This is for Tom MacIntyre. A 5 minute repeater. The book says 16 size. But is It. It looks to me like it may be based on the model 72. I am open to all ideas about this one. Serial number 3793905

Repeater movement.

I believe the repeating movement pictured is based on WAltham's Model 1872 design, which while nominally 16 size, actually has a 17 size pillar plate and a 16 size top plate. The gongs for the repeat work would add to this diameter, however.

Wow what a great watch Jerry thanks for showing it..

It even has a Frog's Patent "tadpole" regulator. Ribbit!

The watch shown is a Meylan Patent repeater based on Waltham's 14 size 1884 model. I don't know why the records say it is an 1872 but would suspect that it was a transcription error when the handwritten records were created.

Here is another example of the same movement that has never been cased.


The earlier Aubert Patent repeater is also based on the 1884 model but looks a bit more like an 1872.


These watches and other Complicated Walthams are discussed on my web site.

quote:

3793905

I checked both the handwritten records and the gray book for this watch. There are two runs without a model year designation in the gray book that are both listed as 16 size. The record of production has no model year information, but also lists these two runs as 16 size.

Until we have a chance to measure Jerry's watch and a documented 1884 model I have changed the database entries to read 1884 and 14 size with a notation that the records read 16 size.

Tom: This watch will soon be taken apart for cleaning. Exactly what is it that should be measured?

I guess the added diameter contributed by the repeat works made it look to me like a 16 Size.

Jerry,

Get a really accurate diameter from the pillar plate and the top plate.

I will measure my example that is on my web site. It does not have a dial, so measure yours directly on the movement.

It should also be measured for depth of the movement. I recased one in a 14K gold case and a regular 16s would not work because it was a hair small in diameter and substantially small in depth.