I saw an ad for a 17J 16-A movement that described it as Swiss-made, but I haven’t found any other references to Swiss-made 16-A’s. The movement, like all 16-A’s I’ve seen, said “Waltham U.S.A.” on it. Were 16-A movements made in Switzerland?

The only two 21J 16-A movements I’ve found on the net were described as lever-set, but all of the 21J 16-A movements listed in Roy Ehrhardt’s Waltham PW Guide (page 133) are described as pendant-set. How common were lever-set vis-à-vis pendant-set 21J 16-A’s?

Were there any lever-set 17J 16-A’s?

I’ve seen three different regulators on apparently unmodified 17J 16-A’s. Does this square with what others have seen?

16-A’s are marked “5 adjustments.” Does anyone know what that meant in terms of temperature/isochronism/positions?

Were there any other 16-size post-war Walthams besides 16-A’s?

Thank you!

Judging from my 1958 Waltham material catalog they made several different grades based on the 16-size Model A movement (also designated 1945 model). There was a 23-Jewel Vanguard marked 8 adjustments. The material catalog page explains this as 6 positions, temperature and isochronism. A setting lever is listed in the parts. [The Vanguard has a safety barrel, probably to utilize the jeweled barrel].

There were also the grades 1617 and 1621 with 17 and 21 jewels, respectively [with a "running barrel"]. The material list and illustrated plate indicate 5 adjustments, which is probably 3 positions, temperature and isochronism. A set lever is listed for the 1621 and a shipper lever for pendant set 1617.

Here is a picture of a pendant-set 1617 from the first run, marked 3 positions and adj.temp. Isochronism was assumed.

Stu,
I have two model 16-As (see poor quality scan below). I think all examples of this model are American made. These are both 17j, pendant set. The only difference is the one on the left has "Adj.temp" with "3 pos." marked near the crown wheel like JerryT`S and the other has "5 adjustments" the dials are different and one has what I believe you call skeleton hands.
Shugart only lists the 17j 16-A model and a 22j model 16-A with 24 hr. dial.
And that`s all I know about that!



Kenny

[This message was edited by Kenny D on November 17, 2003 at 3:40.]

Thank you Jerry and Kenny!

Now a topic that wasn't particularly interesting to me has taken a turn and touched a subject that's near and dear to my heart!

The regulator on the watch above is an Incabloc "Incastar," which was invented by Universal Escapement, LTD., of La Chaux-de-Fonds Switzerland, in the 1940s. At one time, Jules Borel & Co. of Kansas City Missouri was the exclusive US distributor, and over the years, I've accumulated what I believe to a complete collection of the various Incastar models offered by the company.

Essentially, the Incastar was designed to allow a "free sprung" hairspring to be regulated by means of a capstan roller, which rolled a portion of the hairspring in or out to regulate the rate. That was accomplished by means of a pair of "rollers," one of which was attached to the "star," by which it could be manually turned. Obviously, by shortening or lengthening the hairspring, the beat would be affected, and the entire device was made so that it could be rotated around the Incabloc assembly, in order to correctly adjust the beat.

Of the millions of watches that used the Incabloc shoch resist system, only a tiny portion of those incorporated the Incastar regulators. They seem to be most common on Borel watches from the 1940s and 50s, but I've occasionally seen them on Angelus, Doxa, and other somewhat "obscure" Swiss brands as well. The Waltham in the image above is the ONLY American watch I can recall seeing with one.

The image below shows five different Incabloc demonstrator models, in descending order from oldest to newest. The one at the top is a standard Incabloc model, while the four below are different variations of the Incastar models. If anyone happens to notice any other Incabloc models on eBay, or anywhere else, I'd appreciate it if they'd call them to my attention.

==============

Steve Maddox
Past President, NAWCC Chapter #62
North Little Rock, Arkansas
IHC Charter Member 49

Steve, you’ve posted info of interest to me so many times; it pleases me to have (serendipitously!) posted something (the Incastar) that interests you.

I’ve never seen regulators like the ones in the two movements above the Incastar. I hope you or someone can tell me: are they "micrometric" regulators? how would the user operate them?

Thanks a lot as always!

[This message was edited by Dog on November 17, 2003 at 17:23.]

Stu,

Maybe I'm missing something, but the regulators on the watches you posted on 11-17-2003, at 6:06, appear to be simple "index" regulators, which are the most basic types made. To adjust the rate using such a regulator, the "tail" thereof is moved with any convenient implement (a toothpick, for example), and the scale beneath shows the relative degree of change. They are "simple" regulators, not "micrometric" ones.

