Michael, I have four model 92's and they all have spade hands. The weight of hands should be appropriate to the type of dial. If the dial is RN, the spade hands should be the thin type. If the dial is Arabic, the size (weight) of the hands should be appropriate for the size of the numerals.
Tom,thanks for your reply. The dial on the movement is the Railroader type dial,are you familiar with it? Im unable to post a picture at this time. Mike
Posts: 245 | Location: South Central Arizona in the USA | Registered: October 07, 2006
Tom, in my opinion they are a "Bold" Aribic,when you say Heavy Gothic I tend to think of the Ilinois Sangamo Gothic numbers. No ,this Dial does not have numbers that resemble the gothic style of the Illinos dial. Here is an example of a similar dial.
Mike
Posts: 245 | Location: South Central Arizona in the USA | Registered: October 07, 2006
I would say these are the hands I need to complete my watch. The dial is of the same style even though it is a differnt model movement. What say you? mike
Posts: 245 | Location: South Central Arizona in the USA | Registered: October 07, 2006
I would agree completely, that is probably the "look" you are after.
By the way, the Crescent Street example I shared might be more of a "light spade" and the others might be considered a "heavy spade" design. Tom was probably thinking of something in between those. Look on page 364 of the 2006 watch guide for a representitive depiction of hands.
Posts: 10553 | Location: Northeastern Ohio in the USA | Registered: November 19, 2002
My 18s 1892 Crescent Street has the exact same dial and hand match up as yours Lindell, and is probably my personal favorite in terms of over all appearance. It's easy to look at and read too!
My movement is currently awaiting the return of it's case from being replated.
Regards! Mark
Posts: 3837 | Location: Estill Springs, Tennessee, USA | Registered: December 02, 2002
I am not sure how far those 1909 part numbers will get you. In the 1936 catalog the hour and minute hand for a '92 model are 1626 and 1688. They only show the second had for 16-size and its number is 1683.
Posts: 1455 | Location: Los Angeles, California USA | Registered: January 14, 2003
Well its been a while since I've been here....the job has had me out of town for some time.
I've been wanting to post this for while .... here it is, an 18sz 17jewel Waltham Railroader...the S/N puts it in a run of the first 50, with 4 runs totaling 260 movements. The case is 4oz of coin silver by Blauer..the chain is Sterling Sliver and weighs about 6-7 oz. Thanks to all who helped me in my hunt for the parts and repairs to bring this watch back. Oh yeah it keeps RR time also,not bad for being 100 years old
Posts: 245 | Location: South Central Arizona in the USA | Registered: October 07, 2006
Mike, Got to thinking about your dial and hands for this example and said to myself... I got a Waltham CPR that's similar. So I dug it out and took a few pics. It's a model 83. s.n. 5742797, circa Feb. 1893. Just another example for comparison.
Joe
Joseph W. Robinson
Posts: 150 | Location: Milan, Tennessee USA | Registered: December 20, 2005
It appears to me it's just a 17j RR grade of the 1892 model intended for railroad men. Ditto for the 1888 Railroader. I find listings in Railroad Timekeeping that Lindell mentioned (#s 38 & 83), American Pocket Watches by Ehrhardt & Meggers, & Townsend's American Railroad Watches. No indication they're special orders, probably just named to appeal to RR men.
Norman
Posts: 153 | Location: Northeastern United States | Registered: December 18, 2005
Hi Norman.... thats what I thought also "just a name that appealed to RR Men". I have to admit its fun searching for information. Youre correct its a 1892 movement,but the markings make it rare. I think the total production was 260 movements with these markings.
Posts: 245 | Location: South Central Arizona in the USA | Registered: October 07, 2006