| WWT Shows | CLICK TO: Join and Support Internet Horology Club 185™ | IHC185™ Forums |
|
• Check Out Our... • • TWO Book Offer! • |
Welcome Aboard IHC185™ Internet Horology Club 185 IHC185™ Discussion Site Main Page Horological Discussions, Questions and Answers Pocket Watch Discussions Clarification of my aforementioned Ball-Waltham dial question
Internet Horology Club 185 IHC185™ Discussion Site Main Page Horological Discussions, Questions and Answers Pocket Watch Discussions Clarification of my aforementioned Ball-Waltham dial questionGo | New Topic | Find-Or-Search | Notify | Tools | Reply to Post | |
On many of Ball Waltham dials his insignia is "Trade Mark" over official RR standard over Ball watch co. Cleveland now on later ones he went to the Ball over official RR standard over Cleveland. I just aquired a Waltham Ball with this later dial -any idea when the change took place as mine is 1915 thanks BOB | |||
|
| IHC Life Member Moderator  |
Bob, Happy to help, but always include the movement number for verification. Don | |||
|
DON the movement # is B252006 | ||||
|
Administrative Assistant |
Consolidation of two separate posts relating to the same topic...  | |||
|
| IHC President Life Member  |
Hi Bob, Don was correct, the number is important in narrowing down production time-frames. Your 252006 actually takes us to a run that was blocked in 1912 and it would be a Ball-Waltham movement. With Ball watches, the production year is often confusing due to the fact that movement finishing, dial and hand selection, casing and timing was completed at the Ball facility in Cleveland, Ohio and not at Waltham, which as you know was the original manufacturer of your movement. All that finishing, casing and timing of their movements allowed Ball to be classified as a watch manufacturer, a myth that was kept alive for the buying public and causes confusion even today. I mention those facts because the dial you describe, with a "BALL, Official RR Standard, Cleveland" signature was first seen in 1922 (on the dial called "Conventional" in the watch guide) and was employed on their "Box-Car" dial introduced in 1925 as shown in the second paragraph of the advertisement below in this post. By the way, the term "Box-Car" in numerals refers to railroad box cars having plain, easy to read numbers on them. Ball adopted that numeral design, called it "Box-Car" and offered it on most of their pocket watches (and later on wristwatches) through to the end of Ball Official RR Standard watch production. Back to your particular watch, you may now wonder why a 1920s dial (the last Ball-Walthams date to 1922 production) fronts your somewhat earlier movement. There are 2 possibilities, one that the dial was upgraded over the years or, it may well be original to your movement as it was not uncommon for Ball watches to remain in the vault in Cleveland for a considerable period of time. Movements, when placed in trays of 10 when vaulted were more often than not subjected to the "first-in, last-out" rule because later trays were placed in front and therefore were removed from the vault before those that found their way toward the back of the vault. Another point of interest is the fact that Ball sold both Ball-Waltham and Ball-Hamilton 21-Jewel movements in the 1920s and of course they never clarified that matter to the purchaser, doing so would have dispelled the "manufacturer" myth I referenced above. Ball and his products hold fascination for those of us with both the interest and the patience to study, learn and appreciate them. Hope this dissertation is of help to you and others. Lindell  October 1925 Ball Watches Ad with "Box-Car" dial...  | |||
|
LINDELL thanks for the heads up -SO in essence from a collectors view point my watch is not original because of the later dial no matter how it got there Thanks BOB | ||||
|
| IHC President Life Member |
Bob, I tried to explain in considerable detail how the combination you have could in fact be an original assembly, but of course most collectors would assume it could just as easily have been put together recently. Just for fun, take the time to re-read the post details above and weigh each of the explanations carefully along with what follows below. Watch companies, and this is especially true of the unique situations involving the Ball Watch Company, paid little or no attention to what today would be regarded as "model years" because to their way of thinking a movement was "new" so long as it remained unsold. Unlike complete assemblies such as automobiles, watch movements were merely a component that could be pulled from the vault, freshly oiled, paired-up with a later dial and case which allowed it to have the appearance of an entirely new item. The customer would have no way of realizing whether his new Ball watch was powered by a movement produced a month ago or a decade ago. (Unlike milk, butter, eggs or bread, a watch movement did not become stale.) And the reality of whether his movement began life at Waltham, Hamilton or perhaps even Illinois never occurred the buyer, remember Webb C. Ball created an illusion around his wares and running a large and powerful Time Inspection Service along with a far-flung retailing operation allowed him to run what today we regard as the most unusual and to many of us the most fascinating of all the Railroad Watch companies. The peculiarities of the Ball facility in Cleveland have to be understood as a company like no other, learning the details is a highly complex and time-consuming enterprise. Read, study, contemplate and ask a lot of questions my friend! Lindell | |||
|
Thanks again Lindell -after reading and digesting fully,I feel a lot better now, by the way the watch only lost 1 second in 33 hrs. again regards BOB M | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Your request is being processed... |
|
Welcome Aboard IHC185™ Internet Horology Club 185 IHC185™ Discussion Site Main Page Horological Discussions, Questions and Answers Pocket Watch Discussions Clarification of my aforementioned Ball-Waltham dial question
Internet Horology Club 185 IHC185™ Discussion Site Main Page Horological Discussions, Questions and Answers Pocket Watch Discussions Clarification of my aforementioned Ball-Waltham dial question©2002-2023 Internet Horology Club 185™ - Lindell V. Riddle President - All Rights Reserved Worldwide
| View $GS_USERNAME's User Profile |
| |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |