Very early wristwatch articles

Literustyfan · May 25, 2014

Americans were certainly wearing wrist watches during that time.

BUT, they were Swiss made watches, not American made wrist watches as absolutely no evidence exists to that fact.

In order for it to be proven without ANY doubt any article, snippet or advertising MUST state the name of the AMERICAN company that manufactured the wrist watch and it MUST say "WRIST WATCH" with a date to back it all up.

Heck, back in June of 1904 The New England Watch Company who later became "Timex" put out an advertisement that "suggested" that their "Golf Watch" was to be "worn".

This can be found in the June 1904 issue of "The Philistine" magazine.

The advertisement does NOT come right out and say it but it certainly "suggests" that this watch was worn on the wrist.

No picture was included in the advert and it did not state "wrist watch" so this "golf watch" cannot be considered the "first" American Wrist Watch.

I personally would not be surprised to see hard core evidence come out down the road that states the Americans were in fact manufacturing men's wrist watches in the early 1900's.

But, all of the criteria MUST be met for it to be bona fide.

Wibbs · May 25, 2014

Interesting stuff. I think there may be some aspect of cross purposes/misunderstanding here? It seems that going by these newspaper snippets a fashion arose for men in the US to start wearing fob watches in "straps" designed to hold them. Enough of a fashion for it to be reported anyway. As the article notes the British military types had started to do this(reports and photos from the Boer war show this) and the American lads took it up. So it's entirely possible, if not a given that many of these watches carried in those wrist conversion straps were of local US manufacture.

However, while they were watches carried on the wrist*, they weren't wristwatches. They weren't designed, made or sold as wristwatches by the companies involved on either side of the Atlantic at this stage. They were end user conversions. It would be akin to me buying a brand new Panerai or whatever, cutting off the strap, attaching a chain to it and calling it a pocketwatch. It might function as one, but it wouldn't be one.

For the first real Man's wristwatch the definition would surely be one designed and made from the get go for the purpose. In this case the Omega's Horologist007 referenced would be such a beast.

Now I have read in a few places that Girrard Perregaux had built a batch of wristwatches for the German navy before this time. The 1880's I think? That's the claim, but I've never seen any documentation, never mind an actual example of one to prove it. On their own website a few years back the example they had was clearly from circa 1916, not the 1880's. For pre Omega examples I'd reckon a long perusal of photos from the Boer war might turn up an actual wristlet, though making out who made it would be next to impossible. I have seen the fobwatch bracelet in pics from that time alright. I recall reading of a letter from a guy in that conflict who wrote about an engagement where his wristwatch was specifically mentioned.

From this page Anglo Boer war musuem
(first pic on the page has a Canadian bloke sporting one of these fobholderwatches in 1899)

Halfway down the page we have a letter from a Canadian chap by the name of Otto Moody in 1902(though possibly earlier as he signed up two years after the previous soldier on the page and that guy was seeing action in 1900). In it he says "I wished you could manage to get me one of those small watches with a watch belt to go around your wrist like this(he draws a picture of it). Most every fellow here has one, they are very handy". The tiny doodle he sketches such as it is does not resemble a fob watch in a holder, but an actual wristwatch as we might recognise it. Given that "most every fellow" had one it seems that by 1902 anyway they were not a rare item in such a setting, they could be bought in Canada as he asks his mum go source one and that they were likely being manufactured by someone. The numbers made, by actual manufacturers, or privately made small runs by jewelers would be questions though.

Personally speaking and it's just musing on my part, but I would bet the farm that there were small runs of these wristlets/wristwatches in the 1890's and sooner or later one or more will show up.

*as women were already doing. Consider the article written about the guys in Cuba sending home for "leather bracelet cases". Clearly these already existed and most likely they were for women.

bobbee · May 25, 2014

HOROLOGIST007 said:
We know well this.
I mentioned that the very first picture we have of a man wearing one of these wristlets was 1898, one of Theodore Roosevelts Rough Riders.
It is the earliest picture I have of a man wearing a wristwatch. And I have searched and searched.
This picture is so important it's on permanent display on the History of the Wristwatch display at NAWCC Museum

Did the 'wristlet' have an American or European pocket watch? I got no idea.

