Most visitors online was 1660 , on 12 Dec 2020
I agree.I meant diamonds, in case unclear.
There's a reason diamonds are generally finished with facets for all jewelry applications - it's fairly easy to do, compared to any other finish. Diamonds don't work easily - you can only polish a diamond with another diamond.
I've never heard of diamonds finished in any way other than faceted on American watches, so I was curious. It seems to me that finishing them flat, for no functional gain, and a cosmetic loss, is pointless. Literally.
Can you post photos of the watch?I ask because I have a Hamilton 940 PL for J.W. Neasham that I purchased from a very experienced member of this forum that purports to have diamond endstones on its balance, lever and escape wheel.
It may be this oneCan you post photos of the watch?
If that's it...It may be this one
Reloj De Bolsillo Hamilton 940 "Especial no. 599" 21J 18S Ferrocarril Con Diamante chatoned rubís | eBay
"Movement has the very interesting feature of diamond endstones on its balance, lever, and escape wheel. "
While not a pocket watch and much later than being discussed' Hamilton used flat ground diamond endstones on the upper pivot of the balance. These are identified by the adjustable setting (the only adjustable endstone in the piece). I think I have an early one (no. 4) with a cut diamond but it is at my daughter's.Not necessarily. Sapphire can be ground and polished, but I am no expert on exactly how American watch companies finished watch jewels.
Real diamond jewels used on watches(and clear quartz too) combined with qualityOccasionally you'll see watches-primarily English and even early Waltham 1857 models-that have a clear glass jewel set in a blue steel setting. I've seen diamonds in English watches also, but I've seen one mistaken for the other.
Interesting. The only way to grind diamonds would be with other diamonds. Not easy.While not a pocket watch and much later than being discussed' Hamilton used flat ground diamond endstones on the upper pivot of the balance. These are identified by the adjustable setting (the only adjustable endstone in the piece). I think I have an early one (no. 4) with a cut diamond but it is at my daughter's.
I love the 179 and 189.Another couple highly jeweled watches that come to mind are the 16s Illinois 23j Sangamo and 21j grade 189. Illinois wanted more money for the 189. Today? I think the 23j Sangamo probably brings more. Go figure.
Like you, I'm inclined to believe that the 181 and 189 are the same. A similar situation is the Rockford 501/510 mvt. The most likely explanation is an error in the serial number list for both. But far be it from me to try and correct the irrational fixation some collectors have with the infallibility of factory serial number lists.I love the 179 and 189.
189s are not particularly common and it's hard to set a price. They are a very "under the radar" watch, but they seem to sell well to people who know what they are. The 3-finger bridge layout does attract attention, though.
The almost irrationally expensive one of the series is the 181, which I'm not convinced is actually a different watch than the 189(although I'm certainly open to being corrected). The only way I know to differentiate a 181 from a 189 is by SN.
Ben,Greg, PLEASE let me know if you ever want to part with that one. A 189 KY PL checks far too many boxes for me to not get excited over it.
Aside from that, I'd guess original also, particularly if it's a glass enamel dial.
Sorry for missing the message! I just spotted one I'd missed from you in April but not sure if this is the same one. If not please feel free to re-send via PM here, or better yet please send to my email which I also sent you tonight in a PM.Ben, I pm'd Fred and Jim but never got a response. The PM is out there wandering around cyberspace.