This is a question that goes beyond preferences. Everyone has favorites. I like the Illinois and Hamilton 16S, classic RR Dials, cases and movements, specifically of the RR quality, those in the category that meet the standards to which the PTB decided. In order to answer my questions preferences must be set aside, only real knowledge and lots of experience be used as resources. Those watch repairmen with forty years in their profession, having graduated from early, severe horological education, then added actual experience, just might be the only ones who are qualified to judge.

Rarity, collectability, uniqueness, the number of Stars beside their name, price/cost, open market values, precious metal-factors and all types of embellished beautifying aspects making any particular PW more attractive, as opposed to that which is done to improve function and durability, consistency and accuracy, must be put aside and disregarded. What I am getting at is trying to get an objective opinion concerning function rather than form. Many pretty watches are not built to do that function for which they exist. A watches aesthetic beauty cannot be totally disregarded, I realize, but for this, I need help ranking Brands, and Models within those Brands, which are functionally superior, or not. Though I like the Illinois/Hamilton RR watches, I have seen some strikingly functional, accurate and consistent Walthams, Elgins, etc. Let’s stick to just RR pocket watches for these comparisons. Factors I need help with concern the quality of machining, the types and quality of the actual metals used for gears, wheels, plates and all parts of the movements of those to be considered. Physicists, micro-architects, mechanical engineers among others are very much involved, consulted, even designing, drafting everything when putting together smoothly running timepiece movement. Things such as a material’s tension strengths, durability with flexibility, machining tolerances removed and refined yet allowed to a certain degree are all factors that must be considered. The RR watches were produced as a result of many genius minds from theoretical design all the way to the actual factory assembly line management. Dreams of a better timepiece came to fruition as the amazingly high quality control assembly lines finished up.

So, give me some idea of close equals, if you would. Is a 992 about as good as…which Waltham, Elgin, Illinois, etc.? Is a SIXTY HOUR, 21j Bunn Special similar to a 992B or more of the quality of a 950? Are the 23j, 60 HOUR Bunns more like the 950Bs? Are the 23j Walthams as functional as the 23j versions of other Brands? The lackluster damaskeening of some of the Waltham movements, as just one example of that which may not mean a thing, triggers a letdown when first opening the back. But that is cosmetic. That alone should not affect competition between Models of different Brands. Some of those refined mechanics of the better RR Elgins and Walthams have got to be very, very comparable to some of the best Hamiltons and Illinois. Which Models of each Brand are the closest in function to which of any other RR wannabes? I want actual Model equivalents, not general Brand name references, which are useless. Also, which, if any, are, “overbuilt”? There has to be several Models of different Brands that, even just accidentally, were truly great, analogous to the DC-3s of the airline industry. Some car engines, historically, are famous for their amazing efficiency, longevity and durability, right? What are those seriously great ones in the RR pocket watch industry? Why is it that a Land Cruiser is called a, “Lifetime Vehicle”, and some pretenders are not seen on any highway after four or five years? We all know what happened when Melamine replaced porcelain. That dealt with looks, not function, but were things like that, mistakes, undertaken that screwed up function or durability in the mechanisms of any movements? Which one were disastrous failures? What are the other, “ELINVAR”, improvements that seriously made better functioning watches? What metallurgical advancements, in which Models of which Brands, made functionality truly better?

