I have an Elgin 162 from ~1897 production. It has a later (?after 1906?)dial and heavier Bruguet hands. I was wondering if folks here feel this was a later change, or an example of a high grade movement which sat in back stock till after the dial format change. Thanks!

Movement

Case back

No matter the verdict on the hands and dial, that is one heck of a nice watch and case either way.

I don't know but that is one nice looking watch!

I don't think the hands or dial are time correct and I am not sure the hands are even Elgin hands. In the time frame of the production the <<Elgin>> dial would be correct. Normally you see the 156 and 162 with thin spade hands but I have seen them with moon hands and moon hands were correct for the 155/161 and the later 243/246 which was the 156/162's 17j little brothers. Elgin's moon hands do not look like the ones on this watch which is why I don't think they are even Elgin hands.

I believe I can illustrate the dial/hand combinations that Claude believes to be correct with examples from my collection, starting with the dial and hands on a Grade 155 hunter, serial number 6,568,040, in a 14k Hayden Wheeler case.

Here are the dial and hands from a Grade 156 hunter, # 10,249,599, in a 14k W.W.C.Co. case.

Here are the dial and hands on OF Grade 161, #6,591,740, in a ygf case (the photo is from eBay; I had the watch sent directly to my watchmaker for a COA).

Here are the dial and hands on an OF Grade 162, #8,497,439, in a 14k Roy case.

These four watches illustrate Claude's point that thin moon hands were correct for the 155/161 and thin spade hands were correct for the 156/162. Claude also said that "moon hands were correct for . . . the later 243/246 which was (sic) the 156/162's 17j little brothers." However, my Grade 243 hunter (#9,723,970, in a 14k Dubois W. C. Co. case) has thin spade hands.

Kevin, A watch that "old" could easily have needed a new dial and hands later on if and when it got "pole-axed" by some unfortunate event of it's existence. But now I am sure that as one of the highest grades made by Elgin, your "1 0f 4,000 ever made" model 162 deserves a dial and hands that reflect it's period. For the time being though, at least it is a complete (and very attractive movement) watch.

I would like to thank everyone for their kind comments, and informative photographs. It made me feel guilty for not looking through my own stuff. My dial/hand combos were 155 ds <<ELGIN>> roman numerals ~1896, 161 ds ELGIN roman numerals ~1895 moon hands, 243 ds ELGIN roman numerals ~1901 fine spade hands. I agree the hands on the 162 look odd. I'll try to see what hands I have in my box-o-hands. My minimal dial stash didn't turn up anything with the <<ELGIN>> (fleur de lis)logo, and the movement is too classy for a fancy multi-color dial. Think I'll keep the current one, at least for now. Again, thanks!!!!!

Ethan's posts are correct, I use the <<Elgin>> to represent the Fleur de Lis that is on each side of the stylistic Elgin font. You can find the 156/162 with the block Elgin font on later serial numbers so if you change the hands I doubt that many people would say much since these are great movements. I have the 156/162 along with the 155/161 and the 243/246, these are great movements both the 21j versions and the 17j versions. In ads for the 155/161 and they mention moon hands, on the others I have seen both which may have been a personal taste decision when the watch was purchased originally.

One of the nice things, and there are a number of nice things, about our club, is that we share so readily with each other. There is so much great information here!

Here is my C.D. Peacock 246 with moon hands

One added note you will note the style of the numbering being different between the 162 and C.D. Peacock dial I posted. I rarely see this style of number font on anything other than the 155/162. I think the only reason it shows up on my 246 is because it is a private label since this one would probably have the block Elgin font like Ethan's 243 dial post, or the same look but in Arabic form. And Ethan's 162 is even more stylized than my CD Peacock dial.