A FRIEND OF MINE OWN THIS UNUSUAL BUT BEAUTIFULL BALL.I SAID UNUSUAL SINCE THE DIAL,ORIGINAL TO THE WATCH, IS AN HAMILTON ONE.
CASE SIMPLY GORGEOUS
ANDREA

CASE..

MOEMENT..

MOVEMENT..

IS IT A BEAUTY?..

Gorgeous movement and case.

I wouldn't expect this movement to be in a Ball case, and I am surprised that you think the dial is original to the watch.

Happy hunting,

The case is original to the watch since no screw marks..would not be possible that the owner of this Ball-Hamilton 999 BLF just wanted an Hamilton Dial?I do not know how many RR men could efford a solid gold case at those times..
Andrea

Any 18 sz Hamilton or Ball Hamilton case would have the same screw marks! These early Ball & Co watches were not found in Ball marked cases.

If the owner wanted a Hamilton dial, he would have had to replace the original dial.

We have to be careful imagining what might be possible and then validating these mismatches.

Its likely that the original dial was damaged and replaced with a Hamilton dial.

A RR man might not be able to afford a solid gold case is a further argument that a BLF movement would not be in a 14k case.

However I believe that in later years some Brotherhood movements with mathcing dials were housed in 14k cases.

Still, it is a great movement and a nice case.

happy hunting,

Andrea,

For the last 40 to 50 years all Ball collectors have been aware of a huge amount of switching involving hundreds if not thousands of Ball watches.

This occurred as a result of people wanting to "improve" their watches in hopes of making them more desirable. Some of these were sold at inflated prices to the unwary. Most of the old timers here have personaly seen this happen and can attest to the practice. No one can document a mismatch as an original factory product.

There is also the honest repairman who decades later in restoring watches just used the best material he had available. The goal was a good running watch. I don't imagine anyone in 1915 would consider 21st century collectors desire for original on an 1896 watch!

If the buyer wanted a Hamilton dial, it would have been cheaper for him to buy a Hamilton 938 and still have the same quality.

I have a 74 corvette with an 81 tail. I suppose someday a future owner could fantasize that it left the factory that way.

happy hunting,

FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO SAY WELCOMME BACK TO LINDELL,I DO REALLY HOPE YOU ARE FEELING MUCH BETTER MY FRIEND
I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR INFORMATIONS ALWAYS PRECIOUS AND DETAILED.
BILL,I AGREE WITH YOU THAT NO ONE CAN DOCUMENT A MISMMATCH AS AN ORIGINAL FACTORY PRODUCT.MY CONSIDERATION WAS DUE TO THE FACT THE BALL DID NOT MANUFACTURE MOVEMENTS AND SINCE MY FRIEND WATCH WAS MADE BY HAMILTON I WAS WONDERING IF THEY MIGHT HAVE MADE THE DIAL AS WELL TOGHETER WITH THE MOVEMENT FOR THIS WATCH.
I WANT TO THINK ALSO THAT HONEST REPAIRMEN IN RESTORING WATCHES JUST USED THE BEST MATERIAL THEY HAD AVAIABLE AT THAT TIME(FOR EXAMPLE MY ILLINOIS BUNN SPECIAL WITH A MISMATCH BARREL BRIDGE).

LINDELL,THE J&S CASES WERE MADE FOR BALL AND USED ONLY ON BALL HOWARD WATCHES?MAY I ASK WHY THESE CASES ARE HIGHLY DESIDERABLE AND SOUGHT AFTER?

FINALLY THE MISSING SCREW ON THE BARREL WILL BE A PRIORITY TOO,PROMISED!

THANK YOU,

ANDREA

I cannot add anything to these postings other than to say that Jeannot & Shiebler cases are usually very special. I will start a new topic in a few moment on that case maker.

Andrea,

I hope that my reply did not seem to be too severe.

Your first post described it as "original" and in combination with the word unusual could have led some to believe that this was even more desirable than the usual combination.

I grant everyone that I am fanatic about these watches.

There are so many imaginative claims for these mismatches to be original that I am prone to jump to the defense of the "correct".

Ball was a great believer in "standards" and self promotion. To think that he would put out a product (dial) with someone elses name on it is far fetched at best.

For that matter I would rather keep the standard of acceptance of original or correct very high. I would rather let the one in a million slip thru the cracks than open the floodgates for the thousands of mismatched and swapped examples that are out there.

BTW, I am not such a purist that I demand completely original. Correct is acceptable. I have taken a Ball and Co dial off of a Hamilton 940 and used it to replace a non Ball dial on a Ball & Co watch.

happy hunting,

Bill,
no problem at all,your answers are very passionate and i do understand it .I did not mean to make you "mad' or "increase" the value of the watch with my words...
As i said,My guessing on original dial was based only by the fact that the movement was made by Hamilton and "maybe" the owner of the watch just wanted an Hamilton Dial.I think in the early '900 the Buyer of a watch like that would has been pretty wealthy and could have easily decided wich dial to have on his watch whatever he liked the most,and that iam sure would have been accepted by any watch Company...included Mr. Ball..that's all my point.
But then,as Romans use to say,"VERBA VOLANT SCRIPTA MANET".... ...so if I do not have proven documents i understand guessings are just guessings..
Thank you,

Andrea

I noticed that the Hour,Minutes and seconds hands are correct with the early Ball ones shown in the pictures.. ..Were those hands used mainly on Early Ball's Dials or also in other watches?They are very "particulars" in my opinion...

Andrea

Pierced hands were a singular ball feature. I believe some repro's or NOS were sold a decade or so ago.

I can't remember how you distinguish between them, I bet Lindel can tell us.

happy hunting,

Here is my Ball BLF dial.

And the movement No. 42086