I dug out my 19J ORRS Ball Waltham. It is serial #B216744. I think this might date to 1904-05. Is there a good number list for dating these watches. Mine is in a Fahys 20 year Montauk case, not a Ball model. Were all the 16 size ORRS Balls sold in Ball cases? There are no extra screw marks on my case. The hands on my watch are a finer set of spade hands with a diamond? shaped swelling on the shaft, and the second is much finer that the one on Fred's watch. Lets have a good discussion.

Hi Jerry -

The book I have used in the past for these Waltham-Balls is Col. Townsend's "American Railroad Watches". The Ball serial list in this book puts the watch I posted yesterday at 1907, yours at 1904.

I believe that the very early Waltham-Balls may not have been in Ball marked cases, but I expect that the later production probably was. In Ehrhardt's 1979 Price Indicator there is a copy of an advertisement on page 20 that depicts 19 Jewel serial B221527 in apparently the same case as the watch that I posted yesterday. Ehrhardt gives a date of 1917 for this advertisement, yet Townsend's list gives this particular serial a date of 1904.

Fred

Hi Jerry and Fred,
I was told that some of the Ball watches that were originally sold in Canada were not shipped cased in Ball cases to avoid taxes. The jeweler would sell the case seperately.

On the Ball watches, I've got four of them,two with Ball cases and two with out.The two with out are both 19 jewel watches.The serial numbers are B262836,it's in a new base metal keystone case. The other number is B261719,in a Keystone J.Boss 14k gold filled case,in an all most new case. Both are Walthams. My 17 jewel Ball Waltham is in a Ball model case,it's serial number is B209512. And a Hamilton Ball,serial number B645842.Offical RR Standard,Ball case,21 jewel. I bought my first Ball at a swap meet for 5 bucks.I always wondered how the value of the watches are with out the correct cases.All of them are in top running order , the two Ball cases are worn,but no brass showing.

THE BULLETIN, December 2002, The Railroaders' Corner, page 773, The Ball Watch Story - Part 4 - Ball Signed Cases. Ed & Kent offer an an in-depth look that is right on target for this discussion.

Unfortuantely, Jerry, as is all too often the case, there may well not be a definitive answer for your particular watch. jmho, - but - 1904 appears to me to be kinda, sorta in the "Twilight Zone" for Ball signed cases as in a definite "maybe" or could've been - or - not . . .

Hi Ken -

Regarding value adjustments, for what its worth if the 19J I posted this weekend were in a non-Ball case but was in the same condition I would have set the price somewhere in the range of $200 or $225.

Fred

Thanks for the reply. With a price drop that great it idicates a factor of rairity. My brother has two Ball watches one a secometer with the proper case and a Hamilton Ball with a display case.That means out of 6 watches three have the correct case. The question is , how many does everyone else have? It would be interesting to see what a broad sample would indicate.It could give us an idea just how many Ball cases survived.Ken

Ken,
I have both a 19jewel and a 21 jewel Waltham Ball ORRS. Both are in the Ball model cases. When I purchased these, I only considered watches in the Ball case. Over the last couple of years I mellowed and I'm more into the movements themselves than the whole package. If the case was in good shape, was of the proper style not necessarily marked BALL, and the movement was good, I'd buy it. From watching Ebay, it seems like there are still plenty of Ball cased watches out there.

I currently have four Ball ORRS - two each Waltham & Hamilton - all triple signed, to include a hunter & a 20th Century - except for a 18s 999 in a locomotive engraved Piladelphia Silverode with no extra case screw marks & correct for it's era. Triple signed watches do not appear to be difficult to find, imho.

As a collector of Ball ORRS watches, I learned long ago that all Ball ORRS watches from advent of 16S Waltham production on were originally sold in premium "Ball Model" factory cases when new. In fact it was a prominently displayed advertising slogan of the Ball Watch Co. that they sold complete watches, not just movements.

Ball advertising also touted the quality of Ball Model cases and urged owners to select a Ball Model replacement case when their original case wore out, which was a common occurence in "working" railroad watches.

Of course Ball Model cases were also premium priced, so a lot of the "original recase" business was diverted to other case makers. IMHO that practice is the main reason why there are so many non-Ball cases on Ball watches with no telltale extra case screw marks.

As I like my Ball watches to be "correct" (i.e. as they could have been originally sold), all of the Ball ORRS examples in my collection have Ball Model cases, of types that would have been contemporary with the movement's manufacture.

For example, I don't think a 999B from the late 1940's belongs in a long-stemmed 20th Century case, even thought that is one of my favorite Ball Model cases.

Ed, what is your understanding with reference to the 18s Ball Model cases? I've heard/read varying opinions . . .

