As a relatively new collector, I lag far behind all of you in erudition when it comes to knowing whether a watch has been redialed, recased, or otherwise modified. So, with the request that you treat the innocent gently, please let me know what you can tell me about this Grade 229 "The Studebaker," SN 622,386 that I acquired before learning from all the postings to this site how critically important it is that all features of a watch are original. In particular, are the dial, hands, and case correct?

Another picture

Case back

Movement

Ethan,

The only thing I can say with much certainty is that the case is "probably" not the original case. I say that because the movement was produced in the 1910-1912 time frame and the case was produced in the 1925-1928 time frame. All the NAWCo RR Patent cases that I have seen that look to be original combinations are casing later model 227's and Studebaker 16s'. It is "possible" that the case is original, maybe the movement sat around uncased in some corner for several years, but then I would question why a much earlier dial was on the watch.

The hands look okay, the movement looks okay. The dial would usually be Arabic and not Roman numbered but it could be original. The dial looks like a good double-sunk porcelain dial and would be appropriate for any number of higher-grade South Bend movements made in the 1908 - 1914 time frame. I am by no means an expert at these things so please take what I say as just my personal assessment. The last time I saw this particular watch was on Ebay. It went for $712 on Jan. 12th of '05.

Best,

Frank "407" Kusumoto

are there multiple case screw marks in the case?

Thank you Terry and Frank for responding. Terry, there are no screw marks that would suggest the case had been used for another movement. Frank, I am relieved to hear that the watch may not be as odd an assemblage of bits and pieces as I feared. You are correct that I paid $712 for this watch when I purchased it on eBay, but I bought it in 2004, not 2005, according to my records.

Ethan,

Probably a "New Year" clerical error on my part.

Terry,

All the second model SB 16s' leave the same screw marks. Makes it very easy to mix and match if that's all you collect.

Best,

Frank "407" Kusumoto

that is good news... some possiblity this could be either an original... or an original recase... but not much of a way of proving...

is the lever slot exceptionally wide?

Terry, the lever slot does seem unusally wide, about 3/8". In addition, it is bisected by a flange against which the lever rests when fully extended.

like a 'dual' slot?

this still does not completely rule out it not being original... if these cases were factory furnished with a 6 minute lever slot....
and additional slot would be necessary for the SB movement.

Yes, Terry, it looks like the watch has a dual slot separated by what I had referred to as a "flange," with the lower slot being used for the lever and the higher one at "6" not being used at all. I am attaching a photograph that shows this.

But what does the existence of this dual slot tell you?

Ethan,

With no extra screw marks it makes it look like an "original" recase. Also, quite possibly, the case originally had a 16S Mail-Order Studebaker and then was modified for the 229.

Best,

Frank "407" Kusumoto

That is one possibility ... the mail order was a pendant set...

what does the slot tell me.... Frank pretty well covered that in a short sentence...

If the case had the lever slot at the 6 minute mark cut at the factory, then when this movement was placed the additional cut would be necessary... the lack of additional case screw marks makes this being an original recase plausable, but not provable...

i doubt there would ever be evidence to fully prove it original.

hey.. it faces up nicely, and is a fairly uncommon movement.... though they regularly change hands..

i can accept it for what it is.
though my preference would be for a different style dial

and hope we helped you learn more about your watch.

.

Most of the discussion has been about the case and dial.

I'd want to know about the movement. One of the "problems" with the high-end South Bends is that they ARE quite valuable and parts are impossible to find. Their value, to collectors, makes them very tempting targets for unscrupulous sellers who are tempted to get them running with improper parts.

Have you timed the watch on a good timing machine? If it times in all positions or can be made to do so, you can feel fairly secure that the movement is original or, at least, the parts are proper.

If you ever try to sell a watch, of this value, is is likely that an experienced collector will insist upon an inspection period and use that period to "time" the watch, before final acceptance.

Thanks to all of you who have answered my questions, or who do so in the future. Peter asked if I have timed the watch in every positionon a good timing machine. I am flattered that he thinks a neophyte like me might even have a timing machine. I do not have such a machine, but instead use the more primitive method of seeing whether watches gain or lose time when compared to "official" time, as reported on http://www.time.gov. This watch is extremely accurate, something I cannot say about many of my other pocketwatches.

