I recently acquired the 992B Hamilton pictured below. It has a mint, melamine Montgomery dial, however it seems to be missing the digits at 5, 10, 15, etc. Has anyone seen a dial like this before? It could be completely normal, I just don't have anything to compare it to.

Also, the serial number of this 992B is C489382 which dates to the late 1950s. The Hamilton-signed Model #17 Star W. C. Co case has the serial number R803021. I don't see any other case screw marks. The case is in wonderful condition. Is it possible to tell if this is the original case to the watch?

Thanks,

John III

Movement

Case Markings

Front of watch with Bezel on

I've seen Montgomery dials with the red-numbers extremely faded. Are you certain that is not what happened?

Peter,

That was one of the two conclusions I had initially, that the red letters faded. However,under a strong light and magnification, I cannot see any traces of red letting. Also, the rest of the dial is so bright, that it doesn't match a fading scenario.

The other conclusion I had was that this is a normal, but rare variant, and I just haven't come across it yet.

Thanks for the input,

John

Gentlemen,

I was just wanting to know what is melamine? I am so new I have never came across an explanation yet.

Thanks,

John

Melamine is a hard plastic. When I was young it was used to make cheap dinner ware. I think it may still be available in that application but probably no longer called Melmac.

As well as low-cost dinnerware, melamine is also widely used to make low-cost surfacing material for kitchen cabinets and countertops. Any material called "plastic laminate" in these applications will most likely be melamine.

Getting back to melamine watch dials, there is a wealth of material already posted on this website. A key word search on "melamine dials" across the whole site gives 120 hits:

Click here to view search results for "melamine dials"

Lindell,

I really have to disagree with you about the dial even though I respect your opinion as a well known dial expert. In examining this dial and comparing it to other RR Special dials that I have, it is the brightest and closest to mint that I have seen. It is paper white compared to the other Hamilton four melamine dials that I have. My pictures don't do it justice.

My issue with fading scenario is that there is absolutely no trace of any of the red numbers. If it was a fading issue, I would expect to see some traces of at least one of the numbers. It certainly appears to me that there never were any red numbers applied to this dial.

Also, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that Quality Control at Hamilton was perfect in the sixties. I could think of several scenarios in which a less than perfect dial could have ended up on a watch. I can buy six 2 L bottles of Listerine in my company store for $1 because they have slight imperfections on the labels. Perhaps Hamilton didn't just throw away materials that were not perfect, but sold them at a discount.

These are just my thoughts. I would like to send the watch to you to have you inspect it and tell me if it looks like other faded dials you have seen. I will also send the 18s hands that I promised a month ago.

Thanks a bunch for the details on the Model 17 case. It seems like there is a possibility that this case/dial/movement combination is original.

John III

I have to agree that I have not seen a Melamine Montgomery with completely faded red-lettering. I too would expect to find some remnant of the lettering, however faint.

But... Melamine is funny stuff. I would not guarantee that some chemical, used in cleaning, didn't kill those red letters. Still.... I'm hard pressed to believe that they would be totally obliterated.

Here's a scenario that might work. I don't know if Hamilton made their own Melamine dials or outsourced them. But.... suppose that some dials were made without red-numbers, as defects. Although it was probably Hamilton's policy (or it's subcontractor's) to destroy those dials, you can never be 100% sure of everyone's honesty. Someone might have simply grabbed a handful of discarded defects and kept or sold them OR they might have been found after Hamilton (or the subcontractor) stopped producing them.

You're right John.... even the US Mint lets defects slip through, from time to time... .and often it is traced to a dishonest employee.

On the uses of Melamine... one of the largest uses, these days, is for those "black-boards" that use the erasable markers. That stuff if Melamine AND there is a specific cleaner for them. I'd think an experiment with that cleaner is very tempting (unless it's just a solution of soapy water )

I worked in the printing industry for 30+ yrs and there is not enough quality control in the world to assure "no defects" leave the building. The red and black I am sure were applied as separate steps, and each dial could have looked just like John's example at a point in the process. The first few sheets in a printing press are discarded until the color comes up, and this was probably the case with dials.

Although my first reaction was fading of the red numberals, I can see where Johns assumptions could be more likely. My guess is it came out of the discard pile.

Charlie

The numbers were just printed on these melamine dials. They were not fired.

So if a chemical solvent-cleaner was used on this dial, it is entirely possible that the red numbers could have been dissolved without a trace and not the black ones, due to some difference in the ink composition.

On the other hand, Charlie's "discard pile" theory can't be dismissed out of hand either.
The only way I can think of to be absolutely certain that was the case would be if the dial was still in a sealed NOS cellophane wrapper, which is not the case here.

So I guess what we have here is an "argumentative example" to borrow Mike Chamelin's phrase.

However, until other examples like John's dial can be found, I have to lean toward something (like sunlight and/or chemical cleaners) having made the red numbers go away as the more likely explanation.

Bottom line: This is most likely an ordinary dial that has simply been degraded over the years rather than some rare manufacturing error.

The late Bill Meggers once quoted Roy Ehrhardt to me:

Roy always says "It's better to own one of two
known than to own the only one known."

Gentlemen,

I really appreciate the input. While I would like to hope I have something special, some of the points made above by well-respected folks make me less optimistic. Either way, it is an interesting discussion.

Thanks,

John iII

I have problems with the discarded pile theory. I have talked to many Hamilton employees from those days. If they were caught doing such a thing, they would have been fired on the spot, and they were watched carefully. One friend was almost fired when he was told to dispose of some material and another supervisor saw him near the disposal area and reported him. They called him to the head office and were about to can him when the first supervisor came to veryify the story. I know of a few hairsprings that made it out of the factory near the very end, but it was very dangerous and employees knew the risk was not worth the reward.

I vote for the bleached numbers.

Don

Hi John,

I have 992B:
C494194 in a Star model #17 P370367

My brother Tom has 992B:
C492609 in a Star model #17 P884924

This may further validate what Lindell stated: "that Hamilton apparently paid little or no attention to rotation of case inventory"

Mike