I find it interesting that of the Big Four Companies,that being, Waltham, Elgin, Illinois, and Hamilton, why is it that Hamilton seems #1, Illinois #2, Waltham #3, and then Elgin. What is the attraction of Hamilton and Illinois over the other two, especially the Elgins ?
I think the Elgins and Walthams made some of the most decorated movements, and good quality timepieces, where the other two Companies although less production numbers rate so high among collectors ?
That being said I am kind of happy about it as the price of Walthams and Elgins By and large are somewhat less.
Can someone answer this for me so I have a better idea.
Thaks,
Bill

Qality and quantity please do not get me wrong
Waltham made some great watches but 35,000,000
vis Illinos 5,600,000 and so on
I like Hamiltons but they are over rated to me
23jewels hamilton and 23 jewels waltham
big differenc in price.
Hamilton took over Illinois production thuse the
#1 and #2 spots
It should be Waltham,Elgin,Illinois and Hamilton
but that is my 2 cents.

One possible explanation is that although Waltham and Elgin could and did make some of the finest watches ever in America, they also made a ton of lower cost low jewel watches. Hamilton initially made a very few lower jewel count watches but from very early in their existence they then focused on high quality watches with a minimum of 17 jewels. Hamilton's efforts in WWII also increased their reputation because of their astounding ships chronometer and deck watches. Illinois has the most individual models and many of the rarest watches because of small runs. Illinois is maybe the most collectable watch group out there because of this. Just my 2 cents.

Right off the top . . . where is Hampden?

Clearly in the 20's and early 30's these "Big 4 (5)" watchmakers were more and more focused on their own paths in full denial of the devastating effect of Dollar Watches.

When we talk about them, remember that the smallest fraction of the watches made in total by these five companies were pocket Watches. Heck by wars end (WWII) I think the wristwatch production from Elgin KC eclipsed their own Elgin IL PW production + all of Waltham's. Finally Elgin topped out everybody with over 55,000,000 total production.

Hamilton had already left the Pocketwatch business except to service the RR market and were making top of the mark mechanical wrist watches.

Sadly all (but Elgin who never went that way) blew their leads when they thought electric watches were just that, not "electronic" . . . enter "Accutron" a Hybrid Electric/Electronic"!

I think people forgot Hampden, if you pick the same period of years and stop when Hampden went out of business actually made more watches that Hamilton. Hampden was close to 4 million watches made when they went out of business in 1928 and assets sold to Russia. I think it took Hamilton into the 30's before it sold 4 million watches. To say that Elgin could not make good watches because they made a ton of cheap watches is a bit far fetched. Up until the 992B/950B I would put any Elgin up against any Hamilton any day of the week. The 19/21/23 model 5 Hampdens are as good as the best also, with the 19 and 21 Railway and New Railway being better than the 992 and 952. Not all Elgins were the best, ditto for Hamilton, Hampden, Waltham, or Illinois. Some people get so "one tracked" they they miss or disregard the great watches made by the other companies. I have Walthams, Elgins, Hampdens, Illinois, Hamiltons, Rockfords, South Bends and even a Trenton or two. Pick any of the above brands with the exception of the Trenton and they were used on railroads day after day being knocked around by hard work and exposed to coal dust that creeps into any crevice it can find and keep ticking and keeping time. The 992B was a better design than the Elgin or Watham but at this point Elgin and Waltham were seeing tough times and the size of the company was a hindrance. The 571 is an accurate watch but got a bad reputation because abuse will cause problems with the setting mechanism which is called a defect, but no one considers the the melamine dial that falls apart at the drop of a hat a defect.

hampden do not bring good prices today, I do not get it, they're great watches

Andy there are some that will collect the Hampdens and enjoy the low price because people pass them by. Although it is clear from what I have seen in the prices that we have talked too much about Elgins and Hampdens. And yes Eric I ahve some Seth's also, between Seth and Rockford I don't know who makes the prettiest watch.

