Waltham-Howard 16-size bridge models

[Jerry Treiman]

Waltham made some beautiful bridge model movements for their series of contracts with Howard. The 16-size bridge models are especially nice and were part of all three contracts that I have been able to infer. The first ones (1902-1904) had standard Waltham bridges with a circular damascening pattern. The second group (1904) had the same bridges but used a straight bar style of finish. The third group (1905) had a modified bridge pattern and the straight bar damascening.



This past weekend a very nice 21-jewel Waltham-Howard bridge model movement from the first group sold on eBay (serial number H829619). It had an original private-label dial for Benedict Brothers but was recased. Unfortunately the auction photos were not very sharp. If you, or someone you know, was the lucky purchaser I would greatly appreciate being able to get some better photos for my research files. In return I can tell the new owner a little more about this watch. I may be contacted publicly through this forum or by private message to this board.

 

[wzy19900528]

I have a question. How many was waltham made for howard for bridge model 23jewels 16size? are they rare with howard original 14k solid case or just the movement? thanks so much.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

The most common are those from the third group described above - those with straight bridges. I estimate that there were about 530 hunters and 400 open-face made in this style. All were cased by Howard and should be in original Howard-marked cases. These could be solid gold or gold-filled.


The 23-jewel bridge models from the second group were made in smaller mumbers, maybe around 70 each, hunting and open-face. Most of these seem to have been in Howard-marked cases.


23-jewel bridge models from the first group are not common, most had 17 or 21 jewels. I believe that the 23-jewel examples, were up-jeweled by Keystone from unsold 21-jewel movements. They seem to have mixed finish characteristics and are usually not in Howard-marked cases.


Original cases are important to the value of any of these as many of the original gold cases have been melted. Re-casing in later Howard cases is usually detectable.

 

[mdloggins]

Jerry, a couple of questions regarding the s/n's and the Howard signatures. On the first series watch, the signature is different than the second two along with having a "H" preceding the serial number. Can you tell if these were originally finished as Walthams and subsequently refinished by Howard? Thanks.

 

[mikeh]

Jerry,

Interesting too that the third movement pictured is a hunter, but the bridge appears to be a modified version of the an open face style bridge, with the area milled for the ratchet wheel looking somewhat out of place. I'm not sure if that is what you meant by the 'modifed' bridge pattern, but I wish I had noticed it earlier because there was a model 99 or 08 Crescent St. on ebay recently that had this same bridge. I passed because I thought it might be some sort of hodgepodge.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Mike L. -- The signatures changed in different ways over the course of producing three series, as did the finish. The first series were finished at Waltham and had hand-engraved signatures and H prefixes to the serial number. I can't be certain which factory engraved the "E.Howard & Co." name. The second and third series were finished by Keystone and have a die-stamped company name. I believe all of these were dialed by Howard/Keystone. It is still somewhat of a mystery why in the third series they marked the bridge models "E.Howard Watch Co." while the 19-jewel model was still marked "E. Howard & Co." Perhaps it was a grade distinction (like Waltham's "American Watch Co." grade??). Perhaps the change was made because they needed a new die anyway for the modified center bridge.


Mike H. -- The principal bridge modifcation for the third contract was the straightening out of the bridges (finger bridges and center bridge). In the course of this change I think that they also shaped the center bridge so the same bridge could be used for open-face or hunting models, with just a little more milled out for the hunter. I, too, find the cut for the hunter a little awkward and prefer the shape of the open-face bridges. [Are you saying that the Crescent St. was a bridge model??]

 

[mikeh]

Jerry,

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was a bridge style train bridge. Come to think of it, they're all bridge models I suppose.

 

[Dr. Jon]

What can you tell about this one. It's number seems late but the markings suggest earlier.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Here is a picture of the first contract that has the original case and dial that are distinctive. The case is marked Howard, but without the logo ring. Note that the dial is very similar to the Hull dial found on the American Watch Co. bridge models.

 

[Dr. Jon]

Is there anything significant about the Howard name engraving being in gold on mine?

