In my prowling of our local antique stores this morning, I found an 18s, gold open face Duber cased U. S. Watch Co. of Waltham pocketwatch, serial number 13930. From my Shugart book, this dates to 1889 or so. It appears to be an 11j, and the case also appears to be original to the movement. It has slight damage to the dial, and has an ancient repair and repaint. It was done a LONG time ago, as the repaint is VERY good, and has about as much patina as the original dial.

The Shugart book also says that in it's biggest production year, this company could only turn out 10 watches a day, and yet the prices in the book show this watch to be worth in the neighborhood of only $100 in average condition.

Does this match up with what collectors are seeing for this watch? It sure was a pretty thing, and I've never seen a regulator quite like it. You can see exactly what I looked at on page 412 in the 2006 Shugart book at the top left hand corner of the page...though the watch I looked at was an 18s, it was EXACTLY this movement design and damaskeening. I even laid the watch next to the photo, and it was a perfect match.

Any U. S. Watch Co. of Waltham collectors out there that can add more information for my education here?

Any information offered would be appreciated.

Regards! Mark

Hello Mark,

My first time on IHC in a long time.. I have been researching U.S. Watch Company.

Are you sure watch is 18 size? I do not have any 18 size watches that low in serial number range in my U.S. Watch data. I don't observe 18 size until 20,000.

U.S. Watch Co. sold alot of 11 jewel watches - top plate (visible) jeweled, but bottom plate was not jeweled. If a watch was not signed "15 jewels" it probably was only 11 jewels.

I suspect your watch was manufactured mid to late 1888. U.S. watch was recovering from the "Dome Model" disaster and developed a "new" 16 size that would fit into standard case by June 1888, and began recalling hands laid to begin production. Their production rate was probably 30 - 50 watches a day. Hunting case 18 size was introduced Nov. 1888.

Andy Dervan

Good morning! Wow! That post was from last February, so I'd be surprised if the watch is still at the antique store now (though I'm bound to go back and look to make sure. ) I'll take my scale with me next time, and if it's still there I'll make sure of the size. I'm still fairly certain from my misfiring memory of the watch that it had the size and heft of a standard 18, so yes, I still believe that was what it was. I'll confirm and let you know, though.
Stay tuned.

Regards! Mark

Mark, For US Watch Co of Waltham, all of their 18S were full plate watches. Their 16S were 3/4 plate. Regardless of the look of size, if the watch is 3/4 plate, it is 16S, if full plate, 18S.

Tom

Ok, I have the watch in hand as we 'speak'. It is indeed a 3/4 plate (at least as described and illustrated in the Shugart book) U. S. Watch co. of Waltham, serial number 13930. It's marked 'Adjusted', and U. S.Watch Co. on one side of the plate, and Waltham, Mass on the other. In the center is engraved 'safety Pinion. It has screw down gold cup jewels. It has exactly the same damaskeening as seen on page 412 of the Shugart book, top left photo...as a matter of fact, that looks EXACTLY like the watch in my hand. What makes NO sense to me is that it's dial measures to be an 18s. Just on a lark, I tried to see if a Hamilton 940 movement would fit the case. It does, so this is definitely an 18s watch. I'm puzzled by this based on what I've read here and elsewhere on their movement offerings. It's stem wind/pendent set.

It's housed in a gold Duber marked case with what appears to be an anchor with a snake wrapped abound the top. On the rim inside the back cover of the case, it has the case number and 'Duber's Pats.' Unfortunatly I can see another set of screw marks on the rim, so this isn't original to the movement. It appears the same 'craftsman' who cobbled the rework of my Ball had his hands on this watch as well, though it is a bit better. His love of sealing his dial work in clear fingernail polish is a dead give away.
All in all, the crown fluting is sharp, as well as the edging of the case. It is a hinged front and back with hinged dust cover over the movement. I can also see a couple service marks in the back, but nothing clear.

Anything else I need to look for? So far it's keeping good time, though I have no clue when it was last serviced.

By being marked 'adjusted', would this, in it's day, been considered suitable for railroad useage?

What is the collected opinion of the quality of these watches in terms of time keeping and terms of actual carry? I've read everything that's been posted in the search of the green board and here, but no one makes any comments regarding these points...just the history of the company.

Regards! Mark

Hello Mark and Tom,

1st offerings of 18 size were actually 3/4 plate open face watches (I have one), however they were very unpopular like their dome model cousin and did not sell well. In fact many sat uncased in the factory for many years and were brought out in mid 1890's when open face watches became more popular. They very quickly brought out a full size 18 size hunting case model (many finish and jeweling variations) and a few years later introduced open face version.

Alot of information published on U.S. Watch Co. particularly serial numbers is incorrect.

Andy Dervan

Andy, thanks for the input. Very interesting. That is the first I have ever heard of the 18S 3/4 plate. Do you have a pic of one you could post?

Tom

here is the 0 size from the same co..

Well, Samie Smith received my watch today and confirmed my observations.....it IS an 18s open face watch...and it IS a 3/4 plate movement....so the rule of 'a 3/4 plate U. S. Waltham of Waltham, Mass equals a 16s watch' apparently 'ain't necessarily so.' It is not a dome movement either. Correct me if I misunderstood you, Samie.

Samie is going to take photos of the watch for me and post them here when he finishes the work so we can have some more views of what the heck I have.