In general, RR watch movements are genius realized, but I have to say, humans dropped the ball when it came to cases and the housing of almost all the miraculous movements. Stupid, stupid swing out cases, or having to unscrew bezels, opening up, closing up, the stripping of threads, in so doing relinquishing a delicate RR watch’s protection of the intricate innards EVERY SINGLE time adjustments were needed to set even the best mechanical PWs, all that being idiocy. Why, when the military decided to use the Hamilton Company’s 4992Bs, did they look at the lever set method and say, no way in heck is that right? We take for granted the story of the famous train wreck that led to a committee to implement a guilt-driven method of cumbersome lever set time adjusting of PWs. Even if that fable were true, the lore and subsequent flagellation still should not have been the result. It is clear the military had access to the actual facts, were determined not to be driven to excessive design flaws, abandoning the lever setting and going the better way, the way guilt did not inspire. That one incident ruined generations of wasted and unnecessary effort, the military not being motivated by anything other than a better way, corrected what that stupid committee came up with. Any guilt-driven method nullifies, by definition, at the outset, good old American pragmatism…every time. I’ll bet the military decision makers read the actual congressional records and secretly found out the accident was not caused by a PW stopping then starting, but that the guy was drunk, after all. Whomever it was had enough friends to support what would eventually lead to a screwy lever set, open your delicate watch all the time, erroneous method that was the curse of RR watch owners from then on, till the military did it right. If trying to set time accurately and better by traffic controllers, trains or automobiles, was by the fumbling, stumbling, bumbling lever set method, why would it not be the best way for the even more important job of the War effort? Well, it was not allowed by those who did not feel, irrationally, that a more difficult method made up for (penance) the guilt the entire PW industry must have felt, especially when, in that case, it was not the watches fault, anyway. Do I know this for a fact? Of course I could not. But, I bet the military changed it for a reason. Trying to open a watch case, for any reason, letting dust and cat hair inside, made handling a RR watch as ridiculously difficult as holding on to a big lake trout right after catching it, trying to get the hook out. Guilt and its child, overcompensation, has not fathered many of the endeavors Americans employ, but the pathetic PW cases and their caveman-like handling did not come close to matching the genius of what was inside, as delicate as the wings of a hummingbird, that were ruined every day by exposure, all based on a false premise. Think of the man-hours wasted, let alone the dropage factor.

Let’s see, what was my question? Oh, please help me make accurate comparisons, if you would be so kind. Leave aesthetics out as well as prejudicial preferences. (Is this too long? If it is inappropriate, I hope the Hall Monitors refuse me a Lavatory Pass. I will not be offended. Caning, maybe?) Thanks.

It might help if you break the timeframe down a bit. It is hard to compare good car made in the 50-60's with a carb and points ignition to a good car made in 2010 with fuel injection,computer ignition abs, etc. For the pocket watch the clear split would be pre exotic metals for the balance and hairspring and post exotic metals. That would not prevent someone from given an honest opinion on an early grade because clearly the new metal alloys allowed for improve timekeeping ability. Since the criteria is RR approved then that allows 18s and 16s only but allows both pendant and lever sets.

So I will toss the first one out there and say it would be hard for any other 18s watch made to outshine the Elgin grade 214 for timekeeping ability (pre-exotic metals).

Interesting question. One without a real answer,but I'll give my opinion. I have owned over 1000 antique pocket watches,mostly American,mostly 16 and 18 size,and many that are considered very high grade RR watches. Problem is,I,like most of us today,never owned these watches when they were new,and don't have the history of most of them. I have had seven jewel watches that never varied more than a second or two in weeks,to high grade Hamiltons,and Howards that would lose or gain a couple of minutes a week. In fact,I think the best timekeeper that I ever owned was a 16 size,seven jewel Elgin c1924,that I got in a bag with six or seven watches at a flea market for $150 for all of them. I wrote a thread about that watch right here several months ago,saying how impressed I was with it's accuracy. Don't know if this answers your question,but my opinon is that there is no answer to your question.

Brent,

At the end of the day, the answers to your intricate questions are largely subjective, depending on who you ask, so its going to be impossible to reduce them to a precise mathematical formula ahead of time.

What you have to do is get into the hobby, acquire some watches you think you like, learn more about them and then reassess. Then you'll see what you really like.

I'll give you one comprehensive piece of advice, condition is everything! Don't buy "unacceptable condition" examples with worn-out cases, shattered dials, etc. thinking you can realize a bargain by fixing them up.

By the time you've purchased the watch, paid through the nose for replacement parts and paid the watchmaker's bill, you'll have spent more money and gone to a lot more trouble than if you had bought an example in decent condition to begin with.

Brent, what a dissertation! The fish analogy is neat! Congratulations! Back when people thought I knew how high data heads "flew" when they were below 1 Molecular Mean Free Path (about 0.0000004") I dissertated to large over-educated audiences from San Jose to Heidenheim! Got lotta free lunches too! (In Germany and France that included free beer and wine, everybody drank part of their lunch in the factories.)

