caseback & movement scans

[/IMG]

Movement scan

Very interesting type , wording , movement and case. Have you a photo of the inside case back as well ?

Here is the scan of the inside caseback.

Thank You Very Much for the photos,that case number is in the right range but I am sorry but I am not sure of the engravings. For one thing I cannot say that I ever saw a Weems with Hack or that it can even be called one either and as far as I know that L10 movement is not hackable. There are other things as well. Maybe someone else has some input.

I have seen at least 5 of these US Army AC weems in the last few years and quite certain that they exist. The 10L movement is not hackable, "hacking" is via the rotating bezel. There is also a mention of this 10L weems in the Whitney's book.

I have as seen a few AC's as well but not so elaborately engraved ,two maybe three lines at most. Also for a Type A-11 that specification number should read in the very least No.94-27834 and not just "No.27834", someone forgot a few numbers and a dash. Also that watch with that movement and that case and that dial does not meet the Type A-11 watch spec anyway which along with a few other things called for a Hackable movement. Moving the bezel does not count as Hackable movement not in any book and I do not see any allowances for them either in the Milspec. And there are other points as well.

Does the balance stop when the crown is pulled out?

The 10L movement has no hacking mechanism, pulling out the crown does not stop the balance. According to Longines archieve the watch (or rather the movement)was delivered to Longines USA on the 31st May 1940. I was under the impression that this was a transition watch before the fully hackable A11 to 94-27834 spec became available a year larter.

Anthony,

Here is yet another example of the Air Corps marked little Weems.

eBay auction for Longines USAC Weems.

I understand your suspicion about the case, what with the plethora of fake A-11 Waltham and Elgin cases being fitted with surplus movements out there, but how would you account for the "US Army AC" engraving on the movement? That seems to me to be beyond the capabilities of the average forger, especially when the end result is still only worth a few hundred dollars.

I also ran in to my first one of these several years ago, before the easy availablity of laser engravers made the new A-11 cases possible. I am convinced that they are real, and were issued. Perhaps there may have been some re-definition of what constituted "hacking" in regards to the specification that you are referring to.

Regards,

Cary

Not all new looking A-11 cases are reproductions. As of a few years ago I did not find any shortage of new old stock (NOS) A-11 cases. I have a few I put away in the back of a drawer somewhere.

Hi there, this is my first post, though i have been a member since 2007, sorry for the delay contributing
I was just reading this fascinating thread regarding the Weems watches. In particular, a much talked about US military marked 'little weems', with the movement bridge marked US ARMY AC, with 2 types of marked case backs. Here are two that i have purchased recently. They are in the post, so hopefully will receive in the next few days, (i'll take some better photo's).





the other:





I just wondered whether since 2006, if any member had reached a conclusion as to this pretty little watch.

Best regards

Paul

a bit of a slower response than i'm used to on MWR

Hello Paul,

I love these little Longines USAAC Weems watches. I have 2 of them myself along with one of the larger USAAC LeCoultre Weems. I don't know what to make of the caseback on the one example though. I highly doubt that the engraving dates to the time of the watch's manufacture as I seriously doubt the U.S.A.A.C. would have labeled the watch U.S.A.C. I think that would have been such a big f'up, they would probably re-do it rather than send it out like that. My suspicion is that it was originally unmarked and someone bought it along with the other one and once they realised that they didn't have the specialized equipment to do it properly, did the best they could and sort of copied the real one to the best of their ability. It is amazing and I never fail to turn it over and look at all of the engravings on the caseback anytime I see it. I have one on my nightstand right now and I'll probably take a look at it when I turn in tonight just to check out all of that cool detailing. Nevertheless, the watch is "real and spectacular". The engraving neither increases nor decreases the value so in the end it is a wash. I have worn one of mine before but at around 30mm, it was just too small to wear IMHO and now that one is one of my wife's favorite watches. It gets noticed much more than any of her "real" watches at work. In fact, when she was taking care of a major hollywood actor's wife in the hospital (starred in When we were soldiers)and he saw it, he commented that it looked like a vintage military watch. My wife took it off and let him handle it and he asked where she got it. She told him and he called me the next day and after talking for about an hour, asked to buy one of my spares for his wife! I used to have three of them at the time. Speaking of small, it is the smallest US issued watch that I own, and I own quite a few. The only other watch that I have that is as small as it, is an extremely rare R.C.A.F. Hamilton Grade 987S in sterling silver case. They are my smallest watches by far. Wear yours in good health.

