Well, look at what popped up over on that auction site...

















As I have said before, these cases were all NOS and without movements. Funny how they almost always show up now in that same kind of condition with a G-539 movement dating to the mid-1940s.

Here is what I wrote earlier this year... which I still stand by...

The only thing I would change would be the numbers in a batch as sold back then. I had originally said they were sold in batches of 5. I stand corrected, they were sold in batches of 4, and I wound up with 12. The current group of dive watch cases is likewise being sold in a group of 4, what a coincidence.

Here are the new numbers: 301C, 377C, 671C, 2903C - Don't be surprised if they end up being sold as original with G-539 movements in the very near future.



James E. Delgado
IHC Member 848
Posted February 21, 2010 15:52
In the late 1980s a large cache of NOS Elgin dive watch cases came onto the market along with crowns, crown covers, chains, dials and gaskets. I purchased 12 of them at the time (along with parts) and quickly sold the cases except for one. They were all marked XXXC-XXXXC and none had original glass crystals installed and all were in mint condition.

Here are the serial numbers of the examples that I bought:

287C, 307C, 567C, 732C, 843C, 1477C, 1579C, 1598C, 2335C, 2521C, and 2888C.

The examples in bold font are on your database. The one example that I kept and built up with correct movement is 248C, which I sold and then bought back years later, is also on your list. Funny story about that watch another time... I recorded the serial numbers from the other batches that were sold but can't find them here with me presently. I'll try to find them when I go back home in May. They number about 60, 5 batches of twelve. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the serial numbers of the NOS cases represented on your database.

If I would have known back then that these watches would command such a high price, I would have bought them all and built them up with G-539 movements which were/are still plentiful. As it was, the case that I kept was used to replace the case of a mangled example that had a chewed up lug that I had found. IIRC, one of the ones that I sold was used the same way but I can't recall the number. The others, I have no idea but according to your database, I now know that four were built up with G-539 movements. Finding correct G-647 movements is not/was not easy, hence all of the G-539 examples. I have never seen an example with the USN XXXC serial number that does not look pristine or has the required soldered glass crystal. More reasons to believe that these cases were meant as replacement cases. On the other hand you almost never find a USN BUSHIPS example in the same condition. They typically look well used.

Please explain how the case back numbers for the XXXC watches are GREATER for the earlier issued watches? That would mean that the Star Watch Case company manufactured the cases for the 1950s watches BEFORE the watches issued in the 1940s, according to your data. This does not make sense.

My speculation; based on the data that I have collected over 20+ years of focused US military watch and data collection, is that these cases were originally made as replacement cases, stored and never used and then this cache was found and sold in the 1980s. This seems much more plausible than a bunch of watches made in the 1940s that had movement serial numbers dating from 1942 to 1944 but yet case serial numbers that differed by as much as 368,221 (greater) from those that FOLLOWED them, by your data. I would have an easier time believing your theory IF the collected watch movement serial numbers had some semblance of order but they do not. Why would Elgin manufacture an extremely minute number of watches (3000) yet have such a huge variance in serial numbers, ranging from 1942 to 1944? For instance serial numbers T30509 to T781609? Why would you see such a huge difference between individual movement serial numbers for such a small group of watches ~3000? Again, this does not make sense. You can statistically arrange the numbers based on assumptions to suit your expected outcome but at the end of the day, common sense says otherwise. Also, you can not apply statistical analysis to as little as 28 examples (out of 3000+?), at least not accurately. I've got data that show just the opposite up to just recently, 5+ years ago when these started to show up regularly. This is coincidently after the NOS cases hit the market by the way. Before the mid 1990s I have no data of USN XXXC G-539 Elgin dive watches. My database on Elgin dive watches contains 78 examples and shows basically the same information that you have collected, along with the date that I collected it and any other relevant information such as source or location of watch. These XXXC watches do not show up on my radar until 1999-2000, 1 in Dec 1999, 1 in Jan 2000, 1 in May 2000. Before then, between 1988 and 1999, I have 4 examples (XXXC) all with G-647 movements. Up to that point, I have a list of NOS cases only, which I archived as well. Out of your 28 examples, 5 are on my list of NOS cases, spread throughout your 28 examples. In other words, they are not grouped.

What I find most astonishing is the small number of examples in your database with G-647 movement, yet when looking at the data, it is obvious that they are not scattered as that seen in the G-539 movement watch but clustered much more closely.

My opinion is that early on when these NOS cases were bought, the majority of buyers were collectors who cased them with what they thought at the time (and which I thought then and still do think) was the correct movement, the Elgin G-647. Now you get into the early 2000s and beyond and people see how much these watches are worth no matter the movement installed and this produces the flow of G-539 Elgin dive watches that we have witnessed since 2005. In simple terms, why bother tracking down a relatively hard to find "correct" G-647 movement for a NOS case when you can just stick any old G-539 movement from an Elgin Type A-11 (very plentiful on eBay), no matter the year produced and sell to the uneducated buyer for $$$$$!