Will respond your other post later.
Sincerely

The "driver's watch" article dates to 1889, nine years previously to the above.
No photograph, sorry.

Literustyfan · May 25, 2014

I personally would NOT count this as being a genuine "wrist watch".

It was a "pocket watch" that was put inside of a leather housing then strapped to the wrist.

This watch was NOT designed to be worn on the wrist when it left the manufacturer, it is simply an end user conversion as stated above.

The AMERICAN made product MUST have been marketed as a genuine "men's wrist watch" in order for it to be considered, plain and simple.

Wibbs · May 25, 2014

On American early enough wristwatches I got this Hampden years ago. In France to be exact:

(apologies for the crappy photo)

Lever set, with a Hampden Diadem movement within. The serial number depending on which reference you read comes out from 1912-1914.

(deleted the last few digits of my particular number)

I'd figure the 1914(or slightly later) date more applicable. For a start the movement which was also in ladies fob watches could have been made years before it found a case and the serial number is very near the end of the run of the movement itself. Also I did find it in France, so it would seem more likely it came over with an American military man in the Great war. Still it seems fairly early for a no doubts about its origin American watch.

I fell for it the second I saw it.

What I like about it is its design. It doesn't look like most "trench watches/wristlets", a small fobwatch with little 10/12mm lugs slapped on almost as an afterthought(this takes a 16mm strap IIRC). The crown isn't an onion/pumpkin either. For me it looks much more like a modern looking wristwatch.

(the hands and the dial are original Hampden items, but they don't belong together. It should have "cathedral" type radium lume hands. Never been able to source a set unfortunately)

Literustyfan · May 25, 2014

Wibbs,

That case design first came out in late 1916.

Two companies made that exact case design: Dueber-Hampden and Wadsworth.

It was featured in "Outing Magazine" in the December 1916 issue that listed the top "25" gifts for men for Christmas, it ranked in at #19.

It originally sold for $13.00 or for $10.00 if you did not want luminous paint on the dial and hands.

The one shown in this list had an Elgin movement though with a shadow box military dial.

bobbee · May 25, 2014

I think you are all missing the point.
The popular belief as I have come to see it was that the strap watch or p/w in a strap case, was not worn in the US in general until the 20th.century, and we now have evidence to the contrary. There is also evidence that ladies and men wore them as early as 1889, and there is evidence that jewelers were putting cases, movements and straps together to make these as early as 1890.
All in the US.
Recent posts in answer (yes Adam, you! :-D) to these finds have said that womens wrist watches, even Swiss, did not exist in the US prior to 1904, and the earliest leather pocketwatch holder to 1898.

Extract below is from Adam's post in vintagewatchforums yesterday:

"Wristwatches in 1902? I just do not think so, even Swiss.
Mens maybe 1904, womans yes 1904.

So I ask can anyone give a date provenance to these articles.

AS far as a leather pocket watch converter (wristlet), the earliest I can track is 1898, yes there is speculation they existed prior to that maybe 1885?
But I want some proof."

I provided the proof, so why the sudden change of heart? When will there be enough proof provided?

Despite the splitting of hairs, all this is new information, and interesting as well as informative.

Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.

Enjoy, please.

Emre · May 25, 2014

For the Swiss part of the story, the Swiss were just considering to put regulations in 15 Jan 1890,how to punch silver and gold hallmarks on the wrist-watch cases and bracelets.Public announcement was made that a further decision will be made and shared accordingly. This might show also the increasing demand so regulations are being placed in 1890,sorry no watch pictures:

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

bobbee said:
Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.

Enjoy, please.

View attachment 1505118

Yes! A ladies 'SWISS' wrist watch - 1906 and in a British Paper (I think).
As I keep saying we all know this well. I do not need any evidence of ladies wristwatches, I already stated I have adverts as far back as 1892

What I want to see is pictures of people wearing a 'wristwatch' prior to 1898?
I then want to see if that is by leather wristlet or a conventional wristwatch?
I also want to find an American manufacturer advertising wristwatch prior to 1912 say 1910 or 1908?

I probably have more pictures than most people of early wristwatches.
I have a few from the Boer war (1899-1902) - these are exceptionally difficult to find all wristlets's

I have a number from WW1 some wristlet some conventional. These include all countries that fought in Great War.

all these I have.
What I do not have is picture of a man or indeed woman wearing a watch prior to 1898, that said I know its very possible for Ladies.