Am I confused about the question you're asking?

====================

SM

Stu,

If you are referring to the two 16-A`s I posted, they are both micrometric like a normal whiplash regulator with adjusting screw. Only the spring is a half-whiplash.



Kenny

I have a Waltham marked 16-A and 5 adjustments; serial number 32050560. It’s pendant-set. According to “Numbers and Descriptions of Waltham Watch Movements” in Roy Ehrhardt’s Waltham Pocket Watch Guide (p 132) the first 16-A was produced in 1948.

But according to that same reference (p 131) that SN is a model 1945 (not 16-A), unadjusted, lever-set, produced in 1945.

I understand full well that Mr. Ehrhardt did the best he could with the limited info available to him in 1976 (and no computer!).

My question is: has any new info surfaced since 1976 that would help to resolve these discrepancies? I'd like to know as accurately as possible, for example, when the movement was produced, and whether or not there're any differences between a "model 1945" and a "model 16-A."

Thanks in advance!

The first "Model A" 16-size watches were produced in March 1945, according to the Waltham serial number list. (The dates of these late watches are right there in the list). I believe that Roy just reproduced this Walham list, so you may be mis-reading it. If you look up my 16-A, posted above, you should find the correct date for the first run.

Thanks Jerry for being willing to help me muddle through this!

I just looked up your 16-A’s SN in Roy’s book, p 131. It says that it’s a model 1945. But model A’s are listed as model A’s on pp 132 -133. Are we saying that the SN’s Roy listed as model 1945 on p 131 and the SN’s he listed as model A on pp 132-133 are the same model?

Your “page 131 16-A” and my “page 131 16-A” both have micrometric regulators. Of the two 16-A’s shown above that have simple index regulators, the SN of one (black background) can’t be seen; the SN of the other (red background) would make it a “p 133 16-A.” Do you suppose that maybe all first-run “p 131 16-A’s” have micrometric regulators while later-run “p 132-133” 16-A’s have simple index regulators?

I wouldn’t want to infer a mountain in this tiny molehill if you or anyone else knows of any evidence to the contrary!

[This message was edited by Dog on November 23, 2003 at 16:34.]

Yes, the grade 1617 listed as 16-A or 1945 model on different pages are the same model and grade. You may be onto something with the different regulator setups. As time went by Waltham found many ways to cut costs and this appears to be one of them.

[By the way, this is not Roy's serial number list. He is just one person who has reproduced it. When referring to page numbers it will help more people if you use the Waltham page number in the upper right or left corners, as this will be the same in any of the reproductions (or original copies). My movement is on Waltham's page 111.]

“As time went by Waltham found many ways to cut costs.”

Insofar as that meant discarding non-functional frou-frou like damaskeening, engraving, gilt, gold jewel settings, screwed jewel settings, two-tone colorings, double-sunk dials, etc., I admire it as a kind of “streamlining”: hello uncluttered, goodbye glitz.

Changing over from micrometric regulators to simple index ones, though, is a loss of function.

Or is it? I don’t have enough experience to know: Webb Ball’s edicts notwithstanding, can an experienced person regulate just as well with a simple index?

Jerry, are the 16S AO (Army Ordinance?) 1617’s (Waltham pp 110-111) also identical with the 1945 1617’s and the 16-A 1617’s?

"Can an experienced person regulate [a watch] just as well with a simple index [as with a micrometric regulator]?"

Yes, and no. An experienced watchmaker with an electronic timing machine can regulate a watch just as well with a simple regulator as with a micrometric one, but electronic timing machines haven't always been available.

In the old days, watchmakers didn't have any means by which to "instantly" tell how much change an adjustment made in the rate of a given watch. As a result, the micrometric regulator added some sort of "mathematical" estimate to the process. If a watchmaker turned the regulator screw 1 round and it made a difference of 10 seconds per day, it would be easy to see that 1/2 round would change the rate 5 seconds per day, or 2 rounds would change the rate 20 seconds per day.

With a simple index, that isn't as easy. Even with the scale behind the pointer, it's very difficult to move the regulator in precise amounts, especially if one happens to "slip" and accidentally move it more than intended.

Of course, with an "instantaneous" timing machine, it really doesn't matter; the rate of a watch can be determined instantly, and regulation can be accomplished in a matter of minutes, rather than a matter of days or weeks.