Peter,

I have on hand any part needed to repair a SB 229. It's not a problem if you collect parts and parts watches. The only part unique to the watch that is hard to find and practically impossible to replicate is the ratchet wheel. There are hundreds of reasons a watch might not time out in all positions totally unrelated to the "unoriginality" of the parts. From the pic the train and jewel settings look correct and any incorrect screws can be easily replaced. Of course my eyes are not what they used to be.

Best,

Frank "407" Kusumoto

Just to clarify a point that Frank made....

My point was not that a failure to time would necessarily indicate improper parts. I entirely agree with Frank that a perfectly original watch could fail to time for any variety of reasons.

My point, which I may have failed to state properly, is that a watch that DOES time is probably one with proper parts... at least in the escapement.

Now that you have confirmed what I had come to suspect -- that the watch likely was recased and redialed inappropriately, what do you recommend I do about it? Lindell, you wrote that "If it were in my collection like Frank and Terry I'd want a railroad dial on that railroad movement. And I'd also want to put the resulting combination in an appropriate period-correct high-pendant case from around that 1910-12 time frame in which the movement was produced." While your advice is clear, it is not clear to me that I should follow it.

As I see it, I have three main options:

1. Enjoy the watch as is. It works very well and looked very nice to me. I use the past tense "looked" because it won't look quite as well to me in the future now that I know that its dial and case are dubious, but I likely can come to grips with that.

2. Sell the watch, and buy a completely authentic Grade 229 to replace it. Being scrupulously honest, I would at least advise potential buyers that my "watch likely has been recased and redialed, although it is impossible to be sure." This disclosure would hurt the selling price. On the other hand, I still might be able to recover most or all of my $712 purchase price (which might have been relatively low because of the dubious dial and case).

3. Follow Lindell's advice. But where can I find an appropriate dial and case in excellent condition? Assuming I could, would it be more expensive for me to fix my watch by doing so (and selling off the old dial and case) than to implement approach 2?

Approach 3 presents a quandary to me: If my watch presently is to be looked on askance as a "made-up" watch, would't it still be one if I fixed it up as Lindell has prescribed. If originality is the sine qua non, what difference would there be between my watch as it presently exists and as it would become? Wouldn't it just be a replica of a Grade 229 in original condition? If originality is that important, shouldn't I implement approach 2? If originality is not that important, shouldn't I try to implement approach 1? Approach 3 only makes sense if the appearance of originality, rather than true originality, is important and approach 3 is more significantly more feasible or cost-effective than approach 2.

I would appreciate further guidance on what I should do about this watch.

There's one other option, Ethan.... join the club!

There's no use making yourself unhappy because your watch is not as good as you originally thought. We all have that same problem and every collection contains specimens that don't live up to our expectations.

You will see many gorgeous, absolutely mint watches in this Chapter. That's because we are proud of our best pieces and like to show them. We are less likely to advertise our "dogs" for which we overpaid.

My primary interst is in watchmaking and my collection grew from that interest. If you think that there are many "pitfall" possibilites in the externals of a watch... I can assure you that there are far more such possibilities internally, where it doesn't show. I seldom get a vintage watch that doesn't have SOME internal issue. Cracked jewels, improper parts, stains, rust, bent pivots, scratches-galore....

Relax...enjoy what you have. Chalk up your purchase to experience (you will have others) and keep a sharp eye out for a better specimen, that special dial, that pefect case. Then, someday, when someone has obtained a new treasure... you whip out your far-superior one and watch their smiles droop!

Ethan, Yes, it appears that the watch has been recased, but the case for your watch looks to be in great shape, and a NAWCO Security case, like yours, is one that is highly sought after by RR watch collectors. So, maybe not exact, but a great case for your 229.

Tom

To all of you who responded, thank you so much for your sage advice. I presently intend to keep the watch, which really is very nice, but to keep a eye out for a better example or for a more appropriate dial and case.