We know well ladies wristwatches were made as early as 1810 (Breguet). We know that by mid 17th Century wealthy ladies were starting to wear a watch on the wrist. These were more pieces of jewellery than just time pieces.

We know that men (maily officers/soldiers) were wearing wristlets as early as 1888/9

We know Omega launched men's wristwatches in 1902.

These were all European manufactured.

I agree with literustyfan about all the dates he mention for American manufactured watches. I have seen thanks to Stan both the 1912 Ingersoll article and the 1913 advert.
Indeed I found the famous wild Bill endicot 1913 advert wearing an Elgin.

I am now looking/researching for evidence that American manufacturer or indeed Europen manufacturers made wristwatches prior to these dates.
Sadly your articles do not give me that.

Did Americans and European men wear conventional wristwatches in 1900s? Quite possible, but trying to find hard evidence is very elusive.

Adam

Wibbs · May 25, 2014

Literustyfan said:
Wibbs,

That case design first came out in late 1916.

Two companies made that exact case design: Dueber-Hampden and Wadsworth.

It was featured in "Outing Magazine" in the December 1916 issue that listed the top "25" gifts for men for Christmas, it ranked in at #19.

It originally sold for $13.00 or for $10.00 if you did not want luminous paint on the dial and hands.

The one shown in this list had an Elgin movement though with a shadow box military dial.

That's great information Literustyfan. Thanks

It also proves one can't gauge dates by movement manufacture dates, unless like with Longines and a few others they have a journal entry for the exact delivery date(I've a 1912 Longines tonneau style that can be dated by this method). Obviously they had a supply of movements built up and these could find their way into later cases. Still, for a 1916 design it was a very forward looking one IMHO. Much less Edwardian/19th century in layout. Now to keep up my hunt for the correct hands. Three quid extra you say?

bobbee said:
I think you are all missing the point.
The popular belief as I have come to see it was that the strap watch or p/w in a strap case, was not worn in the US in general until the 20th.century, and we now have evidence to the contrary.

As far as fobwatches in adapted cases are concerned I don't think anyone is suggesting these weren't around in the 19th century. There were ladies watches that were wrist/bracelet watches in the very late 19th century too. This would apply to the US and Europe(and elsewhere one supposes).

There is also evidence that ladies and men wore them as early as 1889,

Adapted fobwatches yes.

and there is evidence that jewelers were putting cases, movements and straps together to make these as early as 1890.

Whatever about jewelers responding to a trend by supplying adaptor cases for fob watches, which I'd go along with BTW, where's the evidence for them putting together wristwatches.

Recent posts in answer (yes Adam, you! :-D) to these finds have said that womens wrist watches, even Swiss, did not exist in the US prior to 1904, and the earliest leather pocketwatch holder to 1898.

Well in this thread anyway Horologist007 has stated

"1892 - Earliest advert to depict a wristwatch (ladies); it is described as a 'fine gold keyless watch bracelet'
(Note I have this advert from 1892)
1894 - Earliest advert I have showing a 'wristlet' (leather pocket watch converter) - This can be a mans or a womans"

Both in the 19th century.

Despite the splitting of hairs, all this is new information, and interesting as well as informative.

I agree, it is interesting stuff and I for one am glad you tracked this down. I think the splitting of hairs comes from the definitions involved. IE pocketwatch converters while enabling a watch to be worn on the wrist aren't wristwatches, they're "aftermarket" conversions. You appear to be conflating the two. If we take that out of the equation your info is interesting and adds to that pre "true" wristwatch era. It also dispels some of that noton that watches on the wrist were considered for the "ladies" and "effeminate" for men to be seen wearing.

Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.

Enjoy, please.

A nice ad, but it doesn't confirm or deny anything. The earliest so far found ad for a ladies bracelet watch was 14 years previous to this(in Europe I think?) and an American ad was out in 1904.

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

Wibbs said:
Interesting stuff. I think there may be some aspect of cross purposes/misunderstanding here? It seems that going by these newspaper snippets a fashion arose for men in the US to start wearing fob watches in "straps" designed to hold them. Enough of a fashion for it to be reported anyway. As the article notes the British military types had started to do this(reports and photos from the Boer war show this) and the American lads took it up. So it's entirely possible, if not a given that many of these watches carried in those wrist conversion straps were of local US manufacture.

