Is this a correct combination? Movement #S15834

Thanks Lin. My main question mark was a 950B in that case.

You would have to convince me that it is NOT correct. The 1954 catalog stated that the 950B could be obtained with any dial. The 1961 blueprint of the 121 dial shows the 10 right on the edge of the sink. Near the end quality control was not up to traditional standards. I cannot tell if the dial is printed a little off center to cause the ten to be cut off a bit more.

They would sell anything to get a movement and case out of the doors.

Don

Very interesting topic.

Since a letter from Hamilton introducing the No. 16 to the wholesalers is not available, the link below may very well be the earliest reference to the No. 16, i.e., March, 1952.

The date is located at the bottom of the page on the left hand side.

If someone has an earlier date, please post your reference.

The intent of this post is not to argue the correctness of the No. 16, but to shed light on the earliest reference date of the case.

Robert

Thank you.

Image below shows 3 excellent reasons to buy a Hamilton in 1951.

Robert

Thanks Don for providing this nice info page.

According to the "Trademark" records, the Hamilton logo shown below was first used in Oct. 1956 and first shows up in the 1956-57 Hamilton catalogs.

Robert

Well Robert that pretty well nails it, but here is some additional information...

Fully documented as early Case 16 examples in fact have an "R" prefix serial number. Yes, strange as it may seem the Star Watch Case Company actually used "R" prefix before they used "P" in their numbering system. As an example I have a 992B C419726 from 1954 in Model 16 Case R508733 with boxes, label and papers. Three others are documented by original box label images provided in the "HAMILTON 992B SERIAL NUMBERS" topic of our "Hamilton 992B Research Forum" and they help confirm what we are coming up with here.


992B C396951 (1953) in Model 16 Case R337916

992B C408625 (1954) in Model 16 Case R335583

992B C419726 (1954) in Model 16 Case R508733

992B C458650 (1959) in Model 16 Case R795953 (Projected Year)


Since those listed above are all documented "R" prefix examples it would appear that Case Model 16 examples with a "P" prefix serial number may not have come into play until the latter part of the 1950s or later. Summing up the information we have developed, it appears the watch David asked about is a 1951 movement with a dial from several years earlier, remember the dial shown turned out to be a 1940s porcelain example. We also have established from Robert's patent information along with the serial number indicated on it the case turns out to be be from something like a decade later than the movement.

That case number being P560345 and Robert's patent information pretty much seals it, looks like the watch David is being offered cannot be an original 1951 combination. Unless that one is bargain-priced it may not be a worthwhile purchase. Many of us would tend to view it as components and nothing more. Finding a choice case, dial and hands for that movement could prove not only difficult but fairly expensive.

There is one thing we will always agree on, this sure is a fascinating hobby. Sometimes like today our research reads like a detective story which only adds to the enjoyment we we all share.

Thanks to David, to Donald, to Robert and to everyone else reading this topic!

It's great to be in this hobby and to know each of you,

Lindell

This thread is a great piece of forensic horology by Robert and Lin! Reading it over has truly been an educational experience for me.

For what its worth, I have a 992B boxed set with an earlier Case #16, C316472 (1951) and R211592.

This early Case 16 is different in markings from the much later one on the watch David posted.

Here are a couple of photos:

Box Label

Thanks Ed for sharing your early No. 16 case and label.

It appears now that the No. 16 may have been introduced as early as 1951.

It may be of some value to find out when the No. 16 first appeared in the Hamilton price lists.

Robert

Robert,

The model 16 case is not in the May 1951 catalog, nor is it in the July 1951 price list. It is in the August 1952 catalog and price list.

There is a large catalog issued in 1951 with each watch featured in its own page. My scanned copy does not have the model 16, but a paper copy that I have had for years does have it. It appears that I missed two pages in my scanning of that catalog. It is a good thing this thread caught that error before I compled the CDs for the library so I can correct the error next week.

Lindell,

I said I needed proof that a strange combination near the end of the company was not authentic. I think the dial you showed provides that proof. If it does predate the movement by 5 or 6 years is good evidence that it is not original to the movement. Anyway, if the dial is porcelain, then the dial is earlier. David's post just showed a picture, but apparently you know these watches.

Thanks for the education.

Don

Great post. I am totally impressed by the knowledge, professionalism and respect displayed by the members of 185. I have viewed other NAWCC sites and find this one the best by far. I can always depend to further my knowledge each time I visit. Well done to all!
Mike

Ok, I found the thread I was looking for. This is off the immediate subject, but what is the difference in the clipped "10" and the non-clipped "10" porcelain-enamel dial in reference to manufacture date?

That is a very interesting distinction in such a short run of dials. When I look at a comparison between a known 1940-41 dial and a 1948-50 dial this seems true. The fabrication process seems off-center with the later examples when measured. It appears an off-center punch in one of the first processes of the enamel dial. I will attach a step-by-step template of the dial manufacturing process as displayed in Columbia, PA. I would have never noticed the distinction if not brought up in this forum.

Is it safe to sat that porcelain-enamel dials were cut off at the 1948 time frame, or could some have drifted into the 1950"s?