DO NOT confuse the term "regulate" with the term "adjust." Regulate simply means setting the regulator to a position where the "average errors" essentially cancel each other out. In other words, if a particular watch runs 6 seconds fast in the dial-up and dial-down positions, but only 4 seconds fast while stem-up, stem-left, and stem-right, the approximate correct regulation would be to set the regulator where the watch runs about 1 second fast in the horizontal positions, while losing about that same amount in all the verticals. In order to do that, the overall rate would need to be slowed by approximately 5 seconds per day.

Adjustment is the toughest part of watchmaking, and it's something of an "art," within a "science." While some adjustments are universally effective, a few that would have one particular effect in one watch, might have exactly the opposite effect in a different model. Basically, "adjusting" is getting a watch to keep time as consistently as possible in a variety of different conditions (temperature, position, and state of wind), and mastering it can take a lifetime of careful study.

No watch ever has, or ever will keep absolutely perfect time, but any watch that shows a consistent gaining or losing rate, can be "regulated" to the point of "random error." That's the point at which a watch is just as likely to lose time on a given day, as it is to gain, so that the overall long-term average is approximately correct. For a watch that's closely adjusted, the point of random error might be as little as +/- 1 second per day, while for a low-quality unadjusted watch, regulation to the point of random error might be as much as +/- several minutes per day.

If anyone is interested in the subject of positional and/or thermal and/or isochronal adjustment, please feel free to start a new topic about it in the "Watch Repairs...." forum. I've written on the subject extensively in the past, and I'll be happy to try to re-post some of my previous "dissertations," as well as answer any specific questions anyone might have.

=======================

SM

I saw those production runs and did not know what to say about them. They were produced in 1943 and 1944, so it does not seem likely they would be a 1945 model (these were not cars). The Waltham material catalog lists 32,029,001 as the first 16-A (1945 model), which is afterwards. Until one (an AO) is seen and reported we really don't know what the AO was. Maybe the 1945 model will turn out to be the same, but civilian models?

I just thought to look in the War Department Technical Manual for maintenance of ordnance watches (April 1945). It shows the Waltham 9 and 17 jewel 16-size pocket watches which must be the 16AO grades 1609 and 1617. It looks like these are an update of the 1908 model 16-size, as they still have the safety barrel (as opposed to the running barrel on the 16-A grade 1617). Other parts are also in common with the 1908 model rather than the 1945 model (based on part number).

The serial numbers on the two 16-As that I have posted above are "32031949" (left pic) and "32047627" (right pic). This would make them the 2,948th and 18,626th examples of the 16-A production according to the first serial stated in Jerry`s post. So we know that micrometric regulators were a feature through serial "32047627". Would be interesting if we could pin it down further.



Kenny

The top plates shown in TM 9-1575 look like those designated Model 16-A in Shugart 2002 (p 135) and Jerry’s and Kenny's and my 1945 16-A gr. 1617’s, not like 1908’s. Maybe this is a case of evolution -- AO as link between 1908 and 16-A?

Also: Does “evolution” from the AO’s safety barrel to the 16-A’s running barrel imply that 16-A’s have the advantage of new-alloy “unbreakable” mainsprings or is it just an example of “as time went by Waltham found many ways to cut costs”?

[This message was edited by Dog on November 24, 2003 at 5:13.]

Waltham says, "all civilian watches manufactured after May, 1945...have running type barrels which require mainsprings with tongue brace." The 1945 16-A's are listed as March 1945.

Jerry or Kenny have you ever looked inside your 1945 16-A 1617's to see what kind of barrel is there?

The mainspring recommended for Waltham Ordnance pocket watches in TM 9-1575 is #2227 – the same one recommended by Waltham for model 1908’s.

Does anyone have the number of the mainsprings recommended for 1945 16-A 1617's, or for later 16-A 1617's?

[This message was edited by Dog on November 24, 2003 at 12:57.]

I can see the teeth on the perimeter of the barrel in my 1945 16-A 1617 and in Jerry’s; they must be going barrels.

Stu, the main wheel teeth will be visible regardless of barrel type.

The 16-A (1945 model) uses a #2247 mainspring.

Jerry or Kenny since I can’t tell the type of barrel without removing the top plate if you have ever removed the top plate of your 1945 model 16-A could you please tell me if it has a safety barrel or a going barrel? I would sure appreciate it.

Stu,

I have never taken either barrel out but according to "The Illustrated Manual of American Watch Movements" they have a "running" barrel. I do know they have a friction balance staff.



Kenny

Thanks Kenny! Does it say if they have a safety pinion?

I see no reference to a safety pinion.



Kenny