However, while they were watches carried on the wrist*, they weren't wristwatches. They weren't designed, made or sold as wristwatches by the companies involved on either side of the Atlantic at this stage. They were end user conversions. It would be akin to me buying a brand new Panerai or whatever, cutting off the strap, attaching a chain to it and calling it a pocketwatch. It might function as one, but it wouldn't be one.

For the first real Man's wristwatch the definition would surely be one designed and made from the get go for the purpose. In this case the Omega's Horologist007 referenced would be such a beast.

Now I have read in a few places that Girrard Perregaux had built a batch of wristwatches for the German navy before this time. The 1880's I think? That's the claim, but I've never seen any documentation, never mind an actual example of one to prove it. On their own website a few years back the example they had was clearly from circa 1916, not the 1880's. For pre Omega examples I'd reckon a long perusal of photos from the Boer war might turn up an actual wristlet, though making out who made it would be next to impossible. I have seen the fobwatch bracelet in pics from that time alright. I recall reading of a letter from a guy in that conflict who wrote about an engagement where his wristwatch was specifically mentioned.

From this page Anglo Boer war musuem
(first pic on the page has a Canadian bloke sporting one of these fobholderwatches in 1899)

Halfway down the page we have a letter from a Canadian chap by the name of Otto Moody in 1902(though possibly earlier as he signed up two years after the previous soldier on the page and that guy was seeing action in 1900). In it he says "I wished you could manage to get me one of those small watches with a watch belt to go around your wrist like this(he draws a picture of it). Most every fellow here has one, they are very handy". The tiny doodle he sketches such as it is does not resemble a fob watch in a holder, but an actual wristwatch as we might recognise it. Given that "most every fellow" had one it seems that by 1902 anyway they were not a rare item in such a setting, they could be bought in Canada as he asks his mum go source one and that they were likely being manufactured by someone. The numbers made, by actual manufacturers, or privately made small runs by jewelers would be questions though.

Personally speaking and it's just musing on my part, but I would bet the farm that there were small runs of these wristlets/wristwatches in the 1890's and sooner or later one or more will show up.

*as women were already doing. Consider the article written about the guys in Cuba sending home for "leather bracelet cases". Clearly these already existed and most likely they were for women.

Wibbs. Good post.

As I posted I have a number of original photographs and newspaper pictures of Officers in Boer war wearing a wristlet.
My earliest is dated is1900.
I also have an original photograph of Major General Baden Powell wearing one, here you go:

I have many examples of officers wearing these.

Now Girard Perregaux. Yes I have read that too, but no one that has researched it can find one piece of evidence that its true.
The only thing is a recent article on Girard Perregaux milestones showed an artist impression with shrapnel guard and Radium!! Which was invented in 1910 - and used in wristwatches in 1913!
Yet this picture implies Girard Perregaux had it in 1880?

Make your choice GP or Omega..

Regards
adam

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

dom_ said:
I would be interested in seeing the 1906 omega advert and the 1892 advert. Very interested

Here you go

1892 - Earliest known ladies wristwatch advert!

1906 Omega advert - This is known to have been published in 1904

bobbee · May 25, 2014

Adam, all these aricles come from US newspapers. (look at the prices in the 1906 ad, they are in $.)
I still think some folks are avoiding the issue, Americans were making watches to wear on the wrist before "your" dates, and these articles have proven this.

Good luck in finding pictures of people wearing w/w's earlier than 1898.

Here is an advert from May 1888.

The advert can be accurately dated as I have found the entire newspaper on microfiche, front page dates to May 19th, 1888.

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

bobbee said:
Adam, all these aricles come from US newspapers. (look at the prices in the 1906 ad, they are in $.)
I still think some folks are avoiding the issue, Americans were making watches to wear on the wrist before "your" dates, and these articles have proven this.

Good luck in finding pictures of people wearing w/w's earlier than 1898.

Here is an advert from May 1888.

View attachment 1505198

The advert can be accurately dated as I have found the entire newspaper on microfiche, front page dates to May 19th, 1888.

