominent finishing improvements into either the manufacturer's product line, or into the American watch industry as a whole. Many collectors also prize consecutive serial numbers, especially when consecutively numbered movements exhibit conspicuous differences.
Which particular distinctions between watches matter to most collectors and which do not has never been entirely rational or logical. That's not surprising, since the collecting pastime itself is neither entirely rational nor logical. As a general rule, design features tend to matter to most collectors in direct proportion to how easily and directly visible they are, other things being equal.Thus, with the possible exception of differences in jewel count or jewel configuration, differences in technical features or finishing details requiring disassembly to view tend to stimulate less collector interest than more apparent changes. Various unusual combinations of features are also of special interest (e.g., nickel keywind movements). As with most collectors, nothing excites me more than finding a new or unexpected feature in a watch. Examples from my own collecting experience would include: an apparently original stopwork in a Samuel Curtis, a Cole's resilient banking escapement in a nickel Howard keywind, a Moorhouse signature on the back of a Howard black dial, and a 21'st jewel in a Waltham 20 Size keyind.
.
I look forward to reading other people's thoughts on this broad subject.
Last edited:
?
