Ball Case Question

June 20, 2006, 14:41

Mark Cross

Ball Case Question

In reading at another site, someone wrote that 18s Ball watches prior to 1908 were (and this was posted in caps) were CASED IN NON MARKED BALL CASES.

My question is, if the case was not marked, how does one know it's a Ball case? I'm confused.

Regards! Mark

June 20, 2006, 18:15

Bruce Byrd

Mark, You beat me to the punch with your question. I recently purchased an 18s Ball Hamilton 999 single roller. The case it came in was a dueber which appeared to be original to the movement. I thought I read someplace that Ball would only sell cased watches... Would like to hear from the experts on this one

June 20, 2006, 23:41

Lindell V. Riddle

Mark,

The passage you quote sounds like an overly broad and rather confusing generalization. I'm not sure what the person you reference was trying to convey and since I have not seen the post I'd prefer not to speculate further. This complex subject is not as simple as the odd choice of words in that remark would make it seem. Consider that in 1893 the 18-size Ball-Howards came in cases marked "Webb C. Ball, Cleveland, Ohio" and knowledgeable collectors would not consider anything else to be appropriate for those movements.

By about 1906 Ball watches were regularly advertised as being sold in "Ball-Model" cases. Whether this applied to every watch is doubtful, but as time went on the use of cases marked "Ball-Model" increasingly became the norm. Remember the Ball Watch Company cased their movements in Cleveland but likely sold some of their 18-size movements in the seller's choice of other cases. Just because their watches were cased and timed in their facility should not be taken to imply that every 18-size movement was sold in a "Ball-Model" case.

In an earlier post discussing a 1906 vintage 18-size Ball watch I stated the following...

"Ball-Hamilton 18-size movements were available in Ball Model cases from about 1906 on (in fact most came that way originally) and for that reason, that is the way most collectors, myself included prefer the representative examples in our collections. Since the 18-size "Ball Model" cases were clearly available by 1906 on they will always be preferred for the later movements, I'm sure we all agree that if you have a choice that's the way to go. Since there are far more movements than cases surviving that means the value of these desirable marked cases will continue to escalate."

Let me suggest reading some of the posts contained here...

"Find-Or-Search" for "Ball-Model Cases" on our site.

Genuine "Ball-Model" cases in addition to that marking have distinctive bows and crowns. They also nearly invariably have "reflecting rings" around the inside edge of the bezel. We also find identical cases without the "Ball-Model" marking from the early years of the 20th Century. Anyone giving advice on this subject should be very specific and avoid such broad and confusing generalizations. We should share knowledge, not cause confusion. What we say should be consistent with what we mean and inconsistent with what we do not mean.

Remember an 18-size Ball-Hamilton could be placed in a case that previously held an 18-size Hamilton movement and the screw marks will line up perfectly. These watches have been changing hands (And those hands have been changing the watches around!) for about a hundred years already. Consider also that replacement cases were often used to replace a worn out or damaged case. These things we so obsess about were of no consequence when these watches were simply used to indicate the time of day.

About Bruce's watch in particular, the marked as "Single-Roller" Ball-Hamilton 18-size in my collection is number 170249 from 1901 production. For that reason it is housed in an appropriate to the time-frame case. Since it is well before 1906 it is properly not in a "Ball-Model" case. If it came to me in one I would have changed it. I'd bet Bruce's movement is from that same time-frame and therefore may be in an entirely appropriate case. Whether it is the original case is anybody's guess and there is simply no way to be certain.

By the way, we are recording marked "Single-Roller" movement numbers and whether or not they have double-sunk dials. Anyone who could assist in this effort is urged to participate.

Hope at least some of this is of help.

Lindell

June 21, 2006, 09:05

Mark Cross

Yes sir, that helps and lot, and was what I THOUGHT I understood to be the case, but the post that I had read muddied the waters for me when that statement of an 'unmarked Ball model' was made.

I have learned about the shapes and differences in the Ball models after 1906 (and have read with GREAT interest the links you provided). Since my double roller Ball was also in a Dueber case when discovered, I have the same situation that Bruce has above....so this further clarified that for me. Thank you for taking the time to give me such a detailed answer. MUCH appreciated!!

Oh, and I'm hoping you picked up the number of my Ball from my string where I announced I found my double roller Ball 999? My original dial is single sunk, by the way. Thanks!

Regards! Mark

June 21, 2006, 12:35

Bruce Byrd

Lindell,

Thanks for setting us straight with the case issue. I ended up buying the single roller from the guy that said no to the 250,000 end it now ebay bid. I paid a bit more than I wanted to but all in all it is a very nice watch. The serial number is 170282 and it has a double sunk dial. It is housed in dueber 20 year with a serial number of 10244019.