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

Here is an even earlier (at least lower serial number) first contract 21j bridge model. Unlike Tom's watch, my watch is a hunter. It is housed in surely the original 14k Keystone case, which has both a 1903 inscription (the year the watch was made) and a 1903 "monogram." Unlike Tom's, this case is not marked "Howard," but Keystone had just acquired the Howard name. My watch has the same dial and hands as Tom's.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Is there anything significant about the Howard name engraving being in gold on mine?

I don't recall seeing the gold filled engraving. I have seen quite a few with washed out and coarse looking engraving.

The other feature that is inconsistent is that Waltham bridge models have diamond end stones while the contract watches have ruby end stones. There are 3 visible diamonds on the one I showed like there are on many Waltham bridge models.

I left mine in the desert several years ago and I have heard that it moved along from there.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Gee - everyone posts in the morning and I can't get back to the thread until evening on the west coast. I hope someone still cares


Jon - your open-face Waltham-Howard is, I believe, from the second contract, circa 1904. It still has the standard Waltham bridge pattern but was delivered unfinished to Keystone. The open-face movements in this group appear to be hand engraved "E. Howard & Co." (Hunters appear to be die stamped). As for the gilt signature, are you sure that is not a trick of the lighting? It did not look that way in the original auction photo. All that I have seen have black-filled engraving except a few which have been over-cleaned. Most of these 23j bridge models seem to be in Howard-marked cases.


Tom - yours, delivered in November 1903, is unusual in that it is the only example from the first contract that I have seen in a Howard-marked case (other than some later-finished 23-jewel examples). Considering the style of the marking I wonder if the jobber or wholesaler marked the case? Or perhaps it reflects that it was delivered after Keystone bought the name.


Ethan, yours is a lovely example that was delivered to E. Howard in December 1902, prior to the sale to Keystone.


Tom, I am not sure which watch you are referring to with diamond endstones. I have never seen a Waltham-Howard with diamonds, and the picture of yours does not look like diamonds either.

 

[Dr. Jon]

Thanks Jerry I'll check again next time I get to the bank but I have two photos I took several months apart in two different orientations and they both show gold filled lettering. All the inscriptions are gilt, the serial number, "Adjusted" and the index regulator marks. Some are "overcleaned but all are or seem to have been gilt.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

Jerry, I took a nother good look at the pictures and you are right, there are no diamonds. I wrote the text for that web page about 15 years ago and must have been confused by the reflections from the setting.

On the case, I think it is the same as one shown in the Hayden W. Wheeler flyer produced when the watches were first introduced. I am sure you have a copy of this brochure reprinted some time ago. I believe the watch is 202 (Jurgenson) from that brochure.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

... On the case, I think it is the same as one shown in the Hayden W. Wheeler flyer produced when the watches were first introduced. I am sure you have a copy of this brochure reprinted some time ago. I believe the watch is 202 (Jurgenson) from that brochure.

That lends support to the possibility that your case may have been made by Hayden W. Wheeler, or maybe Dubois (who made some cases for Wheeler).

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Thanks Jerry I'll check again next time I get to the bank but I have two photos I took several months apart in two different orientations and they both show gold filled lettering. All the inscriptions are gilt, the serial number, "Adjusted" and the index regulator marks. Some are "overcleaned but all are or seem to have been gilt.

Jon, you might very well be right. I just found a photo in my archives of #1,005,447 and it also appears to have gilt lettering. I wonder if they might all be gilt underneath the black filling?

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I just received an interesting addition to my Waltham-Howard collection. This watch is from the end of what I believe is the first production group or contract. It was received (by Howard) from Waltham on January 29, 1904. The deliveries had been trickling in, a few at a time, since December 1902 and this was the last day of any recorded deliveries – H834035, H834036, H834037 and H834038. Here is the page from the surviving Howard ledgers showing the receipt of these four watches. (Mine is H834036).



Note that all four are listed as 21-jewel movements, as received. My watch has the typical finish and standard E. Howard & Co. dial of that period and must have been shipped soon afterward to Hayden W. Wheeler, who cased the watch and sold it a little later to be given as a gift in June 1905.