Fair comment on $.
but please, please stop posting articles for ladies wristwatches/bracelets.
we all know and agree Ladies had wristwatches back in 1810 and for certain in mid 19th century.
Any photos or pictures would be fantastic, I think my earliest ladies photo with a watch is 1914! That is how difficult it is.

For mens, I really want to find prior to 1898 some pictures and even men wearing wristwatch 1900 to 1914 are very scarce (there after I have plenty.)

Thanks your efforts
adam

Literustyfan · May 25, 2014

Bob,

Unless you can find an advertisement or article that actually gives the EXACT name of the American manufacturer who was making a men's wrist watch it is pointless.

You can't just include some generic snippets, advertisements or references in an article from an American publication to make your point that do not include the American manufacturer's name.

There are thousands of these "generic" adverts floating around out there with no specific American manufacturer's names on them.

Exact American factory names, exact dates, exact wrist watch models and pictures are needed.

Adam and I have spent thousands upon thousands of hours researching this topic and while Adam and I do not always agree you are going to come up with something better than what has been posted to change our minds.

Speculation is not good research when it comes to this topic, everybody MUST deal in FACT printed in black and white.

I type this with the utmost respect to everybody taking part in this discussion!

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

I fully concur with Stan.
I would also add Bob, I am impressed what you have found, the recent pieces especially, they are all most interesting, but do not disprove anything that we did not know.

in 2013 after some 100 years it was proven that Rieussec did not make the first chronograph in 1821 that honor now goes to Louis Moinet in 1816.
In 2014 after some 240 years it was proven that Perrelet was not the inventor of the first 'rotor' automatic pocket watch (the so called Leroy watch) that honor goes to Hubert Sarton in 1778.
Perrelet did invent and make the first automatic pocket watch in 1777 but it was a side weight design and not 'rotor'.

So, I know my observations and opinions on 'The Beginning of the Wristwatch' can and will be changed.

Sincerely
adam

bobbee · May 25, 2014

Well, I am posting these snippets for everyone, not just you and Adam. Calling my efforts pointless is unkind at best.
Saying that my comments are speculation is incorrect, as I am commenting on the contents of the articles I have found.

I was just looking for the earliest info about wristwatches that I could find, I posted this info, and it is the earliest I have seen that shows wristlets and bracelet watches being made, sold and worn in the US. Extreme interest was shown by several people, so I went on searching. If you have seen or posted earlier ones, then I would like to know where they are posted, as I am mainly interested in early advertising of w/w's, mostly Bulova.
Thank you for your interest.

HOROLOGIST007 · May 25, 2014

Wibbs said:
On American early enough wristwatches I got this Hampden years ago. In France to be exact:
View attachment 1505079
)

Here is my Hampden - 1917.

And a rarer picture of all three styles of 'offset crown'

With the 1917 Elgin on the right, one of my rarest pieces and best pieces - thanks to literustyfan!

Literustyfan · May 25, 2014

Your efforts are certainly not pointless, what is pointless is the advertisements not giving exact names as that only leads to more speculation and not fact.

Wibbs · May 25, 2014

HOROLOGIST007 said:
Here is my Hampden - 1917.

Dammit you have the correct hands. *jealous*

Gorgeous watch and as for the others... niiice. As a matter of interest how did you date your Hampden to 1917? Is there another serial number on yours on the case as well as the movement to nail it down? Sadly mine has nada on that score and the movement date is earlier than the case design could be. I've wondered what the holes drilled in the lugs were for. A specific "shrapnel" guard or something along those lines, or a way to attach a strap? They are threaded so they must have been for something. The Hampden has a really solid and tight fitting case.

I really love these early wristwatches. They must have been really "out there" and futuristic at the time. It's why I love the early quartz too. I don't have any drawer queens and would wear them as dailies I've found they're pretty tough with it. Avoiding water mind you.

Very early wristwatch articles

Literustyfan

Wibbs

bobbee

Literustyfan

Wibbs

Literustyfan

bobbee

Emre

HOROLOGIST007

Wibbs

HOROLOGIST007

HOROLOGIST007

bobbee

HOROLOGIST007

Literustyfan

HOROLOGIST007

bobbee

HOROLOGIST007

Literustyfan

Wibbs

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities