Hi everybody.

I have noticed that, in general, UK military pieces have rather carelessly stricken marks, the worst being, of course, GSTPs, whereas US ones are more accurate, and I linked this to the fact somehow I remember reading that US OD paid (60 cents ea, may be?)the manufacturer to have military markings stricken. Stretching a bit this observation would imply that in UK marks where stricken "at the barracks", and US ones by the manufacturer. This should hold true even for quadrant inscriptions, some made by the manufacturer, crsip & clear, and some added by military personnell (e.g. serial/registration numbers) clearly hand pianted (see the front of my Mark V on a different thread here). One more remark,did RN use a big "pseudo 3d" crowfoot, a bit more carefully made ? I have seen some pieces with that peculiar mark.
Could you kindly give me some guidance about ?
Thanks for your help !

Mario

I would say... "Who knows"?
I have made some observations in the arch of some years spent collecting, but still didn't find any rules... Only theories, modest opinions and ideas, all 10 p. worthing.

German D, DH, (and KM) watches seems to be often marked by each maker, before to send the timepieces to the OKW. (When I asked for informations to the maker's archives's curators they some times confirmed that there were the indications of "special inscriptions over the back", on their records. One time the curator asked me for the meaning of those "old markings"...)

Not so sure, but I think that the same could be happened with the UK timepieces, because in some cases the makers were exactly the same.
I've noted, sometime, a not very good quality level of the markings, in the UK pocket watches: that's true. But the overall level of quality of the case was quite low, too. Not made to last.
I am referring to the GSTP: those were "emergency" products and maybe they could be less wellmade and cared than the others.

As the RN timepieces: very often they have much better made markings, wider and bigger broad arrow: that's true! Overall quality is very often higher, too.

Grazie Claudio.

Well, I can't say anything about German pieces, I have never owned one. On the contrary I have some experiences in UK and US ones, and, to tell the truth, the idea of a corporal stricking cases in a barrack shop under dictation by a sargeant sporting his bat do fit the "mood" of His Majesty's Army, I's say a method more than an emergency like the GSTP case, and such a process would completely be out of US Army ways. Let's see if further comments help us.
Thanks for your kindness & help
Mario

The 1945 U.S. Army manuel for watch repair has a section for codes, including codes for older watches. From this, I would assume that someone authorized to repair watches would have had the duty to re-mark the case backs of early watches with these new markings. This sort of thing would have been done in a special facility and not at a local Army base watchmaker's bench.

British Alterations to dial markings are often not as excellent as factory markings. I can't imagine that each A.M. air base watchmaker would have been required to re-mark the dials, but who knows?

The British appear to have used a process of striking a line through old markings and then adding new markings under the old. Such is the case with WWII vintage Admiralty watches re-issued post-war with Nato stock numbers. The process of striking out earlier markings and adding new ones is also found on British firearms and related equipment.

Best regards,
Greg

Greg, if you look closely to a dial you might find that the producer 2 letter code and the standard type marks, already known to the producer from the order of the lot are professionally painted BUT the ID number itself looks handpainted, with different degrees of precision. I infer that there where 2 processes, one by the manufacturer and one by the military, when each PW was checked and accepted. I think that back markings were striken at the same time.

Thanks & regards
Mario

Mario,

It sounds like a reasonable theory. But until we know more, there are other explanations which are also possible. For example, if a damaged dial was replaced with a factory supplied replacment dial the military watchmaker would have to hand paint the serial number on the new dial. This might be the reason why some numbers are clearly factory printed and others are hand painted.

Anything is possible and I have an open mind, but to my thinking Greg's suggestion seems to be more likely. I am sure when the Air Ministry procured these watches from the various makers of them they must have also ordered enough spare parts to keep them running in good condition. It makes sense that spare dials with the partial serial number - just the maker's letter code - would have been the practical thing since there was no way to tell which watches would need new dials at some point, and this would allow the Air Ministry to mark the new dials with the original serial numbers in order to keep their records straight on which watch was which. One watch with two different Air Ministry serial numbers would likely have given them some indigestion in their record keeping.

Jim, Gregg, it occurs me that there is an (almost) definitive way to certify the situation, that is checking known pieces for handpainted serials after maker's 2 letter code. If the serial was added at "recruiting" time the great majority has to have handpainted numbers, if was just copied there after changing dial just a few. CB 758 is in the handpainted group. Does this make sense to you ?

Thanks for your envaluable help !

Sounds like a reasonable way to check the theory. We will have to keep an eye on them.