Stay tuned.

Regards! Mark

I have Mark,s watch spread out on my bench this morning..

It is a 18 size 3/4 plate movement

These have a unusally system on the winding stem there is a screw which you tighten in order to unscrew the winding stem..as you can see in the picture both ends of the winding stem are threaded..the screw is accessed from the train bridge side of the movement

Took me a few minutes to figure how to remove the stem

It is a 15 jewel movement

The somewhat earlier dome model had the same stem mechanism. If you have the watch in a case, getting it out can be a real mystery.

Thanks Andy! Any idea why the 3/4 plate 18s was so unpopular? Was it simply due to it being an open face watch in a hunter case time period?

From what I've read in Greg's fine booklet, the best I can make out is that it was a little company that THOUGHT it could, but in a world of giants like Waltham, Elgin, and Hamilton, they just could not crank out the number of movements that folks wanted to order. One order for movements of at least 500 a day was turned down, as they were only cranking out 20 completed movements a day at that time (according to my reading), and it would have been totally impossible to meet the demand.
So, apparently the quality was there in their higher movements, but the production numbers were not.

Regards! Mark

Mark
Here is another picture of your movement 18 size 15 jewel 3/4 plate.Overlook my pictures they don,t do justice to the watch..

It is running okay in all postions except dial up still have to figure out what,s wrong ,but for the most part completed..I will post another picture of the watch when i get in back in the case..

2

3

Thank you very much, Samie!

Well folks, there she is....an 18s 3/4 plate U. S. Waltham of Waltham, Mass, and not listed anywhere that I've found to date.

Regards! Mark

Hello Mark and Samie,

A nice find - it is an early watch ca middle of 1888!

Samie - nice photographs.

Charles Van derWoerd was original designer of Dome Model that hit the market with a "thud". Fortunately company owner, Emil C. Hammer, had deep pockets to keep the company going. Company scrambled and came up with open face 16 and 18 size movements that fit into standard cases probably trying to reuse as much as possible parts company had already made. Some more knowledgable U.S. Watch collectors than I have speculated that these watches (18 size 3/4 plate open face) might have sat around a long time before finally getting sold....

Van derWoerd had been experimenting with stem wind and set mechanisms for a number of years and had received a number of patents for them. His latest offering was incorporated into the early few models. Tom McIntyre is right that they have unusual stems and can be difficult to repair. I have any model missing the winding stem, but I movement into open face case just to protect it.

I suspect the market was no yet ready for open face models and stem wind.

None of these early models would have qualified as railroad watches. It wasn't until into 1891/92 when they began offering 18 size full plate with 17 jewel models.

Sorry for the long winded response, but hope you find interesting.... Andy Dervan

Thank you VERY much, Andy. 'Long winded' nothing!! I'm tickled to death to get ANYTHING on this, information wise, let alone good, specific information regarding this interesting watch.

One more question, if I may....any idea at all what model watch this might be?

MUCH appreciated!!

HIGH regards! Mark

Hi Mark,

Unfortunately it is difficult to identify grades, because no complete catalog exists from U.S. Watch. Parts are published here and there, but it is difficult to distinguish the many variations unless you dissassemble watch to find exact jeweling, hair spring, and other configurations that impact the grade.

There are over a hundred grades, because they supplied movements (gilt or nickel plates), open face & hunting cases, and different jeweling options (7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17 )....Andy

Thank you Andy. That's kind of what I was gathered from my reading as well. I look forward to reading your article!

Samie had to order a regulator jewel for mine, as it was having problems keeping time in dial up position, and he determined that that was the problem. Once that is installed, it should be right as rain.

I have NO clue why I love these 'orphans', but I do. I even drive a 1950 Plymouth Special Deluxe, so there's futher proof I like 'fallen flags'. (grins)

Regards! Mark

What is a "regulator jewel?"

Oh, COME on, Tom....YOU know....it's one of those things that Mark makes up when he's typing fast and doesn't take the time to re-read Samie's email.

I meant 'balance jewel'.

Man, I can't sneak anything past you guys.

Regards! Mark

Just a post script.....I received my watch back from Samie yesterday. I wound it and hung it from it's watch hook, then went to work. I came home, and it had gained over 6 minutes during the 12 hours I was gone.

I reset it, hung it back, and left it alone.

This morning it was 8 seconds fast. I wound it, reset it, and hung it up again. I believe it's going to be a good time keeper!

Once again, WELL done, Samie. I know this is no Hamilton or American Waltham, but like the Tucker car company, I personally believe it was just a good watch company who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and finally gave up the ghost. I love the watch, and it's history. I really appreciate you getting this one back to good condition and operation.

She's a keeper!

HIGH regards! Mark

Mark the balance in this one took a lot of work i spend a lot of time just on the balance getting it back in ture and poised at frist look i thought it was okay but due to some bad repair in the past it was a nightmare to repair,,Don,t except it to keep railroad time in all postions ,,but like you said it is a interesting piece of american watch history and a good one to own.

Thanks, I won't, but it has done a really decent job today considering it's age and it being a 15J. Your balance work seems to have done the job just fine.

I'll just enjoy it for what it is, and it's historical value.

Once again, I really appreciate your fine job, and sorry it was such a pain.

Regards! Mark