To answer your question is like trying to see one spot in a room through one of those mirrored ballroom globes. Describing it may take as many chapters as mirrors on the globe.

Each of us has "favorites", and the Industry as a whole has many "leaders" in design or sales through each period. Were it not for the Railroads, Pocket Watches would have probably been completely displaced by wristwatches in the 1930's, even so wristwatches were outselling Pockets in large numbers by then.

For the Best of the Best", I would nominate the Elgin "Durabalance" Free-sprung movement that was machine-set to match the accuracy of any watch made at that time as the ultimate design/material/engineering accomplishment of Watch making before Batteries.

For great Pocket Watch Engineering achievements;

Waltham;
Production Motor Barrel instead of "Going Barrels"
First 18s "Pillar less" Plate model 1892 RR Grade movement.
19 Jewel Movement where the "extra" 2 are for the Motor Barrel.

Illinois;
Getty Design 16s Movement, one of the most reliable and original watch designs.
48-60 Hour Motor Barrel Achievement.

Elgin; The Model 8 and 9 design that up-ended Waltham model 1892
Serious development of Free-Sprung Balances.

Hamilton;
Interchangeable Parts RR Grade movements.

For Watch making Nightmares;
Hampden Watch Repair Service base who destroyed more Hampden movements than the general public.

Elgin "Convertible"

All Makers; 21 and up Jewelling on movements that DID NOT include a Jeweled motor that delivered power to the wheel train. ex., Illinois, Hampden 18s 23 Jewel movement showing Jeweled motor plates actually jeweled the WINDING ARBOR only!
All watchmakers who made "21 Jewel" movements by capping the friction pivots of the Pallet Fork and the escape wheels. These are "ornamental" at BEST!

Overall, in spite of this US watchmakers made the most serviceable watches in huge quantities. That is the greatest breakthrough.

Sorry, I got lost in the maze

There's no answer to be had. Claude, Cecil, Edward, and David all make good points. Any watch properly maintained, and regularly serviced, by a competent repairman, and not subjected to any adverse condition[s], in all of it's lifetime, will/would still keep great time even until today.

It's not unlike the old adage, "Chevy vs. Ford".

To ask a repaireman of today, is not viable, since they will only see the broken watch for the most part, and will have to attempt to repair what the incompetent repairman has messed up. To ask the repaireman of yesterday would of been closer to an answer since watches were regularly serviced and maintained. Yet still it would come down to personal brand choices, since we would all be prejudiced to an extent on a "per" advent to individual experiences and what they would of seen/handled at the time, and their personal sucess/failure rates on individual manufacturers and products, and yes, even what they carried in their own pocket and/or sold in their shoppes.

What we are left with today to collect and admire, they will all be irrelevant since we do not have any idea where they have been, how they were maintained, and by whom

As a final note, quartz watches today, are far superior to any mechanical watch ever made with regards to timekeeping, all things being equal.

regards,
bb

Brent,
I would like to make a point about lever-set watches. These watches, when used as work tools in the railway environment, were not supposed to be adjusted by the user but only by the watch inspector under (I suppose) controlled conditions. So, nobody but the inspector was allowed to unscrew the bezel, let alone the movement cover to adjust the timing. All the owner of the watch was supposed to do was to wind the thing up.

Unfortunately the lever set system was also used for "civilian" watches and this, in my opinion, was not a very good thing. I don't know why this happened but I suspect it could have been also a question of image in marketing since railroad watches were perceived as standards of accuracy and reliability. "See, you can only adjust this watch by removing the bezel and pulling this lever, just like the railroads ones!"

The military needed watches that could be quickly adjusted and synchronized. They were not subjected to any kind of standard or inspections.

About the "swing out cases", although irritating to us collectors because they make it so difficult to show the movement, in reality were considered to be safer because of their single opening better protecting it from soot and dust.

And finally, yes, the cheapest quartz watch can be more accurate than almost any machanical one...but where is the challenge?

Regards,
Peter

This is an interesting discussion to me as still a relative newcommer to the hobby. I am an Engineer (Mechanical/Industrial) so both design and production interest me. But engineers are trained to think in terms of value (bang for buck). So when I started collecting I asked "how many jewels are enough, and which ones matter (versus just window dressing). I found a lot of answers to this question.

