A question re: Waltham/Elgin history-

I have been looking into the beginning of Elgin for a talk I am giving in a few weeks. I am wondering about the similarity of the Elgin Model 1 to the Waltham 1857. My first thought is "Of course": the Elgin designers just came from Waltham; they designed the first Elgin as close to what they knew as possible as they needed to create something workable very quickly. Is that all there is to it? How close to a copy is it?

What I know is that Charles Moseley and six others left Waltham for Elgin at the end of 1864. Although the salary as well as cash and land bonuses may likely been instrumental, part of the reason was claimed to be "discontent." (Elgin Time, Alft and Briska)

Moseley and Daniel Currier designed the Elgin Model 1. It looks like a mirror image but otherwise very similar to the Waltham Model 57.

Can anyone shed any light on:

1. If there was "discontent", was it directed at their inability at Waltham to improve the product or improve the production machinery and process. If the former, why isn't the Model 1 more "advanced" (along the lines Moseley was familiar with at Nashua and the Nashua department at Waltham?

2. What improvements (finish, operation, manufaturing or maintenance) if any, did Moseley and Currier make in the Elgin Model 1?

"Inquiring minds want to know"

Ron Birchall

Lindell

I have and should have referenced Harold's excellent book and it is that and Alft and Briska that raise the questions.

I think I know that Stratton wanted to make a better timepiece and that is why he went along with Bingham to start Nashua. Moseley went along but I don't know what his motivation was. (Perhaps it was just wanderlust). In any case, he presumably participated but certainly learned something of more advanced technology than that embodied in the model 57.

I guess the simplist form of my question would be for the Elgin experts: What advances did Elgin's model 1 have over the Waltham 1857 design (as it was being manufactured in 1864)?

Ron Birchall

A side point that may be relevant is that the dial foot positions are the same on the '57 model Waltham and the early 18-size Elgin.

Jerry

Do you think Moseley and his friends Xeroxed the blueprints?

Edward Perry, "a draftsman" was fired from Elgin 10 years later for copying drawings. While Perry was caught, I would not be surprised if it happened elsewhere or at another time at Elgin.

Ron

One of the differences between Elgin and Waltham was that Elgin was marketing driven from the very early days, while Waltham was in a continuous struggle between Engineering and Marketing.

I don't think the model 1 Elgin intended any advancements except, perhaps, Burt's Patent. They would have been trying to streamline manufacture.

The 10 size watches were Moseley's first shot at designing an interesting watch with lots of his own innovations in it. The convertibles were his next big push for innovation and then he went to Pennsylvania.


This watch was Moseley's effort.

Thanks for the response Tom;

Not trying to be picky but I would consider streamlining production as one very worthwhile type of advancement.

How would the triangle hairspring stud be characterized? Would that be considered a cosmetic change, a production change or an operational change?

I know this may be tough to answer but is there anything else you could point out about the model 1 that looks like a change for manufacturability?

Thanks for pointing out the 10s. I don't really know anything about that area and will have to look deeper.

Finally, did Moseley go to Lancaster? I know that he left Elgin in 1877 but didn't know where he went.

quote:

Waltham was in a continuous struggle between Engineering and Marketing.

Ha! I understand.

Ron

If you look at the English full plate watches from the mid 19th century, you may see that the early American made watches look like they just copied the English models!

An advertisement by National Watch Co. in the Chicago Tribune in Oct.. 1867, announces the availability of their watches.

One of the main claims is that the company presents is being organized by experienced supervisors and designers of the machinery used in the "old companies" (probably implying the American Watch Co.) who are anxious to improve upon that machinery.

The ad also prominently mentions that the main organizers of the National Watch Co. have an interest in the company, as well as salaried position. This presumably would suggest their commitment to producing the best, in their own self-interest, as well as because of their ability. The watches available would thus be the equal at least to anything the purchaser could find of US manufacture.

This raises the possibility that issues of compensation and control of direction of the company were also important in the shift from AWC to Elgin.

There's a very useful paper available on the AWCO website, which talks about the Nashua effort. This venture also involved Charles Moseley, and may also have a bearing on his motives for leaving Waltham.

http://www.awco.org/Seminar2002/workers.htm


Jessica

I also found this on another website. It is follow by this:

"The above history was from Hans W. (Rusty) Hanewacker at http://www.rustyrobin.com/ElginHistory/ElginHistory.htm who is A Collector of Elgin Watches."

It says, in part:


"In September of 1864 a visit was made by some company representatives to the Waltham Watch Co. and seven of their key people where lured away to work for the newly formed company and they were nicknamed the Seven Stars. The bait used was a $5,000 a year salary for 5 years, a $5,000 bonus and one acre of land on the company’s, soon to be acquired, 35 acre site (some things never seem to change). Since turn about is fair play, Elgin lost several of the Seven Stars to the Illinois Watch Co. a few years later in 1869.