Also, please note that more than likely, 18W8(INT) issued in Dec 1, 1944, just happens to correspond to the immergence of the Hamilton G-987S which were marked the same as the later Elgin dive watches; USN BUSHIPS. Why would these Hamiltons from the mid-1940s be marked USN BUSHIPS and then the spec changed to XXXC for the Elgin G-539, and then back again for the later 1950s Elgin G-647 marked USN BUSHIPS? I hate to repeat myself but this does not make sense.

Jame's it sure looks like some put together elgin canteen watches will be comming up for sell after these cases and part's are sold.

Hi Mike,

I have no problem with anyone building these into wearable watches and selling them, no matter the movement used, as long as they state as such. I'll even grant that some of these cases might have even been used back in the early '50s as replacement cases. But please, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these were ever issued that way based on the relatively small numbers of examples, with widely varying serial numbers that have only surfaced in the very recent past. I've been collecting US issued watches for many years and have had personal experience with these NOS cases when they first hit the market way back in the late 1980s. I find it amusing for them now to be discovered and suddenly considered the "original" archetype of the Elgin dive watches. This is all amusing when, according to my database going back to the late 80s, I see no G-539 dive watches and the few watches using these types of cases (XXXC) all had G-647 movements. Then again, you could pick these watches up for about $300 in excellent condition back then. As the prices of these canteen watches increased, so did the numbers of examples with NOS cases and G-539 movements turning up on eBay. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Where is the list of other watches with XXXX.C markings that have E-645 Movements in them?
If that is the correct movement and there are roughly 3000 watches produced, they should be easy to find by anyone. We found lots of G-539 watches and a few directly from divers that claim they are "As Issued".

We need a list of E-647 watches to know if that is the factory installed movement. Has anyone published a list with photographs and dated evidence prior to the recent boom on these watches?

The interesting thing about the Canteen Database is that many watches and photos are from the past when the motive for making put togethers was as you say not really worth it. Now the parts are worth much more.

quote:

Where is the list of other watches with XXXX.C markings that have E-645 Movements in them?
If that is the correct movement and there are roughly 3000 watches produced, they should be easy to find by anyone. We found lots of G-539 watches and a few directly from divers that claim they are "As Issued".

We need a list of E-647 watches to know if that is the factory installed movement. Has anyone published a list with photographs and dated evidence prior to the recent boom on these watches?

The interesting thing about the Canteen Database is that many watches and photos are from the past when the motive for making put togethers was as you say not really worth it. Now the parts are worth much more.

I don't know of any watches with an E-645 movement. That's a new one for me but I am not surprised people are starting to stick other movements in the watch now.

You obviously are not reading what I am writing or choosing to read selectively. Nowhere have I said that there is a "correct" or "factory installed" movement for XXXC cases. In fact, my speculation is that these 3000 cases were manufactured for use as spares for the original G-647 movement watches marked "USN BUSHIPS" and if used for that purpose (very infrequently based on the numbers I have recorded) then the appropriate movement would indeed be the G-647, as would be on an original ~1951 manufactured Elgin dive watch. Instead what I find on my own as well as based off your data is an immense range of serial numbered G-539s dating from 1942 up to even 1947. Please explain to me how a 1942 movement is even possible? For a sampling of only 3000 cases? The last time I looked, there were two of that vintage on your list. Not to mention that some have been proven to be using the NOS (i.e. no movement) cases that came onto the market back in the late 80's just like the examples just a few days ago.

As far as a published list, my list remains unpublished as well as all of my documented records and will remain that way until I decide to publish my book. I don't want others of more recent collecting activity to twist that data to suit their own agenda, for whatever reason.

Your last statement is interesting. You say that many watches and photos are from the past. The past is yesterday and beyond. What I want to know is how far in the past? A few years, more than that? My records go back to the late 80’s and as I have said before, the vast majority of these XXXC watches with G-539 movements are of the very recent past, within about the last 5 years or so. If you consider that the past, then there is your problem. My definition of past is much different than yours. Whether or not it is “worth it” to install a G-539 movement into these cases, is not a valid reason to say that that is the way they were made originally. My definition of “worth” I am sure, is much different than yours, or many others. To me, “worth” means having the watch the way it was intended. To someone else, “worth” might mean something as simple as a watch having any movement installed so as to tell time. Two very different definitions of “worth”, both very valid.

Ok, I am just trying to make heads/tails of this, is this a reverse on which is the correct movement? Meaning that the 539 is being questioned, and the 647 being the more accurate movement?

Sorry, just trying to figure out what's been posted.

Tim

Please note: E-645 is a typographical error. I was referring to the 647 Elgin Movement referred to as "G-647" by Delgado.

Thank you for catching that typo.

quote:

Please note: E-645 is a typographical error. I was referring to the 647 Elgin Movement referred to as "G-647" by Delgado.

Thank you for catching that typo.

G = Grade

I have to say that my milwatch experience, though much less considerable, matches up with James'. My military history reading and personal military experience also corresponds with his hypotheses.