I believe a 15J is called a "fully jeweled watch"...so I decided that was a "nicely equipped chevy". Back when they still made them I was an "Oldsmobile Man".. That is I wanted a reasonable quality; but did not want to pay a little more for only a bit more quality. So initially I was happy with 17J and 19J watches...I still believe a 19j Riverside RR watch was/is a great value (an Oldsmobile). So to begin with I bought a lot of "oldsmobiles"

But then I decided to buy a Hamiliton 992, because everyone seamed to say they were a realy great watch, so lets try a "Lincoln"...it gave me a different reference point for watch quality, and value...I started collecting Hamilton's of various sizes (12s,16s,18s). Now I own many 992B's, 91x's,etc...

My "new standard" became the 992B and I bought several others (Many Lincolns) that I felt were competitive with the 992B...a good example is the Elgin BWR grade 571...liked them so much I bought all three type examples.... I bought what I felt were the Walthm equivalents (Cresent Street, Vanguard) and so on (Illinois 21j Bunn Special, etc).

Then I felt my collection was getting too narrow because I had fixed on "A Single Standard". Stacking eveerything up against 992/992B was too restrictive. So I kind of started over again, although RR watches form the hub of my collection. I now have a nice collection of 10s/12s dress watches (dominantly Hamilton and Illinois, but some others as well).

And I am now getting more into 18s full plate models (check the beauty I just bought from Andy Swartz on IHC auction). I find it difficult to choose a centerpoint for this group, perhaps the Hamilton 940? But there is such a great variety.

I think a very good point made earlier was, age. I consider myself a collector of "vintage" rather than "antique" watches. I don't have any "keywinders" and most are less than 100 years old. I have a number of WWI era watches, but the bulk are after 1920. So the age dimension of my collection has remained pretty stable. Likewise I have some 7j and 23j watches but most are 17-21 jewels class. So that dimension is consistent as well. The largest single maker in my collection is Hamilton but that only is about 25% of the total, Illinois, Elging Waltham, Howard, etc.. as well. So I'm pretty diverse in makers

Being an Industrial Engineer makes me want to invent a classification system for watches beyond those which exist today (RR and dress for example). As I have bought many different makers now I do see a fairly common value line through the major watchmakers where one might define some eqivalence. But there are standouts by each, the first time I held a Getty...it was clear that designwise, this was in a class by itself as an example.

As my collection has evolved, it takes on many different dimensions and comparisons become much harder. Very different from my coin collections..

Brent,

It's really almost impossible to separate aesthetics from performance since all the major US watch companies were fiercely competitive in both areas, and the most finely adjusted movement usually had the most lavish decorations. This changed after 1930-1940 when the need for timekeeping performance seemed to drive the market more than artistic appearance. We all have our favorites but the bottom line is this: All the US
watch factories who produced RR grade watches had access to basically the same pool of materials, equipment, artists/engineers and workers and all of these companies produced top tier products that were all fine instruments capable of exceeding the timekeeping requirements of the day. I believe that attempting to break it down further than that would be matter of stating simple preference.

As far as your comments concerning various case designs go, well, for one to unnecessarily open the bezel and adjust the time or expose the movement on a daily basis in any environment that is less than clean would, in my opinion, be an exercise in stupidity by the wearer, not the case designer.