Even Hamilton's most accurate timepiece cannot compete for timekeeping against a $10 quartz Timex.

So you might as well collect what you personally consider to be the best-looking movements:

Big Four? - the land of Lincoln had an easy five all by itself (Illinois, Peoria, Aurora, Rockford, Elgin, etc)...

Some of the Rockfords or the Seths that are posted make you drool like a baby, there are some excellent timekeepers out there after they have been serviced but for the most part many of these watches have 50 to over 100 years of use so the fact they keep better time than a sun dial is amazing to me. Some watches like the AN Anderson 343 that I bought looked as though it had been used on the railroad or coalmine since it was loaded up with coal dust gunk, even with a spot of rust on the hairspring it keeps 30 secs within a week. The guy who serviced it talked about how filty it was, who knows how long it had run like that before the mainspring broke and it was put away. Sometime is it just nice to enjoy the abilities and hard work of the American workers that built these watches from an era long gone.

Great Comments, very informative. I did not mean to discount all the other manufacturers, Rockfords, Seths, Hampdens, etc. but was thinking of the ones that seemed to be making the lions share at the time.
Bill

I think that with Hamilton, from the very beginning of the company, their goal was perfection. They weren't too concerned about production numbers the way Elgin and Waltham were. And except for a very very few experimental models in their early years, Hamilton didn't produce anything less than 17j watches. From the beginning, they courted the railroad industry...THAT was their bread and butter. And when they won the government contract to manufacture ships chronometers (judged by some as the most accurate mass produced mechanical timepiece ever made), that put them over the top after the war. It also insured their longetivity after the war, as they had lots of government contracts for things that were not even timepiece related. Don't get me wrong...there are some wonderful watches from Elgin, Waltham, et al, but they also flooded the market with billions of 7 jewelled offerings, something that Hamilton never did. So, I believe it was Hamilton's unwavering perfectionism that put them in the top seat in the heiarchy. But, as Eric stated, even the Hamilton Model 21 Chronometer is no match for a quartz Timex. Regards, Brad

Brad the only comment I can say on the statement about perfection and Hamilton. If you look at Hamilton's pricing they priced their watches in the same price range as Hampden and South Bend (the 950B was up in the Veritas range) so if you look at the cost structure, Hamilton had no advantage in labor, material or better production efficiency than the other companies. If they were striving for "perfection" they would have fast gone out of business because "perfection" is labor intensive and unless Hamilton had some dramatic advantage over Waltham, Elgin, Hampden in the terms of labor costs, material costs, etc since the economics would not work at their pricing structure. Hamilton probably stayed in the RR market because clearly they could not out muscle Elgin, Waltham or Illinois prior to the 20's so pick a segment of the market and compete only in that segment, small companies do this all the time. I think Elgin also was involved with that contract but their first prototype did not make the grade and Hamilton won. To apply what happened with chrononmeter project and apply that result to all of the Hamilton's prior watches in regards to "perfection" would be a stretch. Also when they purchased Illinois they would have picked up all of their technology and research. Of the big companies Illinois was the one that was pushing the envelope on technology, Of Elgin, Hamilton, Waltham and Hampden only Illinois was adjusting the watches to 6 positions, you could also point to what Illinois was doing in regards to the 60hr 21 and 23 Bunn specials that was not being done by the other major competitors in that time frame. So if I would make a choice of perfection of the companies mentioned it would have been Illinois and not Hamilton since Illinois I think showed a clear tendency to pocket watch improvement over anyone else, up to their demise.

I am a sucker for a nice dan patch, any chrono or alarm. I found a Arnex hunters alarm last night to sell, love it, like a Vulcain cricket in a pocket watch. I love the oddball, the ugly duckling watch.

Andy count me in, lately I have picked up two Fusees and one 15j Swiss movement private label Swedish watch. I wound the 18s (appears to be 15j) fusee up and it is running and keeping decent time, things looks like it was used hard but still runs.

