What's unusual about this 16s Ball ORRS

June 05, 2006, 10:38

Ron Birchall

Lindell's Ball ( VERY UNCOMMON, BALL 19J ORRS PENDANT-SET IN EXHIBITION CASE! ) was uncommon because it was finished as a pendant set. I also have what I believe is an uncommon Waltham/Ball.

What's unusual about this otherwise plain Ball ORRS:

(Ed Ueberall is disqualified for the next several hours.

)

June 05, 2006, 10:47

Ron Birchall

Movement (serial B230523):

June 05, 2006, 14:46

Charles R. Sides

Its an OFFICAL RR Std marked plate but would not have been accepted by the RR's since it was pendant set.

Ball was already making a pendant set Commercial Std using this same dial, so it is a mystery why they would make an official RR Std in pendant style. Seems the dial should also be marked ORRS.

Assume Lindell would have checked the serial numbers to make sure this was not a made up parts watch before buying

June 05, 2006, 15:45

Ron Birchall

Sorry Charlie!

Lindel's was a pendant set; mine is lever set.

Hint 1: the movement photo tells the story.

Hint 2: See Ed and Kent's Railroader's Corner, Bulletin, August 2002 (p 479)

Thanks for playing.

June 05, 2006, 16:22

Lindell V. Riddle

Charlie, you're right about the serial numbers on my watch, it checks out to be a correct, original Official Rail-Road Standard movement, dial and hands combination. (I put it in a pendant-set display case for maximum exposure without risking the movement.) However I must ask you to look more closely at the dial, those are not the same style numerals we find used on Commercial Standard movements and it is in fact an original ORRS style dial.

The patented ORRS numbers as you see them on that particular dial were in fact used in combination with "Ball Watch Co., Cleveland" signature on that and other ORRS dials on both Ball-Waltham and Ball-Hamilton movements in the mid-teens time frame. That even includes those used on the ultra-rare Ball-Waltham Indicators and yes we do have an ORRS Ball-Hamilton with the exact-same signature and numerals. Hope this information is of help.

Now, back to Ron's watch... is that a "21" plug on the train bridge?

June 05, 2006, 16:50

Ron Birchall

Bingo! We have a winner!

Lindel is correct as the enlargement below clearly shows. This Ball was originally intended to be a 19j watch and ultimately finished as a 21j movement. The Railroader's Corner noted serial B230743 as the only known (to the authors) up-jeweled movement at the time.

I wonder how many of these have been noted since the August 2002 Bulletin?

I also wonder about the necessity for up-jeweling. The Ball serial chart list ca 1907 for my watch with the first of the 19j started in 1904. Possibly, the watch was finished somewhat later than 1907. According to the same Bulletin article, Ball started buying 16s, 21j and 23j movements from Hamilton. As noted, it is likely that some number of unfinished 19j Walthams in inventory needed to be up-jeweled before Ball would take them.

Congratulations Lindel! I knew I couldn't stump the experts for very long.

June 05, 2006, 19:29

Charles R. Sides

I feel like the little kid in the class with his hands up saying PICK ME PICK ME , then blows it with the wrong answer.

Thought that WAS Lindell's watch. BTW, I would have bid on it if I was not watch poor right now.