William

(Come on, if you got through my last long, long ‘Question’, you can get through this one. Please.)
I do appreciate the replies. I have/had to smile a bit at the great restraint you all exercised as you responded. I expected some/more expressed irritation by you folks because of the highly opinionated nature of some of the stuff I said but, you were all pleasantly helpful instead. Among internet discussion groups of all/any type, you guys are truly, ‘grown-ups”. You all know how other discussions, all over the net, about completely different subjects, do, or can tend to degenerate into infantile, ‘name-calling’, etc. Your forbearance and actual desire to help is duly noted and applauded. Thank You. The nature and content of your replies accurately reflected exactly what I was questioning, besides being amazingly civil. Some answered with great care about actual advancements that occurred here and there that dealt with what ended up being a better watch. Few of us are qualified to give the actual metallurgical advancements, including the physics and chemistry of those advancements, and even fewer are qualified to understand those aspects even if explained, myself included.
I would like to refine my questions a bit. I need you to disregard any good or bad experiences you have had with any individual watch. Why? Within any make or model there are very, very good examples and very bad examples. Those cannot figure in and must be considered outside the standard deviation of the equation I am looking for. I am looking for those makes and/or models that, as a whole, in general, and are widely known to be truly classics in functioning as, and for what they were made to do, work consistently well over time, even within any snapshot of time one might pick as an evaluation point. I have an example, two actually: It is well known within the manufacturing community, from original design pre-production and then proven over time, postproduction that say, for this example, within the airline industry, there are phenomenal examples of truly great airplanes. Whether they were accidentally put together better or intentionally made to be much, much better is subject to some debate, but I do know, for example, for this illustration, the DC-3 (or maybe it was the DC-6) were, for whatever reason, far and way above the average airplane of the day and still are considered amazing today. In the manufacturing industry they were what is called, the term used is, “overbuilt”. They were so well made, so well put together, examples of such a phenomenal coming together of design, materials used and Gestalt perfection that everyone knows about them and their durability, their excellence in function throughout time. Many still fly in Alaska even today, where reliability is a must, a life and death matter of necessity. There must be similar examples within the world of pocket watches.
A second example, an example of an industry product, where that product is well known as being overbuilt and is as well known in the automobile industry, as is the DC-3 is of the airline industry. This involves Toyota versus Jeep. I was young and in the market for one or the other so I asked everyone I knew which was better. Of course I got nothing but irrelevant opinions, preferences, “Buy American”, etc., as it were. Since those ignorant days of youth, never getting a straight answer, one that was so obviously obvious, I have owned both. Regardless of my experience with the individual vehicles I owned, which ensued, I have since learned what everyone in the industry knew, an answer I never could pry out of anyone I knew at the time. My choices were between the Jeep CJ-5 and CJ7, you know, the jeep-looking Jeep, not the Wagoneer station wagon -looking vehicle, and the old Toyota Land Cruiser, the short one, the Jeep-looking version, no longer made. By ALL industry standards, by any objective measurement of any and all aspects of each vehicle, disregarding personal prejudicial preferences, the one that was ‘overbuilt’ and so far ahead of the other in every way, was the Land Cruiser. Since my initial questioning, now over the years I have learned about, for example, what it means to be, ‘overbuilt’, whether cars, airplanes, watches, bicycles, etc. Do you know why the Land Cruiser is known as, “…a lifetime vehicle”? Because people have to leave them in their Wills! They are that good for that long. Am I selling cars here? No, just using two obvious examples of what I would like to know about pocket watches. Harley versus Honda is a third example, but I beat a dead horse. I asked a motorcycle Race Driver, retired, when I visited his family in Scotland, which was, “best”. He smiled and understood exactly what I was saying or asking. His answer was: As an American, you know the appeal the Harley has all over the world and also the group of riders the brand name attracts, right? (BTW, did you know more Falconers ride Harleys than any other group? The association is astonishingly high.) Anyway, after making a point about the specific appeal of what a Harley is and represents, adding that it is widely sold in Japan, of all places, he then told me how astronomically better engineered for performance, speed, maneuverability and durability, among a million other things, were the Japanese bikes of any brand, Honda, Kawasaki, etc. As we all know, Harley lovers don’t care, knowing they want the image far more, even if it is an inferior machine. The same, this ex-motorcycle racer said, is true about the European bikes. I had a 650 Triumph Bonneville that I loved. What a pure motorcycle it was with its slow piston RPMs and associated guttural sound. The much more powerful, high RPM Japanese bikes did not have that classic Harley, low RPM sound and associated appeal. The two-cycle, high RPM bikes, whether American, European or Japanese are mechanically great, but the sound cannot be tolerated even by the uninitiated rider.
The overbuilt Railroad Watch, the examples of which makes and models there might be several or even many, are well known to you experienced watchmaker/repairers, I am sure of it. Again, modern watches are obviously better in almost every way, but just limited to the classic RR Watch, which are the ones well known within the industry as being special, overbuilt, whether accidentally all coming together or by design? Ball tried to do it, but did it get done, really? The RR Watch, in general, of almost all world brands have to be better as a group during that period of time, because just look at how many, the huge percentage of which still run great today. The Swiss must have scrambled hysterically watching their market share shrink. The Euros, as I call them, are not even close in quality. Only the individually made, one-of-a-kind, small village Master Watchmaker could equal the RR Watch, but certainly not in sheer quantity of great timepieces. Let alone the lack of interchangeable parts and the total inability to fix those unique individual timepieces, there again the RR Watch stands tall as a great American manufacturing achievement.

