I picked up a Waltham 18s 17j hunter and it is marked on the movement Premier. The price guide shows a OF version but not a HC version, is this an oversight of the price guide or does the HC version tend to be a bit more rare?

Hey Claude, I have found that same thing regarding several watches in the Guide. The book is just not complete. I in fact own about 3 or 4 watches that are not even mentioned in the guide. The book gets better all the time,but still has a long way to go to be The "Complete" Guide.

With that in mind, guys, to be a "Complete" guide to watches and have every grade and type movement listed is 'pie in the sky' type thinkging....It will never happen....

That being said, the Price Guide is still the best guide for watches ever made and as Cecil said, "The book gets better all the time, but still has a long way to go to be the''Complete Guide''....

I have three watches that are two ** watches and they are not listed either....oh well....

Claude, what is the SN of the Waltham you are refering to...?

Regards,

Jerry

Elsewhere on the web it shows for 18s Waltham Premier 17 jewel watches;
Two runs of hunter with 299 in each run
3 runs of open face , 2 with 699 in a run & one run of 999

If you want to DO something to get the future editions on the watch guide changed instead of just complaining about error & omissions, you can post recommended changes here:

https://ihc185.infopop.cc/eve/f...s/a/frm/f/9486034183

Ed I have posted for revisions before, in this case I did not know if it was an oversight or just a not seen often watch. Tom did a good job of answering that 598 in two runs makes it a rare bird. The OF at 2,397 wasn't made in big numbers either. I will post the serial number along with some pictures.

Thanks

Hi Claude, is the watch you're talking about a '92 model Appleton- Tracy Premier?...Regards, Ted.

Yes that is it, I finally found it in one of my old price guides, adjusted to 3 positions, steel escape wheel, and double roller. In 1916/17 the movement cost $30, the 845 was $40, 19-21j Crescent street was $45-46.60 depending on jewel count and 19-23j Vanguard was $52-60 depending on jewel count. So it could have been used on some railroads but not all, looks to be a decent watch. Maybe the one Tom mentioned might be a different watch I tend to think this one would be more common. I guess if it was a Appleton- Tracy it would have been adj3p but the Premier version was adjusted to 5 positions, I guess it is listed in the June 2000 Bulletin based on a net search.
Claude

Claude,As I understand it, The regular '92 A.T. & Co. is a 3-position watch, and the "Premier" is 5- position.Both are railroad grade.I think the Premier HC like yours must be pretty rare.They're a beautiful movement.I have a regular OF A.T. & Co.(non-Premier), matter of fact I've been carrying it for the last few days.It's a bulletproof and deadly accurate watch.I think the Premiers came out when the 18 sizes were starting to get phased out.Does yours have a star wheel regulator, or the newer style Ohlsen type?...Ted.

Ted it has the gold star wheel type regulator, while I was editing my previous post I see that you made the difference between the two. I have an 1892 21j Vanguard OF and it is a nice watch, I have always heard that these Walthams were some of the best made. I have a few Walthams but I need to study them more to know which are the good ones and which are after the point that Waltham's quality was taking a nose dive.

Claude, I also have the 21jewel Vanguard OF, it's so nice I'm afraid to carry it, the YGF case is like new and I don't want to add any wear to it!Also have an 845.All '92s are great watches, I think they were Waltham's best.I too asked about A.T Co. Premiers a year or so ago on here, and Tom showed a nice picture of one like yours, if you search the pocket watch section, it will come up.Thanks, Ted.

I'll post pictures when it arrives and it does look like the picture that Tom Brown posted in the prior post. It is in a hunting case that looks to be in good shape but is missing the stem set screw that some hunter had. It has a 12M serial number so that would put it in the 1902/03 timeframe.

The information I had posted does not show the 18s 17 jewel Premier with that high a number. So perhaps the information I found is not for your watch.

It showed the hunter runs as
11059501-11059800
11071501-11071800

Sorry if I had the wrong info, I was just going by your 1st post.

Tom

Tom the serial number is 12,053,871 and I appreciate your post because it did help since when I posted I knew nothing about the watch. Since it takes a bit to find out anything on it and based on what you posted along with Ted and the others in the previous post I don't think either the open face or definitely the hunter case movements are not that common. I have to agree also these are beautiful looking movements.

Actually Tom's info is right on....in summary there were two runs of HC and three runs of OF with a total of 600 & 2400 respectively....That is when using 1892 and Premier as grade and model....

Claude the s/n you have posted does not come up as a valid number in the Waltham database, just says "invalid"....maybe we can get a different number once you receive the watch....

Regards,

Jerry

Serial


Database Results Error
Description: [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Syntax error (comma) in query expression '(SerialStart <= 12,053,871 AND SerialEnd >= 12,053,871)'.
Number: -2147217900 (0x80040E14)
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers

Ok the the serial number seems correct but when I look at the pictures I think they are incorrectly calling it a hunter because it is in a hunter case but I have seen this before where someone put an open-face movement in a hunter case. So the movement is probably an open face movement rather than a hunter movement. The serial number seems to come out to around 1903.

The serial number does return, perhaps you don't realize if you enter commas in the number you will not get a return.

Does show it as open face.

Looking at the pics of the plates, it is in fact an O/F as Toms data shows.

Always post pictures of the watch in question, when you have them, and it will make an identity easier.

regards,
bb

Tom does this run fall into the 3 runs for the open face movement mentioned earlier or in addition to those 3 runs. This one appears to be a run of 499. Earlier you mentioned 2 runs of 699 and one of 999 for 2397 in three runs. I won a beautiful 18s gold-filled JBoss hunter case with beautiful engraving because someone stuck an open face Elgin movement in it, so this will be the 2nd time I have ended up with a reverse sidewinder. For a 17j movment this one is has all of the nice additions, raised gold jewel settings, appear to be gilt screws on the jewel settings, fancy DMK, actually it being an open face works out better.

Agreed....and you are correct Tom, about the commas in the database, heck, you are correct about everything you have posted....

That was my mistake, Claude....

Nice looking watch also....

Regards,

Jerry

Jerry it is a nice looking watch, I saw it and ended up paying just $3 over low book, so I will make it correct by finding a nice OF case for it and put one of my sidewinder movements in this case to make both more correct. For about $110 total, bid+ship, I don't mind picking up watches like this, I recently picked up a 16s 17j Bunn the pictures were a bit fuzzy but if it turns out half as nice looking as this movement I will be happy.

No this one is not in the runs I 1st listed, at the time I searched for a 18s Premier grade 17 jewel.

Now with the serial number you provided yours in the data base is considered a Appleton Tracy grade & the data base shows for open face 17 jewels;

Model 1892
Grade ATCo
17 jewels
Open Face
Earliest 4/1/1897
Latest 6/30/1902
First 7005011
Last 18137000
Runs 63
Count 32368

While we're talking about these Appleton Tracy's, I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Rob Jones has one of these for sale on this site.I noticed something that seems unusual to me.On his, the "17 Jewels" marking is over on the barrel plate, instead of around the balance recess, the way it is on every other 1892 model I've ever seen.Never seen one like that.Anybody have an opinion on that?