In addition to the U.S.A.C. being incorrect (it should be U.S.A.A.C.) I am also suspicious of the marking "TYPE A-11". The type A-11 is the common wristwatch made by Waltham, Elgin, Bulova, etc. and issued in very large numbers by the Army Air Force to pilots and crews during the war.

My guess is that these markings were added by someone recently to increase the marketability of the watch by making it appear to be a military issue watch.

Hi James, jim thanks for you comments. That's a great story James Here are some clearer images.




I must admit to being new to these smaller 'US' type weems. I've handled several of the British ones in my time, including the Lovely Jaeger.

James i must agree with you on the more detailed case backed weems, i cannot believe it is anything other than completely authentic.

If we look at the 'evidence'for and against.

Pro's
1. The engraved bridge on the movement 'US ARMY AC'. I have had this examined under microscope and the letters for this and the other ebauche marks tally up exactly.
2. The watch dial is completely without ornament, unusual in these 'little weems' that normally have the Patent number, and at least the makers name. But very similar in look to the Jaeger, including 'blued' steel hands, red indice at 12. The Jaeger came with a non marked and marked dial
3. The beautiful elaborate engraved caseback with the Triangle stamp mark. Referring to it being an A-11 like the Jaeger Navigation weems.

Con's
The word 'Hack' on the caseback discription on a watch that doesn't hack.

Next we have the second watch, for all intents and purposes the same watch, with the dial, hands, and engraved movement. If we where to assume the final substantiation being on evidence of the caseback, then we need to examine it more carefully.

The caseback appears to have been re-skimmed.
The causes for such a process would generally be to:
1. tidy up the caseback if marked or scratched.
2. to remove engraved markings not 'desired'.

If we look at the first watch, the only 'con' is the 'hack' reference. Why were these watches labelled this way? ...this perhaps we will never know. It is not beyond the boundaries to believe that is was simply an error. If we are to assume it was and that it had been recorded as such during the period, then a reskimmed caseback, with the simpler caseback markings applied may make sense.

Another part of the evidence which may or may not hold a clue, is that the serial numbers on both. The more elaborate watch has a serial number 593****, the simpler marked 595****. Again this may fit in with a timeline of events.

Again though we have a problem. As commented the watch is engraved U.S.A.C. Though this seems to have been used alot as a casual reference to mean 'United States Air Corps', but as Jim has mentioned it was indeed the 'United states Army Air Corps' USAAC

Again we could read two conclusions into this.

1. The part of a ill educated forger, who for some reason felt the need to re-machine a blank caseback, what would be the point?, maybe it had a personal message instead?. Then proceeded to engrave in error, yet who nevertheless had the skill and dexterity to repeat an intricate engraving on the movement, procure non marked longines weems dials and 'blued' steel hands.

2. The army machinist in the issue stores (or like), who has been told the watches need relabeling as they have been incorrectly labelled 'Hacking'at Keystone (if that is true, does anyone know if the watch markings were done at the casing factory, like they did with the German Hanharts) an important tool in aviation.


Here though we must again put it down to human error?, i agree perhaps hard to digest

So which is more likely the to be true? what would the rule of Occam's Razor suggest?

all i can say is that i would not be so hasty as to condemn, as there is strong evidence to also suggest that these are very real



Paul

Condemn is a strong word. Incredible, nowhere that I can find has anyone condemned your watch. I don't believe that either Jim or myself condemned it, in fact I said "the watch is "real and spectacular". How much more of an endorsement do you require? If you want simplistic answers, stick to MWR. You will get those in spades there along with a lot of disinformation and pettiness as well.

Moving on to your "evidence"...

1) I don't know what "tally up exactly" means but I have never doubted the authenticity of the watch's movement. The movement engravings are very real but then again, you never mentioned nor asked my opinion of them.

2) I have no idea what this has to do with anything. It is proof of nothing.

3) I have already stated that the watch's caseback markings are genuine. I have no documentation to prove that this watch is 100% real but there are quite a few known examples on which to base this opinion. I myself have owned three examples, all serial numbers within 100.

3) Again, the elaborate caseback markings (1st watch) on the one example are genuine.