Even a couple of single malts didn't help me get through all of this. Who/what is better - Beatles/Stones, Miles/Pops, Beethoven/Mozart, Dhomont/Olivieros, Zappa/....

Learn what you can, figure out your own tastes, and to **** with the masses....

...and now, for my 3rd.

[that wasn't 'exactly' what I typed, didn't realize this forum was language moderated!! ]

Brent no I can not get thru the second question. Just like the first one. I just kept thinking I will never get this 5 minutes back in my life.

Brent I am not sure I understand your essay but to me the American genius was to produce machine made high quality accurate watches at a price that allowed them to be owned by working people. I also think that Longines and Omega made railroad grade watches that were as good as any American railroad watch of the same time period. Tariffs and politics limited their use in the USA, not inferior quality.

We are now in the electronic age, preceded by the electro-mechanical age, and the machine age.

The railroad watches represent the highest level technology from the machine age. Machines that operate without electricity or combustion.

Railroad watches are left over from the great age of the American railroads, and most of them still work.

The best ones in my collection are Hamilton, Illinois, and Elgin, generally made after WW I.

That was the high point of RR watch technology.

I don't know of a bad RR watch (21 J or more) that was produced during that period.

Brent, I don't have an answer to your questions??
but consider an article I read a while ago in a reprint of the Hamilton watch house organ "The Timekeeper" stating that the average time from laying out the plates of a Railroad grade watch until it was adjusted to their standards and left the plant was 6 Months!!! Compare that to the completion of an automobile in a few total minutes!!
I don't know what Hamiltons standards were but
how long do you suppose the buyer could afford to
pay for a watchmaker with the skill to maintain that level of performance.
Good luck in your quest........Keith

Sorry, got lost in your maze, again

Overbuilt pocket watches

Not a chance

Built for time keeping and to comply with set industry requirements for the specific time periods. And within manufacturing companies, to go one-up on the competition for curb appeal and sales revenues.

Built to last and built to be easily maintained.

Were you on the "debate team", "chair to a committee",or perhaps merely a "blogger"

Quaintly interesting, somewhat, however very roving and off subject, as in apples/oranges, black/white, night/day. [ pocketwatches vs. DC3's/Toyota's/Jeeps/Land Cruiser's/Harley's/Honda's/Kawasaki's/Triumph's,etc. ]

Before the next posting starts comparing different brand yo-yo's to different brand pocket watch's, my preference is Duncan

The answers to your blogs, 'er I mean posts , you have answered within. Pocket watches are basically identical in mechanics, so to compare A to B, one would need to know the number of jewels, barrel type, train wheel material, hairspring material, and balances of each manufacturer's product line within the same time frame and within the same tolerances from company to company. With that being said , it will be, typically, a personal preference as long as all aspects of the different manufacturer's processes, materials, and tolerances are equal

I'm Done Next.......



regards,
bb

Well, in the end the Swiss won out in the American market place, largely because of the quantum leap in market share they gained during WW2.

The American makers diverted the vast majority of their production resources to the war effort, leaving relatively little for the U.S. civilian market. Well the Swiss were under no production restrictions and were more than glad to come in and take up the slack.

Brent,

Can you repeat that last question in a little more detail please?

I am relatively new to being a "pocket watch guy". From what I have read, learned, assumed, assessed and amassed I will give you a subjective answer.

Hamilton = Harley

Omega = Honda

Timex = Trabant

When the Berlin wall fell thousand of Trabants were driven over to "West" Germany and abandoned in the streets as their past keepers bought a new car. The running Joke was: "How can you make a Trabant worth selling? A. Fill up the gas tank!"
To that end comparing it with a Timex may be a bit complimentary to the Trabant.