I thought Bill's original point in this thread regarded brand desirability among collectors and he is correct to that end that we seem to gravitate to Hamilton and Illinois watches over the far larger quantity available of Elgin and Waltham brands.

There is little argument about the significant technical improvements each watchmaker introduced and also some of the gaffes; Hamilton's "Motor barrel", first Generation Elgin and Illinois 16s movements that could "Break on the showroom floor", etc.

Bill's rhetorical question remains "Why Hamilton and Illinois"? I think the Hamilton name became the traditional reference for "Railroad" watches, and Illinois (among experienced collectors) made unique, beautifully finished art into watches to their last day which combined with a relatively large remainder (supply) of Heirlooms coming to market gave them both value and availability.

I always have to add, no other but Illinois made anything like the Getty! What perfection of design and function!

Discussions of what's best presuppose we all agree on the measuring criteria, which we never do.

Nevertheless, surely all of us agree that during the 19th Century, Waltham made the most interesting, innovative, and collectible watches of these four companies, e.g., the AWCO Model 1872. I think we all would also agree that starting around 1900, Waltham rapidly declined to the least interesting of these companies.

Likewise, surely all of us agree that Hamilton was pre-eminent from 1940 and on.

That leaves three contenders for the 1900-1940 era, but we will never reach agreement because we have different criteria. For example, most posters to this board are fixated on railroad watches, particularly 20th Century ones. So it isn't surprising that most of you seem to hold Hamilton in the highest esteem.

However, as a contrarian who has zero interest in railroad watches but who collects watches from all four of these companies in approximately equal numbers, let me speak up for Elgin during the 1900-40 period. During this era, as far as I know, neither Hamilton nor Illinois made any freesprung watches (the Hamilton Model 21 is a clock), any 18-size 3/4 plate watches, or as stylish a range of 12-size watches. No one made higher grade or more beautiful watches at the time than e.g., Elgin's Grade 156/162, Grade 190/194, or Grade 446. Elgins may generally be less collected, but grades like these are hard to find and quite expensive.

quote:

Discussions of what's best presuppose we all agree on the measuring criteria, which we never do

I will second that. While the criteria isnt specific to each collector there are so many variations in the hobby that its hard to nail down what the ranking is for companies are unless you specify the criteria. Is it quality? Quantity? Sales? If sales, where are you getting the sales data? What data to look at, dollars, or units sold?

Sometimes you hear the same hyperbole about some brands but if you look in the time frame from the 1880's to 1930 (since by 1930 Illinois and Hampden, South Bend and others were gone or going) in that time frame and look at innovations or improvements to the watches Waltham, Illinois and Elgin come to mind. Illinois up until 1928 only sold about around 5 million watches, Hampden in the same frame 4 million, Elgin and Waltham were the big two at 31 mil (Elgin) and 26 mil (Waltham). Elgin came out with the innovative 18s 3/4 plate which they paid a dear price in doing because the RR market moved to the 16s and Elgin was behind there. Elgin movements like the Hubbard 12s or Lord Elgin 351 16s were as well made as possible, toss in the Waltham Riverside Maximus and a few others for Waltham. Grades that were innovative or outide the norm that were made by Illinois would take more than two hands to count.

Hampden pushed the limits on the jewel count and Deuber fought a lot of battles and won more than a few along the way. Up to the point that Hamilton purchased Illinois there are not too many Hamilton grades that you can say were pushing the envelope of design or innovation. They made proven designs and did not over-extend themselves financially which allowed them to survive longer.

Dave mentioned earlier by 1929-1930 the writing was on the wall for pocket watches and most companies were trying to adapt as best they could. Between wristwatches and overseas competition and a shrinking market, I am sure that by 1940 most CEOs were not putting much money into pocket watch R&D, that money was flowing to the wristwatch products.