As you know the advent of the 16s cases coincided with the beginning of the decline of the 18s which, however, took several years to totally phase out production. Thanks !

Ed -

When I mentioned early Waltham-Balls as possibly not in Ball marked cases, the example I specifically had in mind was the pendent-set watches of the first Official Standard run made in the late 1890's. All of these watches that I have seen that appeared original have been cased in typical period non-Ball gold-filled cases.

Has anyone ever seen a "Ball Model" marked case that was not cut for a lever-set?

Fred

Jim,

Ball 18 size ORRS watches also came in Ball Model cases, at least after the turn of the 20th Century. The practice of using factory cases probably started before then, but I'm not sure exactly when.

In fact a 18-size 20th Century case is really something to see, although the vast majority of the 18-size Ball Model cases had either plain or antique bows.

Ball Model cases are harder to find on 18S Ball watches, because they are older on average and thus would have been more likely to be worn out and replaced with an "incorrect" case. With the exception of one 999 in a salesman's case, all my 18-size Ball ORRS watches are in Ball Model cases.

Hi Ed -

The watches I was referring to actually are Official Standard, and I have owned a few of them in this B060701-B061000 serial range.

Here is an Official Standard at B060812 (this one happens to be a brotherhood watch, but there are also a good number of non-brotherhood watches in this run) ...



... and here is the more typical Official RR Standard at B060713 ...



... both of these are pendent-set (as are all watches I've seen in this serial range) and you will notice also that these first Official Standard Waltham-Balls are signed "Ball & Co." (also on the dial) rather than the typical later "Ball Watch Co.".

Fred

p.s. Other Official Standard pendent-set Waltham-Balls I am aware of are the first run of 17J HC and a few of the 19J OF.

My (Triple Signed) 16s, 17j Hunter Waltham Ball ORRS (B-134,043) ca. 1899 is #43 of the first 100 16s HCs produced (See Lindell's post above, B134,001-B134,100). It is lever set & cased in a Ball Model GF Keystone #7665959 with an antique bow. I purchased it on 7-2-04 from John LaCambria & it appears in the current "Railroaders' Corner", THE BULLETIN, Oct. 2004. I am unaware of any evidence to support that it is anything but all original other than the possible exception that the hands may have been replaced. Hopefully, you all can tolerate my obvious pride in having this cornerstone in my small but growing Ball ORRS collection.

<Photo credit to John La Cambria>

ED,
Can you expand your discussion on the 18S 20th Century Case?

I 'thought' these were 16 size.......

Terry,

Well, there's not a lot I can say unfortunately. The 18S 20th Century case was made in silveroid, gold-filled and solid 14K gold versions according to Shugart (p. 154, 2003 edition).

The only one I have ever "seen" was an empty 18S 20th Century case in silveroid for sale on eBay some years ago. I dropped out of the auction when the bid went over $200, which I thought was a scandalous price for a base metal case at the time, pretty dumb, huh?

I vaguely recall once seeing a Ball ad for 20th Century cases showing both 16 and 18 size too. I'd have to dig through a huge pile of old railroad brotherhood magazines to find it though. A good project for a rainy Sunday afternoon!

Just to add. I picked this one up recently. It is a 19j Ball Waltham sn-B260618.
It appears to be all original and the case is marked Ball Model with no other screw marks.

...on the subject of 16S Ball Walthams, I just wondered how 'usual' the dial is on mine (pictured)...while I would have liked it to have 'carried' the ORRS designation, I'm not sure just why it doesn't...don't rightly know...s/n B261557 puts it at around 1920...anyone?...

Jim

I have one marked the same on a 16j Hunter case pendant set COMMERCIAL STANDARD. My guess is your dial is from a Commerical std also. Is your movement a commerical std or Official RR std.

Charlie

...Charlie...the dial is on an ORRS movement (pictured) the balance assembly is off awaiting a new staff...

Hi Jim -

Interestingly, this same signature is also sometimes seen on the rare Waltham-Ball up-down indicator watches. Here is one from the Nov. 2002 Antiquorum auction ...



Fred

...Wow!!!no, Gosh!!!that is pretty!!!thanks Fred...

Hey, Jim . . . Just an FYI - but - Col. Townsend's production chart in American Railroad Watches dates your watch (B261,401-1,900) to 1915.

I've seen something somewhere recently about your dial - I'll try find it & get back - but - what Charlie said sure rings true to me . . .

Jim,

That plain "Ball Watch Co. Cleveland" dial signature, without the ORRS trademark, is what you normally find on Ball Commercial Standard watches.

Such a CS dial will fit on a ORRS watch of the same size and make, but it may not be correct.

Yep, Thanks, Ed - That's what I thought, too - but - I'm searchin' for some possible documented exceptions . . . may well be just another Sr. moment on my part though . . . .