I own a what may be an anomaly. It is a 23Jewel 60hour Bunn Special (fully marked dial, 173 WGF case). Serial number is 5,321,056. The Meggers/Ehrhardt book serial number list shows it to be a 163 (presumably first run). It has the little cut-out in the main plate under the balance, and is marked Illinois Watch Springfield (the "Co") is omitted. However the 163 marking is nowhere to be seen on the movement. It has been objected that the watch could not be a 163 if it isn't so marked. But if it's included in the run starting at 5,321,001 to 5,322,000 these should all be the same movement.

William, When the Illinois Book by Bill Meggars was first printed in 1985, there were some errors, gaps, and unseen watches so they did the best they could with what they had to work with. Most of his information was accurate but there are some definite errors to be sure. Some can be misleading. Had Bill lived he was going to do a second edition correcting these errors but he passed away in 2000, so we continue his efforts to correct and educate.

This run you are speaking of at time of printing in 1985 was thought to be all 163's of which this is the first run 163's and most referred to as a Type IR because of the reverse 163 marking on the left side of the winding wheel horizontally rather than on the right side printed vertically as found on all other later 163's of different variants.

However in the last 6 years we have recorded many (over a dozen) of the watches from this first hundred block of this 1000 watch run that ARE NOT marked in any way 163. This has also been found to be true on some of the earliest watches from the second 100 block of this same run and they are not 163's either. This has reduced the production from what was once thought to be 1000 163 Type IR's to somewhere around a production number of 880 as best we know today. Illinois was notorious for splitting runs and mixing runs as well as overlapping as many as 3 different Types in the same run as is well documented by serious 163 collectors. One will have what they have according to HOW IT IS MARKED OR NOT MARKED and provided all numbers match. Otherwise one has a parts watch pure and simple. The markings mean serious money differences and this difference is growing every year!

Your watch is in fact a very very late 23 Jewel 60 Hour Type III and is in fact NOT A 163 of any variant. This may sound redundant but the only way a 163 can be a 163 is IF AND ONLY IF it is in fact 163 marked and all numbers under the plates match. There is no machanical difference in your watch ( a 23J 60 Hour Type III ) in ANY way or a 163 EXCEPT for the "163" marking. Markings are of course not machanical features, but they DO identify the model.

This Marking was a Hamilton designation for 16 size, 23 jewel. Just as 161 = 16 size 21 Jewel. So you can see what makes a 163 is nothing more than the marking provided all serial numbers match. What may be confusing you is that there were some Sangamo Specials that ARE 60 Hour but are not marked as such and they are STILL 60 hour watches. ... but marked or unmarked they still have the same machanical sameness, just different markings. But just for the sake of mentioning it, even so the UN marked Sangamo is worth less than half of it's marked brother. So even if your watch could be "called" a 163 it still would be worth half that of its marked brother as it is unmarked so either way it does not command the price of the 163 marked movement. Another factor of the price of this disparity is rarity of the 163. A Type II 163 of which only around 50 were made can command 5 times the price of a Type I 163 and the only difference in Type I's and II's are the MARKINGS. So you can see how important those little markings are.

It is much the same thing as a watch marked Elinvar, one could make a watch an Elinvar by adding the appropriate balance wheel and spring but it is not going to be matching numbers and would be a parts watch. Another illustration is coins, say a rare mint mark. It can only be rare if it had the correct , rare, original mintmark.

I hope I have not confused you and I wish I could give you good news , but unfortunately you have what you have and one can no more make it a 163 than one can make a Type I 163 into a Type II. Many folk wish they could, ha! The final word on ANY 163 Variant is two things: 1) The markings 2) ALL Matching Serial Numbers..

As a final note, I have had your watch recorded for some time now in my ledgers from when it was first offered for sale and came to our attention a couple years ago or so on ebay. I wish I could tell you it is a 163 but unfortunately, it is not. It is identical in every other way and is very close in serial number to the first watches marked 163 but sadly, as they say this is a case of "close but no cigar". Hope this helps and Happy Hunting!

William

I owned 5,321,043 a few yrs ago. It was marked the same as your's. I called it an "unmarked" 163 or pre-marked 163, but in fact they are, 23j 60 hr type III Bunn Specials. As Mike said, you need the 163 marking to be a 163 movement.

They are interesting watches in that the "Co." was eliminated from the Illinois logo, but not marked 163. Couldn't be that many around. Just have to wait on the market to catch on !

Charlie

Charlie is right that the "Co." is not stamped on these watches . In fact the "Co." was dropped from the Type III 23j's as early as 5,218,xxx which dates to early or mid 1929 , as I have 4 recorded from that run to verify this with. Of course there WLL be later numbered ones that DO have the "Co." as they used up older, leftover train bridge plates. These are all Hamilton changes as they had bought the Illinois Company out on Jan. 1, 1928 and thus dropped the "Co." from the plate markings as time went on. William's watch dates to early 1930, some time after this change was initiated and is as he said an anomoly to the other 23j type III's in that the "Co." is missing. There are 3 or 4 runs of 23 Type III's that could have this anomoly, although not all will be this way as some still had the "Co." stamped on them. So we see them marked both ways in this timeframe. Again, hope this helps, Happy Hunting!

Well I stand corrected and updated. All serial numbers match on movement so I will be content with the type Bunn Special Type III designation. The omission of the "Co." and the cut-out were what threw me. I did indeed buy the movement off ebay some time ago in a thoroughly worn out first model GGF case to put into a minty 173 case I already had that was given to me by a since passed away watchmaker friend and considering the complete watch a keepsake. I had exchanged a few emails recently with other collectors who said much the same as Mike has here, so a tip of the hat to him and the realization that there is more complete information available these days than my tattered Meggers book.

By the way, Mike: the serial number of my model 173 WGF case is 7,086,xxx (going by memory); the movement of course is 5,321,056. Am I in the right range???

Hi William, The cutout under the balance is also a Hamilton change and comes into the picture somewhere around 1929 as well and has been seen as early as 5,218,916 which, coincidentally is in the same run I was speaking about above where the "Co." is ommited. Of course there are others later that do not have the channel or cutout, which shows you again, there is overlapping going on as they used up older pillar plates.

The serial number of your 173 case can't be dated exactly, except to say it was introduced in 1930, so that falls into line with you watch which also dates to 1930, so I am going to say that is a suitable match as best we know today. Best Regards and Happy Hunting!

Thanks for all the information, very helpful!! As I've been in the watch material field so long, I look at the bigger picture in that these movements all use the same DR staff and 60 hour mainspring and view serial number lists primarily as an aid to supplying parts. The late Vernon Hawkins (Waltham list expert) reminded us that the watch factory management did not have future collectors in mind.