Recently picked up another grade 150 lever set that is different than the others that I have. This one is marked "No 150" and has 5 Positions stamped on the barrel plate. This one is a typical 150>277 type conversion, pendant set to lever set with the original pendant set machining left behind.

Can you post a picture Claude, never seen one marked that way.Congrats, Ted.

New Lever set Elgin grade 150 from Canada, for 225 it wasn't too pricey but I need to work on my picture technique again.

Elgin grade 150 lever set from Canada

Shot of the dial, Roman font but in nice condition the movement was in a later replacement "Sturdy" gold case but I put it into a swing out case that is more time period correct,

Elgin grade 150 lever set dial

I was reading in the pocketwatchdatabase.com that the 150 was not a railroad pocket watch. I started to buy one until I read this. I love Elgin railroad pocketwatches and collect what I can afford. I especially like the
No. 349 movement.

Someone is a nutcase, the grade 150 was RR approved for all lines and if in service even after RR regs went to lever sets they would have been grandfathered in. Elgin did start converting 150s from pendant set to lever set on the fly which many call the grade 277.

Nothing unusual for mis-information on the internet regarding Railroad regulations and other aspects of watch horology Claude.

There are pleny of errors on the site mentioned by the previous poster. I have spoke about the errors regarding some of its info with the origanator of that site more then once, (also plenty of other sites that just have rehashed old incorrect info).

He does frequent this site fairly regularly, so maybe he will see this and show the source for the data that has been presented there.

I see that the previous poster did his post back in September 2022, so maybe the data has been changed on the site mentioned by now?

For what it is worth, the Grade 150 has always been designated as "Railroad Grade" in the database.

On multiple occasions, I have even corrected contributors submitting reports claiming it is not railroad grade.

Thanks for the clarification Nathan

The misinformation that always gets to me is the Webb C. Ball myth about him originating the standard watch requirements for railroad time service. I had an interesting discussion with a well known collector on the subject of Roman numeral dials over on the ***** forum recently. Arabic numeral dials were not required until sometime after 1906, based on the circulars that have been published.

Railroad time service in the United States literally goes back as far as the 1830s, when railroads were first appearing on the scene. Watches produced specifically for the railroad trade first appeared in the late 1860s and early standards by the 1880s.

I have also always been amazed at the perpetuation of the Ball myth and Railroad Regulations in general as well Alan. There is data that has been present in the Horological Community/Collector's circles for a long long time that debunks the Ball myth and other Railroad Regulation myths, but still they persist.

I have also encountered plenty of other early research that is also incorrect on other Companies and in other areas of horological research, but a large chunk of that incorrect information also keeps doing the rounds in the Horological Community/Collector's circles, including on the other site you mentioned (and many others as well).

Do not get me wrong, the early research on some of the Companies by the different "Research Groups" back in the day was intiially outstanding for its time. The interesting part is the reluctance for certain people in the Horologcal Community/Collector's circles to accept new evidence.

Old "Habits and Beliefs" die hard with some people sometimes and there will always be some that you never can convince I am afraid to say.