I've been looking at Hamilton 940's on Ebay recently. It seems to me that the regulators used on the 940's and other Hamiltons were a little more complicated than those used on the Elgins. Are there any advantages of one over the other? I really like the looks of the Hamilton but it seems that a few extra parts were used to perform the same task. I've borrowed a couple of pictures from earlier posts by Lindell and Phil Dellinger. Hope they don't mind. First picture is an Hamilton example.

Regards,

Bob

Elgin example

It's probably just me, but I think a comparison of a 940 Hamilton and an Elgin Veritas regulator of the same production time period would be a better comparison.

The BWR you are showing would be better compared to a Hamilton 950.

JMO, though.

Regards! Mark

The regulator is the LAST thing used to adjust a watch, usually bringing it from <2 minutes a week to <30 seconds a week mean time error. As this should be performed by the watchmaker, I expect that both examples you pictured, an early (Hamilton) and newer (Elgin) are attempts with these type high grade watches to add pretty spring-loaded (very fragile) regulators to discourage meddling. They both require special care to adjust without damaging the balance wheel. Many earlier Elgins including my similar well-used old B.W.Raymond RR grade (pictured below) have an accurate, "user-friendly" regulator that was easily adjusted by a straight pin without endangering the balance wheel mechanism.

THAT'S the kind of comparison I was talking about! Thank you David!

Regards! Mark

Bob,

Regulators were covered by a maze of patents, and RR standards eventually requried micrometer regulators. So, companies needed their own protected designs, and there were only so many gadgets to work with. This was as much market gamesmanship as techincal necessity. To some extent, RR standards were designed to profit watch companies (did I really say that?)

MIke

Thanks for the replies. Mike's post makes a lot of sense to me. The Hamilton regulator looks very impressive but probably does not work any better than the more simple Elgin regulator.

Regards,

Bob

Just stating my opinion, Bob, but I've always thought the Elgin to be a bit 'stronger' as the regulator whip is cradled in a worm screw micrometer, and was less prone to be knocked loose if the watch was bumped.

Easier to adjust too.

Regards! Mark

Mark,

Unquestionably, Elgin's Mosely regulator is elegantly simple, direct, reliable, and safe. Just the sort of invention that is difficult to achieve. It arrived relatively early (1874), so that between it and Reed's 1867 whiplash patent, Waltham seems to have avoided screwthread regulators in favor of starwheel designs.

With Hamilton's fullplate watch, Rood and Cain copied their old Hampden Model 3 movement, including the collar button stud, and the long thin regulator index. At Hampden, they had used Teske's patent regulator screw add-on device. At Hamilton, they integrated a different patented device (Goldwaiths's) that allowed the picturesque circular spring on the cock. Rood and Cain knew how to sell aesthetics, separate from technology.

This stuff is fun to collect, but there was certainly a lot of hardball market gamesmanship going on. Companies that were good at it were the ones that survived.

Mike