origins of the waltham model 57 - price-less ads

Origins of the Waltham Model 57 2/23/07 1

Draft

Origins of the Waltham Model 57

Evolution Of The First Successful Industrialized Watch

The use of automated machinery turning out interchangeable parts on a large scale in the making of watches was first achieved in America in 1850 by the Boston Watch Company located in Roxbury, Massachusetts. Although not the first people to employ the use of machines in making watches, through Yankee Ingenuity, Aaron L. Dennison, Edward Howard, David P.

Davis and Samuel Curtis were the first to put it all together and to start a major watch enterprise. (Davis had no active role1 [r16 page 924] other than being a business partner with Howard [r13 page 2] and co-owner of related real estate [references for this provided later in document]. It is not clear how active a role Curtis had other than to provide the major financing, but in effect he became the sole owner of the company by 1857 after investing a personal fortune and then becoming insolvent [r106 Case 116, Sheet 29, etc.,].)

Although Aaron Dennison and Edward Howard became acquainted in 1842 [r13 page 3] and [r94 page 67], it was many years later in 1849 when Howard was in Dennison’s shop that Dennison convinced Howard that making watches by machinery on the interchangeable system would be a better business opportunity than making locomotives, saying: “that as a watch was only a clock on a small scale, his knowledge of the latter business would come finely into play.” [r39 page 1 of Letter]. Howard said they began these discussions around 1845 [r94 page 67].

Actually, Dennison first envisioned making cheap brass clocks incorporating his ideas for interchangeable parts around 1833 (a la the Connecticut clocks). This was at the close of his apprenticeship with clockmaker James Cary of Brunswick, ME [r95 page 5]. He then went to Boston and New York to broaden his knowledge of watch and clock making. While in the watch repair business in the 1840s, Dennison devises a size gauging system for filing and making watch parts, and decides on the large full plate English lever watch as his model for manufacturing watches on a large scale [r38 pages 2 & 3] (perhaps modeled after the English Perry watch [r16 page 925]). He was further inspired by the production methods being practiced at the U.S. Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1845 [r38 page 4] and [r47 page 738].

FIGURE 1. Aaron Dennison (left, picture courtesy Philip Priestley) and Edward Howard (cover reference [r13])

See epitaphs for Dennison in [r107] and Howard in [r108].

1. references are denoted with symbol [r...]

2 2/23/07 Origins of the Waltham Model 57

DraftSeveral references indicate that Dennison might have purchased his initial watch making tools from the Pitkin brothers in late 1840s, [r58 page 28] & [r28 page 387] including material for a total of $6,500, [r14 page 589] but Hoke believes this assertion cannot be supported [r60 page 309]. No mention is made of this in either of Dennison’s papers [r39] or Keith’s manuscript [r94]. Indeed, Howard refers to making of tools before the organization of the company to test Dennison’s ideas, which later turned out to be unusable [r94 pages 67-73].

The Company was started in 1850 under the name of the American Horologe Company with the principal capital of $20,000 furnished by Samuel Curtis, but the name of the Company was changed to the Warren Manufacturing Co. a few months later to make the intent of the company more secretive [r94 pages 69-71] & [r47 pages 739-740]. A small parcel of land (50x125 feet) was purchased by Howard and Davis for a new factory on the corner of East (now Hampden) and Prescott Streets, Roxbury, Mass., on November 1, 1850 [r106 Deeds, Norfolk, Book 198, pages 119 & 120]. This lot was located cater-cornered from the grounds of the Howard & Davis Clock and Balance factory between East and Yeoman Streets purchased June 1, 1846 [r106 Deeds, Norfolk, Book 169, pages 211 & 222]. A brick building was built on the East & Prescott lot (nearly filling it as it appears in pictures), expressly designed for the watch making business (although the whole internal arrangements were rearranged one or two years later after the founders learned more of what they were attempting to do) [r94 page 69]. Wesley Hauptman says construction began in September of 1850 [r16 page 925]. E.A. Marsh dates the factory as being completed in January of 1851 [r47 page 739], as does Charles Moore with the building 100 feet long referencing a Dennison Manufacturing Company manuscript and a letter from Aaron’s brother Eliphalet dated October 11, 1850 [r51 page 14] (note that the deed was signed in November after construction began, not an unusual practice in the 1850s the author has been told).

