Thanks Mark. I will search that one also. I have spent a couple of hours looking up the Illinois links and searching on IHC185. The reason I'm asking is I have 3 Bunn Special 18s and only one has this dial but all three serial numbers are under 3,000,000. So I think maybe two of them have the more modern dial and may not be correct.
Posts: 3858 | Location: Georgia in the USA | Registered: September 22, 2011
I'm probably wrong (and I usually am), but weren't these special order rather than standard dials? If so, that might explain your 3 watch differences. Regards! Mark
Posts: 3837 | Location: Estill Springs, Tennessee, USA | Registered: December 02, 2002
I have your style Gothic Numerals dial on a 24-Jewel Bunn Special number 1788786 from 1905 and a 17-Jewel Bunn number 1826583 which is also from 1905 as well as a 21-Jewel Bunn Special from 1906 production. A later example of the 19-Jewel Bunn number 2443299 from 1912 fronts a Full Montgomery Gothic Numerals version with "Illinois" block-letter signature then finally my 23-Jewel Bunn Special number 2858888 from 1915 has a large seconds register dial like we normally associate with 16-size Bunn Specials of the mid-teens to late 1920s time-frame, it looks like a bigger version of a 16-size Bunn Special at first glance.
All five of those watches are 3000000 and the three like yours are 1905-06 examples.
To Mark's question, far as I know the dials like Harry's would have been standard issue, Illinois used similar looking dials on both 16 and 18-size watches, everything from A. Lincoln through Sangamo examples.
Lindell
Posts: 10553 | Location: Northeastern Ohio in the USA | Registered: November 19, 2002
Ok from what I think I am understanding it looks like maybe two of the watches I have have the correct dials.
I was mistaken only two of the three are under 3,000,000.
Please take a look at the picture. I have two dials and the serial numbers are under the dials I have. I think the watch with serial number 1,340,565 has the wrong dial. I believe it is too modern. I also believe the other two are correct. If I am correct which dial should the 1,340,565 watch have?
Thanks again for your help.
Posts: 3858 | Location: Georgia in the USA | Registered: September 22, 2011
Thank you Richard. I was afraid that was the dial. I was hoping it could have used either dial. Oh well at least I know now and I can keep an eye out for a good dial at hopefully a good price.
Posts: 3858 | Location: Georgia in the USA | Registered: September 22, 2011
appreciates a pat on the head 
