I am sure there is something else, but to my eye, the lettering on the dial is all crisp and clear while the edge of the case looks out of focus. I don't think I could focus my camera that way.

Andy

Andy,
The point of this picture is the dial, not the picture. If you had Adobe Photoshop you would understand that this picture may have been manipulated to focus attention on the the dial.

What is important in this post is what is different about this Ball Dial. I know, who else does?

Rich

My guess is that this is a Ball dial with Montgomery markings. From what I have read and been told, Mr. Ball and Mr. Montgomery were rivals, and a marriage of these markings on the same dial would be very unlikely or scarce. Mr. Ball liked simple markings that were easy to read.

How about showing the seconds dial?

Double Sunk Ball dials are also unusual. With the addition of the marginal minute (not Montgomery) markings and being as it is double sunk make this one a truly unique and rare item.

Cool stuff!

Waltham Montgomery dial for comparison.

This is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, but it's interesting to note (taking account my needing new glasses, badly, and therefore not having great vision), the dimensions of the numerals is quite different between Wayne's and Lindell's dials.

Lindell's is set up according to the specs (sort of):

sp min sp hr. sp to edge

4% 16% 20% 52% 8%

Wayne's is:

10% 20% 10% 45% 15% to edge

This more balanced type of spacing may be why Wayne's seems more beautiful, and more readable than the other dial even though there's more space surrounding the hour and the hour number is relatively larger, on Lindell's (assuming I'm anywhere near correct in my readings).

This may also suggest that Ball may have failed to understand the visual effects in calling Montgomery's watches illegible. (Also the sideways diamond or box forms that mark the hours, as opposed to simply larger pointer forms on the Ball dial make the hours more visible.)

Jessica

Jessica
Did you notice the number 6 in the seconds area? The Ball dial with Montgomery markings is very attractive.

Wayne, To be a true Montgomery Dial, the "6" must be in the seconds register. All other dials without the "6" are marginal minute dials. There was a long discussion about this a while back.

Tom

My WAG is an Illinois D/S marginal minute dial with the Ball logo.

I don't seem to recall seeing the "Ball Watch Co. Cleveland" marking on the dial. Aren't they simply marked "Cleveland" under the "Official RR Standard"?

I noticed the difference in design of the numbers, and was going to mention that as another aesthetic value.

I think the Montgomery-Ball is very attractive, don't get me wrong. Other than perhaps the shape of a few numbers, I prefer it aesthetically to the more typical Ball dial.

One thought I had, about the relative positioning of the numbers and spaces was that it made the dial more readable even, though more crammed.

It seems that Ball had a relatively practical idea: what's larger is more readable (his hour number is quite a bit larger) and what's less crowded with information, and less physically distracting (single vs double sunk) is less confusing. There's a lot to be said for this analysis, even if Montgomery's dial were more aesthetically pleasing (which is subjective).

Montgomery had a somewhat different approach, first of all, possibly to the importance of certain information, since, in essence, he gave immediate access to the number of minutes that had passed, rather than several step access (ie with a Ball dial, you tend to think it's between say ten and fifteen; with a Montgomery dial, you know immediately that it's 12). He also had a different view, apparently of information-processing, since his format does not rest on the view that size is the single determinant of visibility, but rather that organization of space, as much as, or more than, sheer size, will shape the ability of the mind to integrate and also distinguish the input of information.

I tend to agree with Montgomery, but there's certainly a lot to be said for Ball's simpler, more straight-forward view.

Jessica

I did have a couple of questions.

First, how do you determine the era to which a dial belongs?

And Second, how would you authenticate such an atypical dial, unless it belongs to a well autheticated group of rare or scarce dials. Even then, what steps would you take to be sure that your dial was, in fact, genuine?

Jessica

Lindell, can you show us the movement from your watch, too, or tell us what model it is?