Can you tell me a bit more about this Hamilton 992, I make it to be a Model 1, Ser No 376842- 1904?. When I first got it I noticed that the “992” stamp on the bridge was further round the plate than normal, the click was different in design to that of my normal 992s, and is simply marked “adjusted” and lacking to normal 5 pos, is it adjusted to 5 pos?, the pictures do not do it justice, the face as you can see is near perfect 4 foot dail there is a very very faint hairline between 32/33 minutes, and tiny outer edge mark at 12 minutes, the rest is dust!, it is mirror like finish, the movement is running strong and very clean hands great, I also noticed on the face plate that the serial number matched the main plate but also stamped on it is “PAT.MAY.5.1886 (I think it is 1886 poor stamp there) also I show a picture of two watches I have put this watch in a mainliner case the original is the other one shown which would be the best case for this movement to reside in?. Off course how much would this be worth?, if anyone wished to part me from this watch large amounts of cash always works!, offers can be sent to Abell2292@netzero.com should anyone desperately want this.

Chris Abell

rear

Chris Abell

movement

Chris Abell

face

Chris Abell

cases

Chris Abell

Chris Abell

Chris,

First-off your early Hamilton number 376842 was produced in 1906 according to Hamilton Watch Company records compiled by John F. Gelson, former Hamilton President and Chapter 185 Member.

The early movements do not have a polished center wheel but they more than make up for it with one of the all-time most beautiful and intricate damaskeening patterns. You have identified a couple other features of the earlier movements as well. The early style click and the lack of positional markings. Your movement was produced about the time the grade was first required to be marked on movements entering Rail-Road Time Service. The "5-Positions" was soon added to movements in production as well. Perhaps others might be able to expand on that a bit further. Someone else may also know specifically what patent is referenced in the 1886 date.

The four-footed dials are in and of themselves quite desirable. They were used until around number 872000 or thereabouts. The slight hairline on your watch dial would not deter any serious buyer. The hour hand is correct. Perhaps the second hand as well. The minute hand is possibly mis-matched. Minute hands by their proximity are more damage prone. Seconds hands on RR watches were also often lost or damaged in synchronization with the master time-keeper.

You show number 376842 in a Keystone J.Boss RR Model Case which has an interesting background. It was used early-on as the "Double Safety-Bow" case to house some Howard Series 11 Chronometers. Later, beginning in the early 1920s it appeared like your example. Your case is often called "Mainliner Style" but it is in fact a "Keystone J.Boss RR Model" which if I recall correctly was the manufacturer's designation. Later-on beginning in 1937 a variation with slightly different stamping details became the correct case for the "Hamilton 950 Elinvar Mainliner" watches. In that incarnation it was used until during 1940 the 950B was introduced. Some cases similar to yours were produced a "re-strikes" as late as the 1970s and unused examples show up now and then.

By this point you realize the movement and dial predate the case you have them in by nearly twenty years. Although the J.Boss RR case would have been a worthy replacement, the one shown on the left in your 5th image down would be along the lines of what would have been available in 1906 when your movement was produced. From its dial I'd say the watch you have in the early case would be far more appropriate to the J.Boss RR case and vice-versa. My impression is that you swapped cases. If I were you, I would change them back. Most collectors prefer a watch to be as "original" as possible.

The "boxcar" or "CPR" dial on the left is an early 1920s dial, and if the movement behind it is appropriate, you could easily end up with two nice, essentially correct examples. My recollection is that Hamilton made un-cased movements available to retailers as late as 1929 which means that through the 1920s having a Hamilton without a "factory case" might be entirely correct. Again, other contributors to this forum may be able to pinpoint some of the the dates more precisely than I have.

Hope this information is of help.

Lindell

The other thing you should check is if your movement contains a single roller escapement. Some (but certainly not all) of the movements with S/Ns under 377,XXX are single roller, while those with higher numbers are double roller. Hamilton appently retrofitted (and in some cases re-engraved) earlier leftover movements with the double roller after it became standard production, so the total number actually sold with the single roller is not known. In my experience, the single roller version is not that easy to find, although it doesn't seem to make much difference in value (yet). The unusual "992" marking location may be as a result of a later factory addition if the watch was returned there for service. There are indications that Hamilton may have added a factory designation on the plates in later years, possibly to satisfy changes in RR standard requirements. This might have allowed a watch to reenter service after the standards started requiring the grade name or number on the plate.

Ed Ueberall
NAWCC 49688
IHC Member 34
The Escapement

good points made.......

The long pendant case would be the "more approiprate" choice for the case.

I remember seeing another example that was early and marked 992 in a similar manner. Ed's reason makes sense.

The dial on the left is shown in the 1925 Timebook as a CPR dial.
I had also heard them referred to as a 'sans serif' dial.

I have had a close look at the stamped "992" and it seem the numerals and the color of the gilding used differs slightly from that on the plates, which would add credence to the above information about later recall and stamping for RR grade certification, and no doubt a interesting addition to the watches history. Also it would appear that without taking the watch apart I can see a double roller though not stamped on the plates. As for the above regarding the case, where could I obtain a case like that above in Terry’s response, how would this affect the values re standard pendant type case as to this watch being cased as per above page?.
Thanks again everyone for your contributions most helpful.

Chris Abell