This auction is being discussed in the CAT/RT. It is a Dueber watch that the seller says could have been designed to "step on the toes" of Ball by copying to some degree the design of Ball movements. Does anyone know of this fued?
Are there advertisements that reflect the fued?

Mike Paynter is the seller. Maybe he will post more details here.

Yes,this is a nice watch,beautiful unique damaskening--a rare bird.Must be a intriguing story for sure!

Tom and Sam,

I moved this interesting topic to the pocket watch discussion forum so that we might get more input from our members. We probably will get some accurate answers from our experts!

Here is a Hampden "3 Ball" hunting movement. I`ve seen the O.F. version occasionally on ebay but this is the only hunting movement I`ve seen. The H,C. model is not listed in my edition of Shugart`s guide (older edition however!).
Would be interesting to hear more about "the feud" and anything about these models.

Tom,

The history of Webb C. Ball's business relationship with John Dueber was discussed in a past Bulletin article. I do not currently have access to my Bulletin's, but I'm sure someone could look it up. If not, I'll try to locate it later this week.

If I remember correctly, the article also discusses Ball's ongoing fued with H.S. Montgomery. The fued with Montgomery did carry over into adds in which Ball included one of Montgomery's dial designs in a pictorial of what he referred to as "Freak Dials". The pictorial also included the Ferguson dials and other unusual dials intended for RR service.

Tom:

I remember the article in the Bulletin that referred to the feud between John C. Dueber and Webb C. Ball there were advertisements in the Brotherhood publications where they attacked each other. I remember one by Dueber that went after Ball for advertising himself as a watch manufacturer when in fact all his production was contracted out to other Watch companies. I have attached a copy of an advertisement from the July 1905 issue of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen's Magazine in it Webb C. Ball in the ad refers to "Smokestack Jewels" stating that 17 jewels in a pocket watch were adequate for railroad operations, and that any extra jeweling was superfluous. This was an attack on Hampden and other manufacturers with their line of highly jeweled watches.

I love these 3-Ball Hampdens. I have sold one Hunter and now two open face 3-Ball's. I have one left. Yes I got that info about BaLL and Dueber from that source and fogot about where I got it. Yea big John did not like ole Webb too much. It was bad enough years earlier the other watch companies ganged up on him, and forced him to buy Hampden. And now this upstart who did not even make a watch was taking business away from him. If you check the production runs, the 3-Ball was set between the John Hancocks , the Special Railways and the John C. Dueber watches. These were all adjusted railroad watches. mike paynter

Whence the name 3-Ball?

Thanks all,
The information is great. I am going to track down the Bulletin article first chance I get. I love the "Smokestack Jewels" ad.

I think I have found it. The June 1992 bulletin features Webb C. Ball, Railroad Watches, and Watch inspection on the San diego and Arizona RR. Now I just have to read it!

Thanks to some guidance by Larry B, I have the feud issue in hand. It is Feb. 1985, Whole No. 234, Vol. XXVII, No.1 This article covers the fued.

From the 2004 Shugart Guide:
John C. Dueber started manufacturing watch cases in 1864 and bought a controlling interest in a company in 1886. At about this time, a disagreement arose between Elgin, Waltham, and the Illinois Watch Companies. Also at this time, an anti-trust law was passed, and the watch case manufacturers formed a boycott against Dueber. Dueber was faced with a major decision, whether to stay in business, surrender to the watch case companies or buy a watch company. He decided to buy the Hampden Watch Co. of Springfield, Mass. By 1889 the operation had moved to Canton, Ohio. By the end of the year the company was turning out 600 watches a day.

rrstd, I had read about that fued too, the Montgomery one, but can't find it. It mentioned that he NEVER gave in, but eventually sold.

I hate when this happens!

OK I think I have done my homework. From the Bulletin article by Leonard Campbell and Eugene Fuller, I have learned that there were several arguments going.

Ball has a dispute with Montgomery. In a talk given to the National Safety Council/Steam Railroad Section, Ball called the Montgomery and some other dials "freaks" and said they were confusing to read, and therefore unsafe.

Montgomery fired back by saying that the dials have been successfully used by over a half million rr employees and that it is probably the greatest improvement in watches in the past 50 years. He also said " to characterize such a device as freakish is a species of delirium".


Ball and Dueber feuded primarily to compete for business, but the fuel for the fire was the use of the word "Railway" on the watches. He took the watch industry to court and won. His ad proclaimed the victory. This decision hit Ball hard as he had some models using the "Railway" designation.

The first ad below is the ad proclaiming his victory.

The second thing that got Deuber's dander up was Ball proclaiming on ads that he was a "Watchmaker" At the end of Ball ads running at the time was the signature: Webb C. Ball Co., Watch Manufacturers, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

The next ad proclaims that one should watch out for watches not by watchmakers, that have fancy designs on them (Ball used the Union logos)but markings by the original manufacturer were removed from the movement so no one can tell what grade watch you were getting.

That ad follows. Both ads are from the Feb 1985 Bulletin mentioned above.

That still leaves us with the question of the design on the back of the movement. Purposely designed to bug Ball???

Mike P. thanks for putting the spark for all of this in you auction!