FIGURE 2. The First Watch Factory In America

Dennison’s first model, completed in the summer of 1851, was equipped with a large barrel in an attempt to run it eight days, but the time rate was too variable between high and low winding of the mainspring [r16 page 926]. They probably struggled with this first model because Marsh says several reproductions were made [r48 page 9]. N.P. Stratton, an apprentice of the Pitkin brothers, convinced Dennison to convert to the one-day (30 hour) watch; he was also able to utilize the existing 8-day material [r46 page 17]. Wesley Hauptman [r16 page 926] sets this time frame as very early 1852.

The Howard, Davis & Dennison Watch

Dennison still pursued the idea, however, of producing an eight-day watch while the 30 hour watch was being built. With Howard’s agreement, O.B. Marsh and his brother, D.S. Marsh, were assigned to model a new watch with two large mainspring barrels in the fall of 1852. This watch, reported 20 size (surviving examples are closer to 22 size), did turn out to be a good time keeper, and perhaps nineteen were made including two models kept by the Marsh brothers. These watches were engraved Howard, Davis & Dennison (probably serial numbers 1-15) [r2], [r3] & [r97 page 564]. Serial numbers 16 & 17 were engraved D.B. Fitts, Holiston, Mass. [r3].

Dennison finally had to admit, though, that these watches would have been too expensive to produce for a reasonable market, and the 8-day watch was abandoned [r16 pages 929-930].

This sketch of the factory with added 3rd floor was likely made many years later, after 1857, but before Howard added an addition. The description from the Registry of Deeds implies the land was open and there would be no building next to the factory. See Dawes’ update of [r46] page 7 for earlier sketch with two floors.

While the factory was being constructed, Dennison traveled to England to learn information on how to perfect the business, particularly the process of frosting and gilding movement parts according to Howard [r94 pages 69-71]. Marsh says one of Dennison’s objectives was to make arrangements for the purchase of supplies that could not be readily procured in America such as enamels and jewels [r51 page 14]. Marsh makes no mention of the need to learn the gilding process; Hauptman does in [r16 page 925], and adds dial making and fabricating of hair springs and main springs.

Ske

tch

from

Abb

ott’s

“A

Pio

neer

” [r

49 p

age

17]


DraftJim West in [r97 page 564] offers addi-tional explana-tions.

FIGURE 3. Howard, Davis & Dennison; Boston, No. 3 (left) No. 2 (right)

The custom-designed model H,D&D No. 3 on the left differs in many respects from the following production watches produced by the BWCo. It is oversize, approximately 22 size (49.5mm), to accommodate two large main spring barrels as well as an extra set of wheel and pinion to run them. It is geared to run at 14,400 beats per hour and is probably fitted with stop work barrels. The jewel settings are secured with two screws as opposed to three on the 30-day watches; the center wheel is jeweled on the top plate. The hairspring is undersprung with a solid balance like the later production models, presumably to reduce costs, whereas the original 8-day model was oversprung with an expansion balance. This movement has a gold balance. It is key set from the front. It is housed in an 18K F.D.&Co. hunting case with matching number 3. Photo courtesy Don Wing.

The Henry Ford Museum traded the right pictured movement No. 2 with the Waltham Watch Co. for the D.S. Marsh prototype movement (see cover and [r97 page 564]). Photograph courtesy Charles River Museum of Industry.

Howard says in Keith’s manuscript [r94 pages 75-76] that Dennison was unable to complete the gilding process as he supposedly learned in England. Unable to find anyone in America with this knowledge, they sent Stratton to Coventry, England, to learn it. Stratton might have been familiar with the fire-guilding process used by the Pitkin brothers in Hartford, Conn., where they produced perhaps 400 to 800 watches [r96 page 256], but the English electrogilding method was superior. Stratton did discover the problem they were having with the process and returned in November of 1852. The 8-day models were completed as mentioned above, and the factory proceeded with their first commercial watch [r16 page 930].

The Warren Watch

Production began in the spring of 1853 with 30-hour 15J watches which sold retail for $40 in a silver case [r16 page 931]. The first 80 or so movements were inscribed Warren, in tribute to the famous General Joseph Warren who was born near the factory in Roxbury [r16 page 925] (probably numbers 18 - 100, although numbers higher than 44 have yet been reported) [r2].

