In Early Ball Hamilton images, Lindell's # 28755 a 17J ORC also has the june 30 pat date on the right edge. AS the pat is for the 21J damasceening, it is further confirmation of the possibility that this erroneous Pat marking will help us identify replacement barrel bridges without pulling them.

The one thing that has surprised me over the years is that no one seems to have added serial numbers under the barrel bridge. It would be easy enough to do.

happy hunting

I have old articles I have read about how when new watches were received at Ball's business they were timed, adjusted, rebuilt etc. in order to get them meeting their standards but unfortunately the articles do not mention anything about building the Brotherhood watches.

Maybe someday the right piece of paper will surface but more than likely these things will just stay an unknown.

It is interesting reading your research and records.

Tom

From the postings and pictures Lindell referenced yesterday along with Tom Brown's research it looks like the patents cited are for the damaskeening patterns used exclusively on Ball Watches but not necessarily for a specific jewel-count.

Unless I'm missing something I see nothing "incorrect" or "erroneous" about the patent date markings, notice Lindell's 17-Jewel number 14927 has the exact same damaskeening as his 17-Jewel number 28755 and 14927 is NOT a Brotherhood movement. It might be worth noting that some movements such as Lindell's number 13050 actually combine two patent markings. I don't see anything "erroneous" about the fact that TWO patents numbers 25,694 and 25,696 were issued on the same date.

And I don't think it is fair to call those "replacements" when referring to the "barrel bridges" because as Tom alluded to and Lindell has often explained, they were apparently installed during the final movement finishing, dial and hand installation, casing and timing process that took place at the Ball facility in Cleveland before the watches were originally sold, as in original.

Don't forget to look at the Ball-Elgin Images because they also used these patents, there we see identical patent dates from November 17, 1986 on BOTH 17 AND 21-JEWEL movements. Those patents were not JUST for certain jewel-count movements but for Ball watches in general.

Those of us who enjoy researching Ball watches would do well to read Lindells posting from yesterday with emphasis on his cautionary comments and then carefully examine all the images he references, comparing the dates to what Tom posted, there is much "food for thought" and further research.

Don

Donald

14927 has the same damasceening as 28755 but does not have the June 30 21J damasceening design pat date on the right side of the barrel bridge.

13050 is not relevant to this discussion as it precedes the patents under discussion and is a different design.

I have no doubt that many of you, including Lindell know more about Ball watches than I do. My research has been narrowly focused on these early 18 size watches and I am learning new stuff all the time.

Perhaps some of this is old stuff to some, but for some reason, a lot of it has never been discussed before. I tend to think that some may be protective of their collection and resistant to publicizing certain types of information.

The reason I call them replacement is that factory records indicate that they left the Hamilton Factory as 999B (ORRS) but later on they become Brotherhoods by replacing the barrel bridge and installing a matchning dial. We don't know who did the replacement and that is why Lindell among others emphasizes the need for a correct matching dial.

Ball used this technique with Hampden 18 sz watches, and with the plugs found on 16 size watches. The absence of serial numbers under the barrel bridge made them suitable for any watch with matching damasceening.

Bill,

Patent numbers 25,694 the "Concentric Circles" or "Circular' design and 25,695 the "Radially Traversed" or "Rayed" design which were both granted on June 30, 1896 were applied for on the same date February 26, 1894 and Webster C. Ball's signature was affixed to the application on February 23, 1894 as you will see in the attached image below.

Referring to Lindell's "Early Ball-Hamilton 18-size Images" images, watch numbers 13050 and 14927 were produced AFTER the patent applications we are discussing were FILED but BEFORE either patent was granted. For that reason we see "Patented" on numbers 13050 from 1895, 14927 also from 1895 as well as 20843 from early 1896 in Lindell's images because each of those were produced during the time that the patent applications were pending and then "Patented June 30, 1896" on both 28755 from 1898 and 42690 which is also from 1898 because they were produced AFTER the patents we are discussing in this topic were granted.

I would again suggest that 13050 which was produced DURING the time the two patents were PENDING is entirely relevant for that reason AND because it uniquely used a combination of both the Circular (patent 25,694) and Rayed (patent 25,695) designs which have become the subject of this conversation.

Movement number 14927 uses the Circular design (25,694) as does 28755 both of which were ALSO produced WHILE the patent was PENDING but BEFORE the (25,694) patent was granted. As we look further through Lindell's posted images we see these patents on numerous movements.

(Later on Lindell's number 170249 and on both his 17 and 21-Jewel Ball-Elgins we find the November 17, 1896 patent date which is found on other watches in the years to come. But we can discuss that another time.)

Don


Patent 25,694 like 25,695 was applied for in February 1894 and granted in June 1896 below:

Don

What I love about these discussions is the opportunity to learn.

I think you might be stretching this design of 25,694. It does say concentric circcles but you are interpreting that to equate ot "circular design" which I believe is the subject of patent 26,267

[Administrative Note: Image in preceding post has been converted to .jpg and properly sized.]

IMO the pic on page 1 of design 25,694 looks unlike the circular pattern that I am discussing. That is why I am stating that the June 1896 patent seen on the referenced watch numbers is in error.

My central point is that these early Brotherhoods with the June pat date should be found without serial numbers under the barrel bridge and that these barrel bridges were affixed later in life as either Ball filled orders or as later collectors improved their watches. Lindell has told us many times about these bridges coming to light decades ago and how important it is to have a matching dial.

happy hunting