Did jewelers put movements in the wrong cases? In the best of both worlds, everything matches. But if it doesn't, does that mean the watch was monkeyed with? Could someone walk into a store and select a movement and case that really didn't go together?

Jim

Jim,

Generally speaking you're seeing something done recently to upgrade the total package, more often than not simply to increase value.

Another reason can be that a user purchased a replacement movement way back when. But more often than not it relates to something done recently. For example I have more than once bought a plentiful Elgin model, and used the case to house a far more desirable movement. There are those who decry this practice, but in many instances it adds tremendously to not only the value of my collection, but my personal enjoyment.

I draw the line where authenticity really matters, but even that is a judgement call.

So far as a movement not "matching" a case, I recently found a Hamilton 940 in a South-Bend marked case. There were no other case marks and I am absolutely convinced it represented an original combination. Ninety years ago you chose the movement, then selected a case from the selling jeweler's inventory. It is also conceivable that the choice could have been of a case which although not yet sold already was on display with another movement. In that situation just what is correct?

You've brought up a controversial subject, and often there are sharply differing opinions. Of course that's exactly what this forum is for, so let's hear some more!

Lindell V. Riddle, President
Internet Horology Club

ihc185@roadrunner.com

Phone: (440) 461-0167

Jim:

One of the most perplexing mysteries to me is my 23 jewel Illinois Bunn Special that is shown in the photo gallery. I had discussions with the late William Meggers Jr. about this watch at the Railroad Timekeeping seminar in Rockford Illinois and I am still trying to figure out why this watch that was manufactured circa 1929 is in the presentation case dated January 8, 1926. To even add to the mystery it is a BALL model case. This watch is an ongoing research project for me, and when I find out everything I need to know the story will be posted for the world on the IHC, so stay tuned.

Buchaneer

I personally think that almost any combination could have been considered "origional" in the sense that that is the way it was purchased.
Lets consider the "worst"? case scenario.
This is purely hypothetical of course.
What if a young man, after working on a RR for a couple years, got promoted to a position where he required a RR approved timepiece. He goes to the local watchmaker, who also happens to be the local watch inspector, and purchases a hamilton 940. Since he has spent all his hard earned money on the movement and has no desire to get involved in payroll deductions, he cant afford any of the cases the store has in stock. He has a 7j waltham that he has been using up until his promotion that has a decent 18s OF case. He has the watchmaker install the movement in the waltham case and goes happily off to work with an approved watch.
Now we have an ORIGIONAL but not CORRECT watch that has left the store with an extra set of case screw marks, but a brand new movement.
A collecter 75 years later, thinks "I can improve this 140 considerably by re-casing it" He finds a beautiful case that has the proper and corresponding Hamilton screw marks and installs the 140 in it. A collector in 2002 looks at it and thinks.."OH MY!! and origional and correct 140, with not other screw marks!!!! It has survived the past 100 years very well!
Bottom line... who knows what went on so many years ago? Their immediate concern was having thier watch pass inspection with the least amount of trouble and cost.
I cant help but wonder how many of the very valuable so called "origional" watches are actually "origional" proper and correct, yes, but I think that is all we can strive for.

NAWCC 157316
IHC 155