It just happens that a friend of mine has H834035 and his movement seems to have had a very different history from mine after it was received -- compare the two movements:



I note the following differences:

-035 .... 23j .... damascene winding wheels .... flat-head plate screws
-036 .... 21j .... satin winding wheels ............. rounded-head screws

Additionally, -035 is in a Howard marked case and has a double-sunk dial marked “Howard” – all are characteristics of later production. The difference in dials reinforces my belief that the movements were also dialed by Keystone.



One of the most interesting points is that although -035 was received as a 21-jewel movement it is marked (and has) 23 Jewels. The jewelling change is simple to do with the addition of Waltham’s new jeweled mainwheel. But the marking, with no sign of alteration, implies that this marking was added by Keystone and did not come so-marked from the Waltham factory.

Why was it up-jeweled? I suspect that if -035 was still unsold as they were receiving a new batch of 23-jewel movements from Waltham (contract 2), Keystone would have wanted to add the jeweled mainwheel/barrel (thus requiring new winding wheels) to make these consistent with their current offerings. Note the rather irregular damasceening on -035 winding wheels. I see this on a few of the early 23j movements and I think Keystone was still getting the hang of the damascening process.

Everything about my new watch (-036) points to an earlier finishing and sale. It has the satin-finish winding wheels that would have come with the movement from Waltham. The dial is an early dial consistent with the first contract watches. My Hayden W. Wheeler case (a plain polished hunting case) indicates to me that it was probably delivered to Wheeler in fulfillment of the original agency agreements made by E. Howard, a commitment that I believe must have expired at the end of 1904.

 

[Kent]

Jerry:

Thanks for sharing these and for your insightful comments!

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I think the technology flows between Waltham, Howard and Keystone is really fascinating. I would also like to know more of what H. W. Wheeler had to do with the negotiations. Apparently they were doing similar custom design contracts with Hamilton at about the same time and there is the possibly apocryphal 17J Keystone Howard that were rumored made by Hamilton.

I am also fascinated by the resemblance of the E. Howard Watch Co. dials to the Hull dials from Waltham. If there was a design patent on the Hull dial, the Howard is likely different enough to pass without complaint but at first glance they are a lot alike.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Tom - Wheeler's connection is evident from the number of early Waltham-Howards that came in Wheeler cases and the well-known 1903-copyright Howard catalog from Wheeler. In December 1902 Howard (pre-Keystone) placed an ad in the trade papers inviting jobbers to apply for agency to sell the new Howard watches. One must infer that H.W.Wheeler was one of the principal agents for Howard watches, and I surmise that Keystone had to honor this agency after they purchased the Howard watch business in February of 1903 (at least through the end of 1904).

I have discussed elsewhere why I do not believe that Hamilton produced any Howard movements until much, much later.

That 1903 catalog copyright, by the way, must have been an old date as some of the watches shown in that catalog were not delivered until at least the Spring of 1904. Perhaps the copyright was for the general content/format of the catalog and was left in for this later edition?

As for the dial, it is much closer to Waltham's "Empire" dial. I do not know whether Howard ordered their dials from Waltham or from O'Hara at this point, but I don't think they were making their own yet.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Here are pics of a very nice 23J example with original box/papers that I sold to a friend recently ...

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Belated thanks to Fred for posting his pictures. The original box and papers do not survive very often. It tells you a little bit about what they thought of these, that they provided the rating certificate.


Here is an early example that I find fascinating. It has all of the Waltham American Watch Co. grade features (gold train, gold jewel settings, recessed hub escape wheel) and is adjusted to five positions, but it only has 17 jewels. For the first contract with Howard, Waltham made about 70 17-jewel bridge models (~30 Htg. & ~40 OF) and about 100 21-jewel movements (mostly OF). There were also a handful of 19-jewel movements and about a dozen additional movements that weren't specified in the records. Some were later up-jeweled to 23 jewels. All of these early Waltham-Howard bridge models had the same dial (although some were private-labeled). My hands, however, are not original -- I believe it should have thin Breguet hands like Tom's and Ethan's, in posts above. This movement was received by Howard in March 1903 and sent out to their sales office in July, probably for shipment to Hayden W. Wheeler. The original gold case was made by the Dubois Watch Case Co. for Hayden W. Wheeler.