The Seven Stars were all machinists first and watchmakers second. One of these men was Charles S. Moseley and he became the factory’s first superintendent. He had been in the watch business since 1852."

Thanks Jessica for the Tribune quote. That really helps. Can you post or reference the rest of the story?

Also, the AWCO website is very interesting in confirming what I believed about Moseley and Woerd. I think the relationship between Stratton and Dennison is very interesting. Although Dennison took the fall, it is understandable why Stratton may have been unhappy and sought out the first meeting with John Adams in 1863.

I have seen Rusty's site and his summary is consistant with Harrold as well as Alft and Briska.

What I am seeing is that Moseley was primarily a machinest (what we might today call a manufacturing engineer) and somewhat less a watch designer.

Still, I am not yet clear on how much of a "copy" the model 1 was to the 1857.

Ron

The story was actually a relatively long advertisement in the Chicago Tribune of that date (Oct. 29, 1867).

I found it by a search using the Columbia University website, which accesses old newspapers. The search engine is called "ProQuest" and I'm not sure who makes it available. Initially I tried to post the ad, but I haven't been able to copy it to my disc. If I figure out how, I'll do it. I might be able to email it to you, or to someone, and then to you. But so far that hasn't worked, either.

The ad also states that five styles are available:

B.W. Raymond,
Culver,
H.Z. Culver,
G. M. Wheeler, and
J.T. Ryerson.

How much these overlap with the Waltham model 57, I can't say, but you might use Ron Price's exhaustive analysis of every minute modification of the model 57 as a basis for evaluating this question.

Maybe he would be able to answer the question also, if you have his email.

Jessica

PS I've found a number of more extensive newspapers pieces on the "National Watch Company," in the Chicago Tribune of that year called, "WATCH-MAKING.:A Visit to the Works of the National Watch Company. A Brief History of the Company--The Disadvantages with which they have Contended--Extent of their Factory--Delicacy of the Machinery Employed. THE PROCESS OF WATCH-MAKING." This is from Nov. 16, 1866.

Interestingly, Moseley is credited in the article as the architect of the actual building; the machine-making shop was run by George Hunter and E.Hancock, both formerly employed at Waltham. etc etc



Sofar,I haven't found any way to make the text accessible,or copy-able.

PS I seem to have found a way to save the documents to my computer, so I may be able to send you some things if I find anything you're interested in. (There are restrictions on distribution, but I hope this isn't beyond fair use---don't think it would be....)

THERE IS A BOOK CALLED:THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF WATCH MAKING IN AMERICA BY CHARLES S. CROSSMAN
REPRINTED FROM THE JEWELER'S CIRCULAR AND HOROLOGICAL REVIEW 1885 - 1887 PUBLISHED BY ADAMS BROWN COMPANY EXETER , NEW HAMPSHIRE
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE FIRST MOVEMENT :

THE FIRST MOVEMENT PRODUCED WAS AN 18-SIZE, FULLPLATE, NAMED " B. W. RAYMOND, " AFTER THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY. THE FIRST OF THEM WERE PUT ON THE MARKET APRIL 1, 1867, OR ABOUT 2 YEARS AND 7 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS A KEY WIND, QUICK TRAIN AND STRAIGHT LINE ESCAPEMENT, AND ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS NOW MADE , EXCEPT, OF COURSE, IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED. THE MODEL WAS ARRANGED AT FIRST TO HAVE THE HANDS SET AT THE BACK, AS WAS COMMON WITH THREE QUARTER PLATE MOVEMENTS OF SWISS AND ENGLISH MAKE. BEFORE THE MOVEMENTS WERE COMPLETED IT WAS MODIFIED SO THAT THE HANDS SET ON THE FACE, AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN OF ALL FULL PLATE AMERICAN MOVEMENTS.

HOPE THIS IS USEFULL DOUGLAS

Jessica - Ron Price's analysis of the M57 is a goldmine and while I have only skimmed it, I can see it is worth a couple of careful readings.

Douglas - Crossman's book is available from the nawcc library and I have it on order.

Thanks very much,
Ron

The Adams Brown edition of Crossman is incomplete and spotty. The more recent edition by Dawes is much better.

The Workers Together talk is included in the new supplement as well as being on my AWCo web site.

Ron, I was not discounting the importance of manufacturing improvements. I gave a talk at the Railroad Watch seminar quite a few years ago and concluded that the technology of the American Railroad Watch was in its manufacturing, not in its design and timekeeping.

Ron's supplement on the 1857 Model is the most thoroughly researched piece to be published in recent history, in my opinion.

My own style is to use my personal experience in business and engineering management to try to get inside the heads of those 19th centtury entrepreneurs. The primary difference between then and now is the existence of venture capital as a business of its own in the current period.

Yes, Moseley and Todd both went to Lancaster to work for Adams & Perry.

