I get in an Elgin for some projects where I plan to use a lot of 7j Elgins and Walthams, and it looks plain enough . . .

The movement s/n32648586 dates it to the late 1920's . . . but what is that little "extra" engraving (white Arrow) on the movement?

"U S ARMY" is cut into the barrel bridge plate just above the S/N, so teeny tiny it was almost missed and my very old (3 years) digit camera (that wifey gave me after she dropped it in a pitcher of beer) has a real hard time seeing this. I wonder how many Elgins were sold to the U S Army in 1929? Anybody know?

A rather odd watch, thanks for the images. I'm sorry to say that given all the fakes on the market a watch like this must be examined with caution.

Is the "U.S. Army" stamping close to or the same as the "U.S. Army" stamp applied to other U.S. military movements? For that matter, is it engraved or die stamped?

Does the case appear original to the movement? Any markings on the case?

Did the watch come from a seller in Eastern Europe? Can you trace the ownership of the watch?

Sorry to be so negative.

Best regards,
Greg

The Ball Crowned Base metal case seems "period correct" for the watch and has no other screw marking on it. The Machine Engraving Type Style is definitely US-made and is very similar to other Military Property Claim engravings I have on other pieces.

As the engraving work is accurately positioned just inside the Damaskeened area and parallel to the s/n, Elgin could have pulled stock and added this "U S ARMY" just prior to delivery to the broker who completed the sale much like some of the other markings I have. i.e., I doubt it is a fake, especially with the dial type.

I used a magnifying glass, and my macro on my wifes new (not dropped in the beer yet) 9 meg Canon and got a better image of the engraving. This looks to be diamond engraved in much the same fashion as the Serial Number, and I must conclude it is a "factory Job" given the type face and detail.

It looks period correct to me. I have seen plain 7 jewel elgins such as this one used by the Army, but the movements are not usually marked "US Army". Only the ordinance markings on the case.
Ray

I pulled the case back off again and . . .

Rubbed the muck out of the inside and here's the clincher! It was cased by Elgin, so the engraving was most likely factory original! It also keeps darned good time! "As received" it is about 10 sec a day accurate.

Of course anything is possible, but the lack of any of the standard military markings; plus what appears in the photos to be a relatively brightness to the US ARMY engraving with what appear to be small irregularness to the A and R; plus this not being in Whitney (not that everything is in Whitney but the great bulk is); plus the number of 'modified' watches with added military markings to increase their values coming out of Eastern Europe and Asia these days keeps me from being convinced yet that the US ARMY marking on the movement is correct.

Jim, I appreciate your doubts anbout this watch. If you have any proven fake military markings, seeing those would help. Diamond hand engraving 1 mm high characters (40 thousanths of an inch!) is easily prone to translational pantograph errors of a thousanth of an inch, even on a good day. As this was an estate piece from North Carolina, foreign marking on the movement must have been quite a while back. I am researching this more, but it "smells" military. The case, no service marks, hand-made replacement bow and the general demeanor of the piece. As more comes up, I will keep you posted.

Thanks David. I have an open mind and am always appreciative of what others can teach me, but I always want to see reasonable proof before accepting something not seen before. I have seen too many 'improved' or 'parts put together' watches over the years - both new ones and old ones. It is possible that while this has an old case that the case might not be original to the movement. The same with the dial. Heaven knows that many old timepieces have had more than a few trips to a watchmaker's bench starting just a few years after they come off of the production line and sometimes more than a minor part or two gets changed out - often times from period donor watches. Sometimes it is all innocent, and sometimes there is someone who is trying to add value.

Does the the US ARMY engraving look similar in depth and quality to the regular Elgin engravings on the movement? In the photo they look very different.

I found another Elgin in my collection with a the same lettering, but it includes U.S.Army A.C., and this late 1941- Early 1942 watch is definetely meant for military duty.

Again it has the same typeface and height of letters, and is even inscribed at about the same "circle" on the watch movement.

This came from the estate of a personal friend of mine, Mr. W Howell, a native Californian who flew B 17's from Australia in the early part of things, and lived long enough to come back and teach more pilots. I think Billy may have changed the dial, he never said, but it was a piece that was close to his heart.

Was it the practice of Elgin to use pentagraph machines or stamping dies to mark movements?

Greg, perhaps Bill Briska the unsung Elgin expert (who wrote the Elgin History book that is a masterpiece but NAWCC would not even post a review of!) could lend a hand with that answer. I can say from personal experience that the font style and tool marks of that microcopic sized engraving require a diamond point tool as die stamping of such a mark would leave peripherally upset metal.

If anything, I would expect to see Ordnance Dept on the plate rather than U.S. Army. Curious engraving.

This one is new to me, it sure is interesting!

I'm very curious to find out what the answer to this one is.

How would one look for the answer to this one?

Comparison?

Any other way?

In late 1941 when we went on emergency war footing, there was ONLY a U.S.Army Air Corp., and in 1929 or later there WAS a U.S.Army. How these things were bought remains only speculation now, and the debate of this thread is the legitimacy of the 7 jewel Elgin which is clearly engraved U.S.ARMY in the same font, size and style as the Elgin Sweep Second Hand Hacking watch is.

Maybe there was a little gremlin hired by the U.S.Armuy who crept into these and scratched these marking in after they were received at a depot for Govt. Procurement.

IN FACT, even my Longines Nav Chrono says U.S.Army A.C.! Excepting of course a slightly different font.

The main aviation branch of the U.S. military has gone through a number of name changes over the years. Until 1918 it was called the U.S. Army Signal Corps - Aviation Section (ASSC). From 1918 until 1926 it was renamed the U.S. Army Air Service (AS), then it was called the U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC) until 1941. Then it was the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) until 1947. Finally, it was removed from the Army and created a coequal branch of the U.S. military and named the U.S. Air Force (USAF). You can get very general date ranges for timepieces used by the U.S. aviation forces according to the markings on these. For example, your Longines with the Army A.C. marking would have been procured between 1926 and 1941. I am sure you can narrow that down quite a bit by the overall style of the watch and perhaps by its serial number as well.

The Army also had a group called the Ordnance Department that was in existance with this name from 1812 until 1962. They were the ones who procured most of the equipment and weapons for the Army, including things like timepieces. Except for the timepieces purchased for the aviation part of the Army and some of the timepieces purchased for the Signal Corps part of the Army, the usual markings on timepieces are those of the Ordnance Department.

I am not convinced by the similarity of font on the Elgin to that on your great looking Longines 21 jewel watch. The marking on Longines appears in the photo to be of the exact same size, font, style, color, age, etc. of the other markings on that same watch. The US ARMY marking on Elgin does not appear to be cotemporaneous with the other markings in style, font, color, age, etc. The Elgin marking is also quite different in style from that on the Longines in that the one on the Longines appears to have been deeply stamped into it and colored with ink at along with the rest of the markings on it rather than lightly engraved as the Elgin marking is.

This is an interesting discussion.

I Hope the Longines which dates to 1939 is contemporaneous to the can it came in. As for the 1929 Elgin, God knows when that was actually delivered to the Army, but it has the same engraving treatment (my point indeed) as the 21 Jewel (22 actual) sweep second hand Elgin which was clearly hurriedly prepared right after Pearl into a Nav watch, I expect (as I have said previously) these watches were engraved at Elgin, and this was done after the fact but as it is in the Nickel finish, it will continue to look "new" while in fact it is quite contemporaneous to the dates of issue to the U.S.Army(and A.C.).