Another thing is the detailed published production records we have for Hamilton and Illinois . . . that helps collectibility.

Why Hamilton? In my opinion they were better advertisers than the other companies and they focused on a higher end market, not spending time and capital on the low end. I love Erics Seth Thomas watches and apparently he is afflicted with Seth Thomas disease as I am with Hampden disease! However Seth Thomas as a very successful clock maker saw what was coming and stopped watch production in 1915 to focus on their business core. Hamiltons core being higher grade watches they in effect did the same. The others did not see what was ahead. Hamilton also played the political game well and continued to make railroad watches until 1969 in large part because they received substantial Federal funds to make sure that the United States had trained watch makers just in case we needed mechanical clock work fuses for warfare. I do think when accurate records and large supply are available that feeds the collector interest. I will put my 23 jewel 16s Hampden 104 or Special Railway up against any Hamilton, Illinois or Waltham or Elgin for time keeping ability and quality but no records from a smaller company and the disdain some collectors feel for the "orphan" company means lower prices and fewer collectors. That is fine with me. I think Dave Abbe will agree with me that many who have a 940 or 946 they treasure may not know for instance that Hampdens main designer of the Hampden 18s Railway models was hired by Hamilton and did the design. Really it all comes down to what we personally find interesting and I know several dollar watch collectors who like their prizes as much as I like mine. I think I will add some Seth Thomas's to my tackle box as they make nice sinkers when I go for catfish.

This is some good reading boys!

Excellent thread. As a newbie - my answer (this week) is that Hamilton made it to the finish line.
I have had the bizarre experience of STARTING (unwittingly) with a post-production 992B, 45 years ago. When I stared "collecting", about a year ago, my first goal was to lay down minimal coverage of the major brands in the narrow range of "American made RR watches". Having done that, I have returned to my roots, and my principle guiding light is: how does this watch fit into, and contribute to understanding, the line of development that ENDED with the 992B.

That may be simplistic, and it may be naive - but I think it's a reasonable collecting principle. It takes me from the 1970 Hamilton back through Ball-Hamilton's (and then everything Ball-X). It takes me through Illinois, with sidetracks to Hampden and Rockford. Eventually, it takes me to very early Walthams and Elgins - and then...I don't know where - check with me in 10 years, perhaps to England.

It may be crass - but in the marketplace the place of pride goes to the survivor. Figuring out WHY Hamilton survived, and others fell short, is of course interesting, and opens the floor to lots and lots of interesting commentary and debate.

For me, the first question is: where does this watch fit on the timeline that ended in 1970?
If I get a good answer, then it's a candidate. If I don't, then sometimes there's a secondary, peripheral reason why I like/want/need that watch - but that requires a separate justification. These examples decorate the side-branches of my collection and are the exceptions that prove the rule. Sometimes, they are just "pretty" - but they may well turn into seeds of future exploration. My collection is still much too small...

Ken, (and anybody else who has not done so) IHC185 rescued the remaining editions in print of "American Watchmaking" the well known (and very well written) research of the evolution of the US watch making industry. It includes a very easy to understand "Family Tree" that will answer many questions about where it all started and then evolved.

This is for sale in the Book and Gift Store section of our website.

To properly ground your watch collecting as well as look into such things as the Hamilton story, this book has the all-important depth of history that allows you to be successful.

Simple answer is, because Hamilton and Illinois (with a few exceptions such as 23j Walthams, Elgins, and Wind Indicators) made better watches.

I don't have David's long years around pocket watch movements, so I'm hoping he will speak to this, but I found that Hamiltons fell back together easier than some of the others. Good engineering(?), or maybe just my experience.

Michael Harrold's American Watchmaking is indeed an education, by the way. I like it enough to want a hardbound version, but that will cost a bunch now. Anyway, recommended.

quote:

posted January 04, 2015 12:20
Simple answer is, because Hamilton and Illinois (with a few exceptions such as 23j Walthams, Elgins, and Wind Indicators) made better watches.