View attachment 228280 View attachment 228281


Below is an early ad (April 1903) from H.W.W. for these new watches. The cut is of the 17-jewel bridge movement.

View attachment 228282

 

[Fred Hansen]

Thanks for posting that one Jerry and really appreciate this great thread you've made.

The serial number on your 17 jewel seemed close in my mind to a 23 jewel movement I found last month at the NAWCC National, but turns out its exactly 100 digits away ...

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Fred, that is an interesting movement. The serial number and movement finish put it in the first contract group. These were finished from three different serial number runs, but all for that first contract. The Howard numbers are H803xxx, H829xxx and H834xxx. However, these watches were supposedly only made with 17, 19 or 21 jewels. I have seen only a couple of these that appear to have been up-jeweled to 23 with the addition of Waltham's jeweled mainwheel.


My working theory is that when the second contract watches (with 23-jewels) started to be delivered Keystone must have taken their remaining stock of 21-jewel movements and upgraded them to match their current offerings. These then required a new pair of winding wheels, and they also have later dials, but they retain the first-contract plate finish. There is a possibility that these remained in Waltham stock and were delivered with the other 23-j second-contract watches, but then I would have expected them to have the same plate finish (see my first post).

 

[Thomas Ingalls]

Jerry, Very interesting thread. I've had this 23j Waltham Howard for about 35 years and have always heard that the Waltham serial number was under the dial and the Howard number on the bridge. Years ago I took the dial off and it has the same number, 1000019, in both places. When did they drop using the Waltham serial number? Also it came in a Dueber Special g/f hunting case. Any chance that it is original to the movement? Thanks.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

Tom - it is good to hear from you again. You sent me pictures of your watch 16 years ago. The Waltham number for this movement would have been 12,600,019. Waltham generally only put the last six digits of the number under the dial (600xxx) but in the photo you sent me back then I see it stamped 000019. I can't speculate why it did not start with a six - perhaps the first zero was supposed to be a six? You also sent me a picture that showed the foot of the balance cock stamped 600019 underneath, which fits the usual pattern.


Back in 1998 I still did not understand why some of these 1-million series Waltham-Howards, like yours, had curved finger bridges. I have since come to believe that these were delivered to Howard as part of their second contract period (circa 1904). Personally I find these more interesting than the later model with straight finger bridges.

When you wrote to me in 1998 you said it was not in its original case - have you had second thoughts about that? I believe that some of the second contract watches, like yours, were sold to jobbers for casing outside the factory. Many were cased by Hayden W. Wheeler, usually in gold, but it is possible they put one in a Dueber gold-filled case for a customer. Wheeler did say that these were also available in gold-filled cases in their 1903 (dated) catalog but did not indicate which case brands they carried. Although we can't be sure this was the first case for this movement it does look like it could be the first movement for that case as I see no other screw marks.

 

[Thomas Ingalls]

Hi Jerry, I recall sending the info on my watch to someone but didn't remember who! Glad you kept that info and posted it again here. Saves me from having to take the watch apart again which I appreciate VERY much! (not as steady as I use to be).
At the time, my watch wasn't in it's original case because I had re-cased it at some point. I had kept it's original Dueber case and have since put the movement back in that case (where it belongs!).

 

[kek25]

I resurrected this old thread because I discovered an interesting situation involving a 23 jewel Howard Series 0 I recently purchased with wood box and license. The serial number of my movement is 1113719 with 14K gold Howard signed case serial number being 102106.

I sent the case out to have the bow reworked and some gold added to the bow, which had worn thin presumably due to use of a watch chain. The craftsman that worked on the case informed me there was an extra set of case screw marks present. This concerned me because I was under the impression the movement was original to the case and the license matched the movement and case serial numbers.

