I have a "new" Hamilton that I have been on the hunt for for quite some time, a 16S 19J gr.996.The serial # is 1525342.I can't seem to nail down when it was made, I looked it up in the Gelson list, it says 1923-4, but all the other sources I tried show it being from 1917-18.That's quite a difference.Would anyone have any idea which would be closest?I realize that the dates listed are approximate, but I thought Hamilton numbers were more "figured out" by now.It's really a beautiful watch that I'm proud to own, I'd just like to know the year it came to life.Thanks, Ted.

roughly 1918

Theodore, If you look at the Gleason list, or the IHC185 list here on page 17 you cannot get anymore accurate that that.

IHC185 list

That shows it to me, as you indicated, 1923 to 1924. It really looks to be a 1923 as 1525001 is the starting number for 1923 and your number is 1525342. That is only 341 in to the year.

Regards,
Larry

Thanks to Jon & Larry.I guess it really don't amount to a hill of beans when it was made,I'm happy to have finally found one.Thanks again, Ted.

Since there were only around 23,000 of them made you have quite a find Theodore.

Congratulations!!

Regards,
Larry

The fat book says 1918 and Gelson something different... Larry was around back then, so he probably has a better feel for the correct date

Next time I shouldn't be so lazy and just thumb through the fat book

Thanks guys!I'm less used to looking up Hamiltons, I'm more of a Hampden/Waltham collector.I'm trying to end up with the RR grade Hamiltons I like and can afford, though.I have a 940,936,978L, 2 992's, and now this 996.Now to find a 972, that should be easier.Can't help it, I'm addicted! Take care, Ted.

Just remember this: The Gelson List is the most authoritative Hamilton movement number, grade and production date information we have. Everything else, including the various watch books, the online databases and the so-called handwritten Hamilton sales ledgers are much less accurate and should not be relied upon.

Thank you, Ed.I'm more familiar with the Waltham list, which gets a little squirrely sometimes.I just assumed the Hamilton lists were more accurate.Regards, Ted.

Thanks Debbie, I missed that somehow!Best Regards, Ted.

I certainly agree that Gelson's list is the best available. The question I have always had is what information/data did he base it on and why does that not seem to available anywhere but in his list.

And to add to that Robert - Does the "Watch Guide" still continue to print incorrect data for the Hamilton Serial numbers? Knowing there is a Gelson list that is more accurate... Seems unfair to folks that purchase the book with their hard earned money to only be exposed to data that was devised via "guesswork"...

Not having every year of the "Watch Guide" by Shugart, but the ones I do have contain purported incorrect production dates for Hamilton serial #'s is vexing at best.

Mr. Gelson was President of the Hamilton Watch Co. and transcribed the information from the original Hamilton production records, and other "lists" did not. That's why the Gelson List is the most accurate.

From: http://lancasteronline.com/obi...John-F--Gelson-.html

John F. Gelson Former Chairman/CEO Hamilton Watch Co. Inc.

John F. Gelson, Lancaster, former Chairman/CEO of Hamilton Watch Co., Inc., died at his home Friday, Nov. 4, 2005. He was 74 years old.

I too wonder why the fat book and the other list sources don't base their's on the Gelson list also.That's why I asked about my watch,I was confused about the different dates.You figure, on these Hamilton watches which are so popular among collectors,that the true production date might affect the dollar value or determine whether a certain Hamilton is all original or not.This difference may really bother some people.Thank you all, Ted.

Maybe not the entire list of Gelson List should be transposed to the Fat Book; however, the estimated production dates for Hamilton could be changed to reflect more accurate dates. Seems like a simple task to provide folks with more accurate dates. Plus, that information only takes up a 1/3 of a page.

Basically - that was the gist of my inquiry...

Thank you Lindell!

I was going to try to explain this, as you had spent MORE than two hours explaining it to me when I started this, and was making all kinds of mistakes trying to get the years correct in my auctions.

I knew it was better not to, as I could not explain it so that everyone could understand. Well after reading your well thought out, researched post, I am so glad I didn't!

Thank you again Lindell for clearing it up for everyone so that we can all understand it better.

Your time on this one is much appreciated.

Regards,
Larry

Thank you, Lin, makes sense now.I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.Best Regards, Ted.

Besides our own data Lindell has maintained for us in the on-line IHC185 Hamilton data file, the only other source for the Gelson list I have is the 23 Page March 1, 1999 dated addenda Roy Ehrhardt added to last printed last 108 Page editions of his 1981 book: "Production figures with grade and serial numbers: HAMILTON WATCH CO. Identification and price guide".

In the best world, maybe the price guide could add 23 more pages too, but as Lin says;

"The way the movement numbers appear in the watch guide with an approximation or "guesstimate" as I call it is fine for the casual observer, it is only those of us who want more precise information that are willing to pour over the 23 pages of the Gelson List to satisfy our obsession for details."