Are the terms "Dress Watch" and "Opera Watch" interchangeable? If not, how do they differ ? Thanks for the clarification.

The "Opera Watch" was specifically a thin watch marketed by Waltham that used the small, thin 6/0 movement within that famous filigree spacer. Based on its fame the term has been applied by modern collectors to other small movements in larger cases. However, most of these other watches were thicker and I am not aware of them being called opera watches at the time of their production. Many of them also preceded the "Opera Watch", but there is more to this story. I will attempt to expand on this in a longer post, this evening.

Any of these were certainly "dress watches", a more generic term for any watch slimmer or smaller than the working man's 16 or 18-size watch. It would fit in your suit, vest or tuxedo pocket without making a big bulge. I apply the term "dress watch" to any of the thinner 10, 12 and 14-size watches. I would exclude the earlier, thick 14-size watches of the late 1800's.

Jerry;
Thanks IMMENSELY for that clarification. I needed to ask because many years ago I purchased an octangular, 12s, Elgin which was represented to me as a "Dress Watch". It predates the Frances Rubie being a model 191, ca. 1897. The overall watch is thin and it does not contain a spread movement. So, the upshot of the entire matter, if I understand you and Tom McIntyre correctly, is that an "Opera Watch" is a specific Waltham watch type and others (such as the Frances Rubie) are similar.

Right Mark. For the Frances Rubie, you need to qualify it with 0 size or the Grade number.

The first Frances Rubie was a 10 size keywind lady's watch.

I have been looking at an interesting gilt Grade 410 Elgin that is cased as a 10 size spread watch. The movement in the watch that started this discussion in the other thread is a Grade 355.

Both of these are in round cases. All the Frances Rubie 0 size I have seen so far have been in shaped cases like your octagonal watch.

Your dress watch is part of the 12 size family of Elgins. The most elusive of these, in my experience is the Grade 190.

Tom;
Thanks for the confirmation. However, how "thin" is "thin"? Including the crystal, a dress watch that I have is 0.437 inches (1.11 cm.) thick. That, however, is a 12s movement in a 12s case (without a second hand). I can well imagine that a 0s or a 6/0s movement makes for an extremely thin movement, but how thin is the question. The comparison is worth noting as I suspect that the "opera" design may have caused a European design influence (at a much later date).

My thinnest Opera Watch (that is with the flattest crystal) is 8 mm thick. I also have a Colonial A (14-size) that is 8 mm thick. My Howard 10-size is also about 8 mm. I don't have my Hulburd at home to measure it, but it is probably about the same. These are probably the slimmest American-made watches.

Of course, as Mark suggests, the Swiss had us beat. (I wish I had this one in a case).

I have been reading this with interest, having just acquired this watch (in need of attention), is this what you would call a Elgin opera watch, serial Number 9940869 it is a S6 in a over size case, the case is 47mm wide and 12mm thick nice HC.

p2

p3

p4

Chris’ watch may also have (if I can trust my eyes) a porcelain face and is handsome. Ahh, but is it an “opera” style watch? I would say not, based solely on two observations. First, it is housed in a hunter case (as Elgin intended), which makes it rather thick and second because it is 6s movement, which appears to have been mounted in a specially designed case that has the movement spacers built-in. Should it be presumed that "opera" style watches have a movement size between 6/0 and 0?

As Jerry pointed out, the Swiss do have the US manufacturers beat for thinness, but they may also have the record for the most “chunky” modern watch.

A watch that I have (the same one that is in my discussion list profile) also fails the “opera” test and is truly the source of the comment that I made previously about the overall thinness of the watch. It is a Jaeger-LeCoultre (JLC) that I stumbled over at a flea market. In this watch the fancy fret-work of the spacer is replaced by the more “modern” design appearance of the mechanism itself which can be viewed from both sides. The spacer appears to be machined aluminum holding an approximately 3s movement, which is spread it to an amazing 15s. The overall thickness is a whopping 20.62mm (and that is an OF case)! If it were not so attractive it might be mistaken for a beached whale.

Chris and Mark are exploring the definition of "Opera Watch". As I stated before, I feel there is only one Opera Watch, just as there is only one Ford Thunderbird. The only company I am aware of that used this term (at the time) was Waltham. As I also mentioned, though, many dealers and collectors today have extended the term to a vaguely defined variety of watches that may be thin and elegant (for wear at the opera) and also to almost any watch with a smaller movement in a larger case. A Google search of the web and an eBay search find a variety of watches offered that bear little resemblance to Waltham's concept. However, language is fluid and meanings evolve, so I am afraid there is not much my word or preference is going to do about it.