With respect to the word hack, you seem confused. The definition of hack is to synchronize the time of one timepiece with another. There are different means to accomplish this. One way is to stop the movement. Another way, would be to use a rotatable bezel that is aligned to the seconds hand denoting the exact moment of synchronization with a master timepiece, at which time the bezel would be locked down. These Weem's watches function by the later method. You state "It is not beyond the boundaries to believe that is was simply an error." Referring to the engraving of the word “Hack” on the caseback. No this was not an error on the part of the U.S.A.A.C. They wouldn't have made errors such as this for thousands of Weem's watches. It was and is a hack watch along with the LeCoultre Type A-11 Weem’s hack watch. I have two of those as well, both very real hack watches.

Both Jim Hester and I have an issue with the use of U.S.A.C. on the case back. There is no getting around this. This is NOT something that would have been used, period.

You state, "1. The part of a ill educated forger, who for some reason felt the need to re-machine a blank caseback, what would be the point?, maybe it had a personal message instead?. Then proceeded to engrave in error, yet who nevertheless had the skill and dexterity to repeat an intricate engraving on the movement, procure non marked Longines Weems dials and 'blued' steel hands."

Wow, lots of speculation in that one statement. Again you seem to be confused. I have not questioned the movement's engravings. They ARE real. Can you move on from this? The markings on the caseback in MY opinion are not original. You yourself seem to have come to this conclusion when you state "The caseback appears to have been re-skimmed." which I assume from that statement that the caseback has been machined to remove the original caseback markings. Forgive me if that is not what you are referring to, I just don't know with 100% certainty what you mean by re-skinned.

You state, "2. The army machinist in the issue stores (or like), who has been told the watches need relabeling as they have been incorrectly labelled 'Hacking'at Keystone (if that is true, does anyone know if the watch markings were done at the casing factory, like they did with the German Hanharts) an important tool in aviation."

Any markings in error on a watch would have been stricken through not erased entirely. These watches were engraved at the factory, not while in possession of the U.S.A.A.C.

MY OPINION is that someone (probably very recently) bought two of these Weem's watches and one had a damaged caseback. They thought they should put some kind of markings on it to give it a military look and "borrowed" from the original. That is pure speculation on my part but I have no confidence that it would have been something by an official of the U.S. government, military or otherwise. I base this on many focused years of collecting watches and data; specializing in U.S. issued watches.

Again, great watches (regardless of the caseback)and I hope you wear them in good health.

James i'm sorry that you have seemed to take offense at my words, there was no slur intended. I was simply opening up a line of reasoning by putting it down in words, sorry i thought that was what a forum was all about. As this thread had arrived at no difinitive conclusions, i simply added my images, and lines of reasoning. Yes sure perhaps some of the reasoning was at fault, and i'm glad that you have 'put me right', though i'm not used to such a fierce response.

As far as the word Condemn, I was simply hypothesising the alternative to this statement. 'My guess is that these markings were added by someone recently to increase the marketability of the watch by making it appear to be a military issue watch'. Since you have expressed your belief that these 'US ARMY AC' movement marked watches are undoubtedly issued military watches already, then it already has the appearance of being a military watch, surely a picture of the movement is evidence enough of it's veracity? Jim was allowed his 'guess' am i not allowed one? But Ok perhaps 'condemn' was the wrong phrase, i apoligise

James, again i'm not attacking you when i reason over the credibility of the movement marks. Since no one on this thread had categorically until now stated that these marks had been deemed authentic, i simply added them into the 'case for', when putting forth my line of reasoning.

Again i was agreeing with you as to the certain authenticity of the 'hack' marked watch, if nothing esle but from that gut instinst you get after seeing many hundreds of military type watches. I'm glad that when agreeing with most people, it isn't met with quite such a strong response

Again in reference to 'Hack' i am far from confused, but simply putting on the 'devil's advocates hat', with what is generally deemed 'Hacking', as many have already done in replies along this thread.

Again i was agreeing with the U.S.A.C problem, yes my reasoning was hypothetical, is that so bad?, when facts are hard to come by, isn't hypothesising allowed? At least it encourages discussion

Again James you seem to take every line of my reasoning as a personal affront.

Sorry if you consider my addition to this thread to be such a farce. I thought these forums where meant as a means for discussion and reasoning, I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about mine.

My final line again is not directed at you or Jim, but simply my point of view regarding these watches, mixed perhaps with alittle hope that many more people will come around to the authenticity of these watches (issued US weems). Surely we are all entitled to a view?

Finally, perhaps MWR is less academic, however i see that as no reason to belittle people, even if you feel with just cause, that simply wish to engage in a passion or hobby. I will wear the watches in good health, and i thank you for that last comment.

health to you.

Paul