WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Picked up this in a lot of watches a while back and could not find another like it online. I find it intriguing, due to the clear back. Its a wind up mechanical. Here are some pictures.
It also seems rather small for a mans watch, but I know they did make them smaller back then.Also marked 14k gf on the case, if it helps any. Thank you in advance.

IMG_20141014_154327.jpg IMG_20141014_154357.jpg IMG_20141014_154407.jpg IMG_20141014_154421.jpg IMG_20141014_154435.jpg IMG_20141014_154454.jpg
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Well, the movement is a model '98; a 6/0 size adjusted model, and was made around 1934. 6/0 was a man's size (in fact, this movement was the basis of the model 42, which powered Waltham's military offerings in WWII and beyond). This was their "Jewel Series" movements; Ruby and Sapphire were the basic grades, Diamond and Riverside were the high end grades. Waltham still relied heavily on jobbers, so the movement may well have been sold separately and cased by the jeweler who sold it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well, the movement is a model '98; a 6/0 size adjusted model, and was made around 1934. 6/0 was a man's size (in fact, this movement was the basis of the model 42, which powered Waltham's military offerings in WWII and beyond). This was their "Jewel Series" movements; Ruby and Sapphire were the basic grades, Diamond and Riverside were the high end grades. Waltham still relied heavily on jobbers, so the movement may well have been sold separately and cased by the jeweler who sold it.

Thank you. This is pretty much the same stuff I found when I looked up the movement number. I's too bad the movement doesn't belong to the case though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Thank you. This is pretty much the same stuff I found when I looked up the movement number. I's too bad the movement doesn't belong to the case though.
What makes you say that? Unlike Swiss watches, it was still common for American watche movements and cases to be sold separately, even in the 30's; that was how the business worked for many decades. American movements were all a standard size, so you could pick any 6/0 size case made by any case company and put this movement in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
What makes you say that? Unlike Swiss watches, it was still common for American watche movements and cases to be sold separately, even in the 30's; that was how the business worked for many decades. American movements were all a standard size, so you could pick any 6/0 size case made by any case company and put this movement in it.

I think it would be much cooler in a different case imho. I was aware of the fact that pocket watches came separate of the case, but I did not know that wrist watches followed this pattern as well. In fact, I know that pocket watch cases wore out way before the movement and therefore the case could have been rep;laced many times over its life. It's funny how america used to build stuff that was made to last. Today we just buy stuff and when it breaks just toss it and buy a new one. We have become a disposable society that takes no pride in our products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
It's funny you should say that, because this watch is from what can be charitably considered the worst period for Waltham watches, from a quality perspective. The company was being run by a man who made Scrooge look like a spendthrift; they spent only as much as they absolutly had to, and employees were constantly pushed to produce more while being paid less. The only thing that preserved their reputation was the efforts of the jobbers (independent sellers) who had gotten into the habit of pre-servicing any watches they wanted to sell to correct any glaring defects. It was cheaper for Waltham to ship replacement parts then it was to actually do their own testing, so that's what they did. Ultimately, that's one of the things that led to their bankruptcy in 1949.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,045 Posts
I recently found a newspaper article where Waltham were made to pay over $30,000 in reparation for child labour infractions, I think it was in the 1930's.
There were other articles in a similar vein to that, very poor for a once top industry leader.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top