I gently "pried" the license from the inside cover of the case. Low and behold, there was a second license under it with a different serial number but same case number as my watch. The handwriting on the 2 licenses (i.e. the handwritten serial numbers of the movement and case) was identical. The price on the second license of $125 had a penned line through it. Doing some research using this forum and looking in the 2015 Price Guide, p. 166, I discovered the serial number on the second license (1005216) was within the serial number range for a Waltham Howard run. In fact, the serial number on my second license is only 147 movements away from the movement example in the Price Guide. And the case screws of the Waltham Howard movement lined up exactly with the extra case screws in my case. I assume the original jeweler must have swapped the movements for whatever reason and glued the second license onto the first license. Fortunately for me the glue was so old it had basically crystalized and the 2 licenses separated without tearing. However, the Waltham Howard license remains glued to the top of the wooden box.

I thought this was somewhat interesting since history on these old watches is often difficult to determine. If by chance anyone has Waltham Howard movement number 1005216 and would like photos of that license glued to the top of the box, I'd be happy to supply them.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

This sounds quite exciting from a research perspective. Can you post pictures of the two licenses? I might guess that the original movement may be one of those that had the Howard name removed and would support my theory that this was done by Keystone.

 

[kek25]

Hi, Jerry. I hope this helps. It's the best I can do from the office. I took the photo at home this way yesterday to compare the handwritten serial numbers on both licenses. You can see the license still attached to the box top is very light. It's almost like it delaminated when I separated the 2. You can see part of the original Waltham Howard movement license extending out the right side of the newer license. The layer of the older license that remains partially attached to the newer license separates just enough to see the handwriting on the 2 are the same. The older license seems to be of a different format than the newer license. I'm somewhat reluctant to handle them too much for fear of damaging them.

 

[kek25]

Here is another photo I took yesterday at home of all of the items together. The Waltham Howard license isn't titled "HOWARD WATCH LICENSE" in block letters like the newer license. It just says "LICENSE," but does have the Howard watermark throughout the body of the document, whereas the newer license doesn't contain the watermark. The 2 licenses also reference some of the same and some different patent numbers and patent dates in the bodies of the documents.

I'm afraid this information doesn't help further your theory, Jerry.

 

[Jerry Treiman]

kwk25 - actually, I think your watch fits very well with my ideas about what Keystone did with Waltham-Howard watches still in stock when their own bridge model production came on line. Both licenses are factory licenses and not anything a jeweler would be able to get. I surmise that Keystone still had this watch in inventory and replaced the Waltham movement with one of their own, pasting the new license in the box before shipping the watch out. I checked my records of observed Waltham-Howard movements and, unfortunately, #1005216 has not yet come to our attention.


It also looks like your watch has a rather uncommon early Keystone dial. If not too much trouble I would like to see a better dial picture and also get better images of the two licenses for my research and documentation. If you do not wish to post them publicly, please contact me through the message function on this board.


Thank you for posting.

The orphaned Waltham movement would have had the Howard name milled off the center bridge and polished off the dial. Then the bridge was re-damaskeened and probably sold to a jobber as an anonymous movement.

 

[kek25]

You're welcome. Yes. I understand your theory now. I messaged you 3 links to my photo bucket page which should provide you with high resolution details of the Series 0 dial and the 2 licenses. If you're unable to copy the photos directly from photo bucket let me know and I'll try to send you actual images rather than direct links.

Your description of "pasting" the licenses is spot on. I used the term "glued" but pasting better describes the gritty residue left between the licenses.

Meant to add, if you wouldn't mind emailing me with your final opinions I'd like to keep them with the watch as part of its provenance. Thank you. I'll message you my email address. Keith

 

[TaPaVa76]

Waltham made some beautiful bridge model movements for their series of contracts with Howard. The 16-size bridge models are especially nice and were part of all three contracts that I have been able to infer. The first ones (1902-1904) had standard Waltham bridges with a circular damascening pattern. The second group (1904) had the same bridges but used a straight bar style of finish. The third group (1905) had a modified bridge pattern and the straight bar damascening.

View attachment 510908 View attachment 510909 View attachment 510913

This past weekend a very nice 21-jewel Waltham-Howard bridge model movement from the first group sold on eBay (serial number H829619). It had an original private-label dial for Benedict Brothers but was recased. Unfortunately the auction photos were not very sharp. If you, or someone you know, was the lucky purchaser I would greatly appreciate being able to get some better photos for my research files. In return I can tell the new owner a little more about this watch. I may be contacted publicly through this forum or by private message to this board.