WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's a swiss maker I can't find any info about. Ellis Watch Co. I like the look of the dial, but it's too bad the case is in such rough shape. The case diameter is about 33mm.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,743 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
So how far back does Incabloc go? For some reason I thought it was the late 60's, but obviously it goes back much farther than that. The dial and hands on this one remind me of my '43 UG.

Very cool that you were able to find the movement! Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,822 Posts
Incabloc was 1934 or thereabouts. This is not incabloc however, looks like a Duro/Ruby/Super/Parashock2 or any of those that are similar. Incabloc or alternative was really essential post 1950 for manufacturers. Prior to that is was still possible or even common to buy watches without shock protection.

Looks very late 40s or early 50s to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
WOW! I certainly didn't think it went back to the 30's. Incabloc is written on the case-back & there is a shock ring in the case-back. On the case-back...

CASED AND TIMED BY PRECISION WATCH CRAFTSMEN
ANTIMAGNETIC-INCABLOC-WATERRESISTANT
DIAMOND TOOLED STAINLESS STEEL BACK​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,822 Posts
I accept that incabloc is written on the back. However what is fitted in the movement photo is not incabloc - it is an alternative shock protection system. The incabloc spring is very distinctive. It is possible this is not the original movement, or perhaps the back was swapped. The watch & movement would normally be too high quality to have 'diamond tooled', or 'precision craftsman' advertised on the back. That is the sort of stuff I would expect to see on a watch with a pin lever movement (although to be fair, incabloc would also be an odd thing to see on a pin lever movement of this era). In fact, saying water-resistant rather than waterproof would place the watch much later - 60s, I can't recall exactly. So, all in all, I don't think this is the original back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yeah, that's what I find confusing too, trim. I've done a little reading about waterproof vs water-resistant & dating. Like I said earlier, the dial reminds me of my '43 UG, but other details make me think 1968 or so. Very confusing.

Trust me, I'm not arguing with you or anyone else here. I know you guys know your stuff. I'm very new to all this!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,822 Posts
I think the simplest explanation is someone has replaced the back at some point.

The rest - dial, hands, movement case style all point to early 50s. It is only the back that confuses things. Unless the back has Ellis stamped inside, then a replacement back is the most consistent and simplest explanation for the current configuration of the watch.

P.S. you should feel free to argue - much learning is possible this way.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top