October 04, 2011, 15:10
William S. StokesBall 19j 16 size BRT
I'm a new member to IHC 185. I've been reading some past discussions on Brotherhood watches. I've just had a BRT serviced and the watch is running, keeps great time, the best of any of my watches.
I think it is a Ball / Waltham. The watch had no hands and no crystal and had been long forgotten when I found it. My biggest two questions is it the real McCoy, and did Ball watches always come with a Ball case? The watch came from a watchmakers estate.
October 04, 2011, 15:50
Carlos ConsWilliam,
Welcome. I'm not able to download the full picture. Can you try again with a smaller one and perhaps one of the movement.
Thanks.
October 04, 2011, 21:45
Edward L. Parsons, Jr.Welcome to IHC185 William! Our membership includes a lot of Ball collectors, so you are in good company.
You have a 19-J Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen model, which appears to have an authentic movement and dial. The hands are wrong and it isn't in a Ball case, which it needs to be completely correct (as originally sold). All Ball watches of this vintage were originally sold in factory cases.
However, a railroad watch typically went through several cases in its working life, so many ended up in non-Ball cases.
One thing I like about 19-jeweled Ball-Walthams is that they have a smooth-winding jeweled barrel.
October 04, 2011, 22:01
Buster BeckVery nice BRT watch !!
A bit of "fine~tuning" and you will have a true show piece !!
regards,
bb
October 04, 2011, 23:27
William S. StokesThanks for the feed back. I'd like to find the correct hands and hopefully the correct case.
what exactly do the hands look like?
Is there a specific Ball case I should be looking for? I've seen Ball / Waltham 19j in different cases, all reported to be the original Ball case....
October 05, 2011, 01:11
Buster BeckPlease post the serial number of the watch motor.
It appears to be B 200900
The correct serial number will be needed to steer you towards the right "era" case & hands.
Plus the fact that Ball Waltham's serial numbers were not in the chronological order that is standard.
regards,
bb