As Tom suggests, the primary mission at Elgin was probably market driven product design and manufacturing.

At a glance, the main design differences from a Model 57 Waltham are the balance cock shifted to the other side of the barrel bridge, and a straight line escapement rather than a side lever. Nothing revolutionary, for Elgin likely wanted to share the popularity of Waltham's product, which mirrored popular English watches.

Elgin imediately established technical credibility with very nicely finished Raymond's of RR quality. This led a group of grades, all economically made from one basic movement model. Elgin continued a well organized program of making large grade lots of the one model, to maximize efficiency of batch production (cheaper by the thousands).

For the seven stars, this may have as much represented opportunity as discontent. They were factory people, getting to see what an efficiently run factory could accomplish, whereas Waltham was a pioneering explorer, wandering around looking for fresh opportunities. In other words, the seven stars were practical manufacturers wishing to cash in on the technology they had developed.

Mike

Welcome to Chapter 185 Mike!

Thanks Mike; that perspective is very helpful!

Sorry to keep blithering, but it occurs to me to view the Elgin recruits in current terms. Admittedly, there is little historical record of actual details surrounding Elgin's company philosophy, or the recruits' motives. These are inferered mainly from what they did and how they did it.

Consider the seven stars under headings of general career building and organizatioinal management, just as practiced today. They are probably less "discontents" than simply restless career opportunists. They have all learned how they personally make trades among individual, family, and career objectives. They are risk takers who have joined a previous venture (Nashua Watch Co.) and seen it fail. They recognize that they have ambition, knowledge, experience, wits, and nerves for managerial responsibility. They understand the watch market and industrial watch manufacture, in an era when industrial management is still new and their knowledge is pure gold. Elgin presents reasonable risk in an enerprise that is well conceived, well funded, and offering huge rewards for their experience and skills. So they pack up and move the family to new opportunities and rewards.

Their motives cannnot be stated with certainty, but they "fit the profile" you have seen and can relate to. The truth is somewhere nearby.

Mike

I had a wonderful time at the Elgin Historical Museum last week where I had an opportunity to read George Hunter's notes on the early history of the Elgin National Watch Co through early 1900. Hunter of course was one of the Seven Stars that were recruited from Waltham to start the National Watch Co of Chicago. He also succeeded Moseley as Superitendant and held the job until he retired in 1905/6.

In his "Notes" he claims that several of the recruits (including himself) would only sign on if Moseley was retained as Superintendant. Moseley however was not in Waltham at the time as he did not return from Nashau with the others. John Adams had to make a side trip to Nashau to sign on Moseley.

It would appear that Charles Moseley's motivation may well be that he was unemployed.

I also had wondered why Ira Blake did not join the others. According to Hunter's notes, Blake wanted to be Superintendant and several others were not favorable to the idea.

I must correct an error in my prior post. My first reading of George Hunter's Notes was too hurried. On re-reading, Charles Mosley DID return to Waltham with the others from Nashau. Quoting George Hunter:

quote:

It was generally conceded that Mr. Moseley had acquitted himself well as to his part in the Nashua enterprise, that he was by far the foremost man as designing and constructing mechanic in that line in the country and the one having the largest experience. Since his return to Waltham with the wreckage of the Nashua company, he had no very satisfactory position and was by no means rock rooted, and it looked to an outsider that the new Company [Elgin], or its promoters, were doing themselves an injustice in not securing him.

In other words, Moseley was not unemployed , but under employed at Waltham and highly thought of by Hunter and several others.

There is no question that Moseley was well suited for the task at hand and did an extraordinary job in getting a new factory up and running. Once the start-up was completed however, Moseley seemed less well suited to an operating role. As the business functions of the company were conducted from Chicago, Moseley as Superintendent was the man in command at the Elgin factory.

quote:

Mr. Moseley acted as superintendent until September 17, 1867 when conditions developed at the factory that forced authoritative action [by the directors] fixing him [Moseley] squarely in his position.

In November, 1867 George Lord was hired as general manager of the factory. In 1870 ...

quote:

feeling aggrieved at the invasion of his authority by Mr. Lord, he [Moseley] absented himself for two years. ... no move was made to depose him and his salary was regularly paid.

In 1872, Lord's title was changed to "business manager" (even though all business was conducted in Chicago), Moseley was made "designing and consulting engineer" and George Hunter was appointed "mechanical superintendent." Four years later:

quote:

December 12 following, the office of designing and consulting engineer was abolished by vote of the directors, retiring Mr. C. S. Moseley from the Company's service.

I would say Mike that your observations above are spot on. That four of the original seven (and two other early Waltham hires, Currier and Dean) left so soon after a very successful start-up reinforces your "restless career opportunists" remark.

Sorry to take up the bit-space but i wanted to finish what I had started.

Ron

PS to Mike Harrold: Your Technical History is my constant reference. Thanks from a horological newbie!