This is a very interesting thread, and as I just joined your group, I was very pleased to see the interest, and knowledge base, of those commenting on this topic. Speaking as a watchmaker and not a collector, although I have an extensive collection of these watches for some reason, I look at these four brands from a view point of ability to be repaired, robust design, perceived value from the customer that is willing to pay for intensive hand labor, I do find Illinois and Hamilton watches to lead this group in supporting the cost to repair. I find that with the others, though in many cases good watches, people will not spend the money to get them repaired to good running condition but will decline repair and settle with displaying the watch in a hanging dome for sentimental reasons. There is no question that quality control was tighter, or procedures of manufacture was more robust, for both Illinos and Hamilton due to the ease of parts going together smoothly compared to the other mentioned watches. I do not mean to imply that the others were poorly built watches but there is just an obvious difference in parts mating back together crisply. I believe I will really enjoy this online forum, the first I have written on, and now that I am retired and only work on what I choose to, I will have more time to evaluate the items of discussion these various watches have brought to this forum. Thanks for a great resurrected post.

Reed has a very good point about the general serviceability of these watches.

My experience is that Waltham was very serviceable through the early 1900's and then went downhill from then when Mgmt. was transferred to Bean-counters. As for Elgin, they were the highest volume mass-producer of jeweled movement watches during the 1st half of the 20th century and as Reed mentioned were denigrated for their "commonality". I have experienced less difficulty with 1910-40's Elgin than Waltham and especially with higher jeweled movements.

All that said, when Elgin turned their attention to wristwatches, their marginally serviceable "5xx" Pocket Watch line suffered.

Illinois were always so beautifully executed that you had to be a real BUM not to enjoy working on them. Hamilton worked hard on a design that was truly "parts-interchangeable" . . . meaning good tooling and minimal parts count/complexity.

In this a lot of people apply later era watches to earlier era watches. I don't see a 992 as being better built than an equivalent BWR, Vanguard or Hampden model 5 or Bunn Special. FWIW I think any of the watches I mentioned are better than the 992 in the 1900-1928 time frame.

I used 1928 as the end since both Hampden and Illinois disappeared around this time frame. The saving grace for Hamilton was that they picked a market segment that for the most part was not killed by the great depression where the larger companies had more overhead, their market more diverse and to deal with the loss of sales both updates in design and equipment suffered.

To compare a 992B to any of the watches in the 1900-1928 time frame without regards to brand, even Hamilton is absurd and would be like comparing a Model A Ford to a 1957 Ford.

Waltham and Elgin were large companies and were focused where the market was and as others have mentioned that market was moving toward wristwatches and away from pocket watches.

I would not have any problem saying that a Hampden model 5 21j New Railway or 23j Special Railway or Elgins 21j-23j Veritas along with the 21j/23J Bunn Specials were as good or better than the 992 or 950 in the pre-1928 time frame.

Sometimes people get into the herd mindset, was a 57 chevy better than a 57 Fury or a 57 Fairlane, doubtful but that is mindset of many collectors.

A comment on what David Abbé said about the value of learning the history of the American watches through the valuable book by Michael C. Harrold, "American Watchmaking" shown in David's post is something any serious collector should own. After reading his post I went to our shops library and found two copies that were purchased by the journeyman watchmaker I spent a lot of my critical watchmaking apprentice time under in the early 1970's. He was a tremendous collector and we have stacks of books for Swiss, Japanese, English, Aamerican, etc., watch and clock works that are tremendous aids when working or collecting in this field. Looking over the two copies of the "American Watchmaking" books I noticed that one of them was very dogged eared and notes marked in it from Mr. Hysel. He used it enough to know he wanted a spare, and these books are rather recent, a 1984 supplement to the Bulletin. So in summary this book is a valuable source of excellent researched information on American Watchmaking, thanks for mentioning that publication David!