My tendency, at this point (and I am not the final arbiter of usage) would be to apply "opera style" to a watch that uses a smaller movement in a larger case for the purpose of producing a thinner-appearing watch. I would also specify an over-sized dial (to give the impression from the dial side that the movement might be full size. As such I would have trouble, for instance, extending the category to include Chris' watch, which I believe has a standard 6-size dial (and please correct me if I am wrong). I do not recall ever seeing an ad for the 6-size movements in 12-size cases and have had the impression that this was more an effort to move obsolete 6-size movements than an effort at style. I also would exclude most of the modern pocketwatches that use wristwatch movements, not for style but because there are so few larger calibre movements made (at least in the lower price ranges).

By the way, a hunting case does not preclude a thin watch - at least the Swiss were up to the challenge, as evidenced by this 14K example.

And I guess this would be considered to be opera style. The dial is the same size as the spacer. [By the way, it is a Movado].

Jerry;
You are absolutely correct about there being one and only one Opera Watch and it was made by Waltham. I think, though, that the far reaching influence of its appearance should be recognized stylistically, which I believe is in agreement with your thoughts. As to whether or not Waltham's Opera Watch is the first representation of the style is irrelevant, possibly. The name "Opera", however, is a very recognizable name for the style and hence its abuse as a catch-all classification. It might be seen by some folks as an anal-retentive exercise, but there is some value in describing "opera style" watch specifications. At least to phase-out the haphazard catch-all classification. A good illustration of what I am speaking about is the latest photo which you have posted. I was ignorant of the fact that a hunter case watch could fit into the STYLE specifications (at least for thinness and having a spread movement) - I am glad to learn otherwise, thank you for posting it. A style description should be 'fluid' and sustain the exploration in which Chris and I have indulged, but it would also serve the purpose of at least giving collectors a 'starting point' to recognize watches that they have or might acquire.

Jerry and Chris, I have seen a number of these Elgins that are 6S with a spread dial. The dial is actually a 10S when attached to the 6S movement. Most all of the OF variety of these watches came without a second hand.

Tom

This Waltham is 12s both in movement and case and it has no second hand.

In respect to any movement that is the same size as its intended case, does the elimination of the second hand significantly reduce its overall thickness? Using a 6/0 size movement, Waltham avoided this problem when it produced the Opera Watch because the movement itself was so small to begin with that its second hand did not alter the final case size to any major degree. Can the same also be said of Elgin's use of a 0 size movement?

Mark, To my knowledge and experience, your watch was marketed by Waltham to use up unsold HC movements. This was an easy way to unload unsold stock. I have also seen these by Elgin and Illinois. Your watch, with a 12S movement would not be thinner unless it was spread to a 16S dial. This would make it a thinner 16S watch. The use of a 6S or 0S with the 12S dial would make for a thinner watch.

Tom

As Tom mentions, when hunting case watches started going out of style, many of these movements were fitted up in open-face cases using dials without a seconds bit. Even high-grade watches were sold this way, such as the 23-jewel Illinois grade 410. In watches like the early Elgin Hulburd, the second was eliminated probably equally for thinness and for style. Doing away with the second hand allows closer clearance between the hands and the dial which in turn allows a flatter crystal. Some extra-thin Illinois watches and some Waltham 10-size Colonial A watches also did away with the seconds hand, but I believe this was more of a style decision.

Tom;
Thanks for shedding light on an otherwise cryptic database entry for STYLE regarding this watch. Databases, because of their format, can raise questions. This mechanism is clearly in an open face case, but the database entry for STYLE is "Htg." Your information clears up the question.
Tom and Jerry;
Based upon what both of you have said, the presence or lack of a second hand is primarily a design choice. Although, as Jerry points out, the removal of the second hand allows for a more snug fitting of the minute and hour hands, the overall variance of a watch's thickness is minimal. Spread is the determining factor. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Opera Watch's use of a 6/0 movement spread to a 12s case is 8mm thick. The Frances Rubie movement, that Elgin used, was a 0s and spread mounted (occasionally) to a 10s case. Consequently, I should imagine that it was thicker, but how much so? I have neither watch so I cannot make the measurements.