I just bought a Vanguard Mdl 1892, and see that it is marked 21 Ruby Jewels on the movement. I have had other 92 Vanguards that just had 21 jewels on them. Is this just a different plate marking, and if so is there an difference in the movement itself, where many made that way and are they harder to find ??
Thanks for info,
Bill

Bill, Please start with a s/n so we can help look in the archives.

Check out this site Bill. I think you have an early model marked Ruby Jewels..
https://sites.google.com/a/model92.com/www/home-2

sorry about that David.
The ser# is 7002653
Bill

movement

dial

Hi Bill,

These are incredible watches. Dave tells me this watch was intended for release in 1892, hence the model number, but that production models did not actually leave the factory until 1894. This puts your 7,002,xxx in the earliest of runs for this model. Mine are 9,007,xxx and 9,516,xxx from 1899 and 1900 respectively.

Your case looks very similar to my 1899 20yr Keystone Boss. But in much better condition than mine. Your dial is the earlier script signature with true RR track minute ring. Very nice. The hands look right too.

These watches have the early two screw bridge and earlier click.

My 1900 watch rides in a Star Nickle Swing case and has the fat RR hands. I'm guessing one or both of these were modifications done over time in service for this watch. This watch has about a dozen service marks inside the case.

The 21J Vanguard was a fully recognized RR watch from 1894 through at least 1910 and I figure it was grandfathered in well beyond that.

I'm pretty new to this and am only sharing tid bits of what has been shared with me. I'm sure the big guns will chime in if I've mis-spoke.

A couple of the guys have access to more detailed records that might help you answer your production run questions.

Very nice watch. I've added photo's of mine for comparison.

R/Pault

Bill, A reported 1895 factory production date certainly puts it into a special place as an early model 92 and the condition of yours makes that even more collectible. I would reckon this is actually from first run 1892 plate inventory finished and released in 1895 production, a habit that Waltham was well known for at the time.

Follow that with the fact that S/N 7002653 is in the FIRST 1000 production 21 JEWEL Vanguards but still reported as a Pendant set watch (is yours?). That alone puts it into a noteworthy category as a continuation of the first runs because the first OF Vangaurds made up to then were Pendant set (Only Hunters were lever sets) but before this 21 Jewel run were made with 17 Jewels! That alone could explain the "Ruby Jewel" note (similar to the markings on 18s Bunn Models of that time). .

In addition to that, its design is confirmed as first production according to Ray's suggested database link with the movement serial number being in "position 1" rather than the database reported position 2.

To summarize
You have a "Type 1" (First production type), first production of 21 Jewel (uniquely marked 21 Ruby Jewels) PENDANT set Waltham model 1892.
A first on several counts indeed!

WoW,
Thanks for all the great info, yes Dave it is P/S.
So first Run, first 21j production and P/S to boot.
Great info. Thanks Dave and Paul.
Bill

Bill you have a fine watch. The Vanguard 18s was still used by a few older employees on the Union Pacific in the late 1940's. I would venture to say that your watch is worth considerably more than the lever set from that period. Of course considering it's early production I would thin it might bring 2-3 times the price of a lever set, but i have to leave that to the Waltham fans.

Hi all,
Maybe someone can comment on the 18K markings that I have noticed on the case in 3 places. The question is are they right or wrong ?????
You will notice on the frame in the picture, also on the back cover between the scales, and also on the stem, I could not get a good pic of the stem marking, what are your thoughts ??
You can see the mark right at the bottom of the picture.
Thanks,
Bill

2

Bill, The case body# 89106 does not match the cover #2787195. What other proof marks and numbers show on the case?

Dave,
I was worried when you stated that, actually the frame number is 87195, the case is 2787195. I had thought I had checked that earlier, and thankfully I had, but looking at the pic I can see what looked like the wrong number to you and others. Other than what we can see there , there is no other marks.
Bill

That "18" designation stamped between the weights of the scales [backwards even ??] is clearly something that was added at a later time as is the stamping or etching on the case mid frame and is a

Delusional attempt to horns-waggle some unfortunate soul to believe that this prominent gold filled case is something more than it is

regards,
bb

Buster,
Well you know thats what I had thought, but of course a guy can always hope. I bought this watch at a really good price, and it is extremely clean, exceptional condition, definitely did not pay gold prices, and it was not advertised as gold, so still am completely happy with the purchase.
Thanks for the comments Dave and Buster, appreciate the insight,
Bill

Bill, my 1892 21 Ruby jewel Vanguard has the numerals 2 & 1 stamped rather oddly. I can't see yours well enough to see if it is the same or not.

Mine is a HC

Another shot

Mike,
are you talking about the 21 in the 21 jewels ?
It,s absolutely amazing how dirty my movement looks, it is actuall really clean and just got back from a COA. The camera picks up to much.
Bill

Yes, the 21 in 21 jewels and they look the same. Pretty close Serial Numbers as well. These are really nice watches. I do have a 23 Jewel '92 but no photos down here in AZ.

Yes it is different from most, almost old gothic style.
I really like the 92's also.
Bill

Here is an early hunter Vanguard.

Love em !!