As to "Words of Wisdom" about "overbuilt" RR (or any other) pocket watches, Mr Webb C. Ball "Said it All" in his famous ad;

Ok, my eyes are finally un-crossed from the prior posts.

So, if the Ball Company went with the KISS analogy, saying that 17 to 19 jewels are all that is needed for correct timekeeping, why were 21 and 23 jewel watches created ( not only Ball, but other manufacturers). Is a 23 jewel watch that much better than a 17 jewel Bunn for instance?

Please excuse me if this question seems redundant. I appreciate everyones viewpoint. I'm just curious as to the thoughts and reasoning behind the high jewel count watches.

Bruce, In anyones mind if 17 jewels are good than 23 jewels MUST be better......right? It was a selling ploy to get buyers to invest in yet another watch, and the more jewels the prettier it looks.....right? So if another manufacturer is producing a higher jeweled watch and it is selling, then most likely other manufactures will follow the trend. The additional jewels in most cases will not make a better running watch, for instance, jeweling the barrel will not improve performance, but it did in the public's mind!

buy what you like and like what you buy, nothing else matters.....

I totally agree 110% !! I don't think that a watch touting 21-23 jewels will keep any better time yesterday, today, or tomorrow, over a 17-19 jeweled watch so long as both are adjusted to the same number of positions, and have been properly/regularly serviced and maintained during their entire life span and neither has experienced accident or abnormal stress related issues

As to a "jeweled motor barrel", it was a remarkable idea/design and I select Waltham as the leader of the pack from their early on 1888 model design on up until Illinois overtook them with their 60 hour motor barrel offering [They are as smooth as home brewed sippin' whiskey and aged in charred oak]

The particular design of a movement, close tolerances of parts, and skill of assemblers and adjusters, did then and will today, make the difference

Adding these additional jewels to a watch was not driven by any advanced technical necessity, it was merely a "marketing ploy or war". When Hampden briefly took an edge in the market by saying " the more jewels the better", the other companies were stuck with lower jeweled watches that they couldn't sell. Suddenly all the companies went to the mindset of more is better

As a sidenote : "Capped jewels" which upped the jewel count back in the production days, was and had to be merely a fast and easy way to up the jewel count for the manufacturing companies mainly, and go one up on the competition, since all the watches used animal oils which really needed to be replaced [COA] at least every 3 years. But today since we now have synthetic oils, the watches we have with capped jewels will last/run longer between oil changes since airborne contaminants are harder to get into the capped jewels and the cap jewels have a bit of an oil reservoir in them. There are many pros and cons and debates on cap jewels, but in today's times, they do work to our advantage.

The ad that David posted is an ad from Ball Watch Co. in 1908. A year later Mr. Ball had to change his tune and go to more jewels so that he could grab his fair share of the "American Dream Pie"

regards,
bb

I think that watches with jeweled motor barrels definitely have obvious advantages over ones that don't but I have seen many others with jeweled winding arbors which is just "jewelry".

William

On the jewel count when I look at the specifications for the 992B and the 950B the 950B has more rigid specs, if my memory serves me well.

Everyone one appears to be missing the economic part of this discussion which should not be overlooked. If companies sold higher jewel count grades they charged more and not all that extra cost was in the jewels, part of it was in the fit/finish and timing.

All things being equal maybe a 17j would run as good as a 21 or 23 jewel grade but things were not equal. After the 1900's I seriously doubt that any company put the same effort into a 17j watch as they did a 23j or higher grades simply because they could sell the 23+j version at a much higher cost and not all of that cost was in the jewels but other features that added to the fit and finish and timing.

Once the higher 21/23+ watches started to show up in the market probably most companies made their 17j watches good enough to meet the specs needed (such as the typical RR spec) and nothing more since each company was looking at profit margins and part of that was limited by being competitively priced in the same jewel count range.

If someone was making custom watches and money was no option then I am sure you could make a 17j to the same specs and tolerances as a 23j and in the end little if any differences could be detected.

Clealy the above statement did not happen since the higher jewel counts could be sold at a higher price. GM would not put the same effort into a Cruze as they do a Corvette since each car is priced according to the market segment it has to compete in and that impacts how much special effort is put into a Cruze.