These watches were full plate with four pillars and had an English appearance with large clear aquamarine jewels ([r46] & see Jewels in next chapter on page 40). The train was slow, 14,400 beats per hour, like the English watches. These watches had a going barrel, different from the typical verge fusee English watch [r48 page 9]. The going barrel was simpler to manufacture than the fusee and chain [r60 page 22]. The escape wheels had pointed ratchet teeth. An English-style lever escapement was used with the pallets mounted at right-angle to the lever. See description of these escapements in next chapter on page 48.


DraftThe Samuel Curtis Watch

After the first run, about 900 more watches were produced in Roxbury. These movements were engraved Samuel Curtis in honor of the man who furnished the bulk of the initial capital (probably serial numbers 101 - 1000) [r2].

At this time the firm began producing their own cases. Like English cases, cases for the Samuel Curtis were smaller than the current standard 18S to accommodate the smaller back plate. Indeed, if there is no space between the back plate of a Samuel Curtis movement and the case, you can almost be certain the case is an original) [r16 page 931] (or at least representative).

FIGURE 4. Warren No. 44 and Samuel Curtis No. 899

Photo by Jim Michaels of Bob Ravel’s Warren #44 courtesy of The Watch and Clock Museum of The NAWCC.

The company (Warren Manufacturing Co.), from the beginning, referred to itself as the Boston Watch Company (BWCo). Now, no longer having to conceal their name and watchmaking intent from English firms who supplied material, the name of the company was officially changed [r16 page 931] (perhaps in September of 1853 according to Bolino [r58 page 73]).

Desiring to leave the extremely dusty conditions at the Roxbury factory, and planning for future expansion where employees could have comfortable homes, the company built a modern factory on the Charles River in Waltham, Massachusetts [r47 page 740].

According to Marsh (and other references) the new factory was ready for occupancy in October 1854 [r47 page 740]. {Similar to the sequence of dates with the Roxbury factory, the Waltham property was not deeded until November 20, 1854 [r106 Deeds, Middlesex, Book 698, page 465] after construction; apparently common practice in 1850s.}

Although not documented here, the sequence of events on how Dennison learned of the Waltham property and acquiring it for the factory with Wm.H. Keith’s instrumental assistance is an interesting story on its on right, and an important phase in the company’s history. The ingenious maneuvering involved establishing a land company with Legislature approval in March of 1854, The Waltham Improvement Company (WICo), which allocated land for the factory and the rest for land development. See references: [r16 page 933], [r47 page 740], [r48 pages 11-14], and [r94 pages 83-104]. The Waltham Improvement Company deeded property to the BWCo on three occasions with the Improvement Company holding mortgages: Nov. 20, 1854; Nov. 1, 1855, and July 15, 1856 [r106 Deeds, Middlesex, Book 698, pages 465 & 468; Book 729, page 9; Book 736 page 371; Book 749, pages 52 & 54].

{Author’s note: Various principals, family members, and associates of the company bought stock in the land company and plots of land from it. Although the BWCo eventually failed, The Waltham Improvement Company survived and its property became very valuable. While historians record personal losses as a result of the failure of the BWCo, it would be interesting to


Draftinvestigate to see if any of the early investors achieved financial rewards from their land holdings. Aaron Dennison, for example, bought stock in WICo and used its profits to fund his later venture at Tremont Watch Co. [r37 page 3].}

FIGURE 5. Early Drawing Of The Boston Watch Co. Factory

The above figure is an anonymous artist rendition of the Boston Watch Co. Factory as it looked shortly after it opened in 1854 [r16 p 934].

When fully operational at Waltham, the BWCo produced about ten to twelve watches per day with 75 employees [r23 page 144]. Cutmore says in [r59 page 28] that BWCo’s production rate was only about half of that done in Switzerland at that time by traditional methods, but based on modern analysis, contributor Mike Harrold (MA) believes the BWCo was already outperforming the Swiss and had proven the success of industrial watch making.

The Dennison, Howard & Davis Watch

All of the watches produced at Waltham by the Boston Watch Co. (BWCo) were engraved Dennison, Howard & Davis (DH&D), except perhaps 100 movements marked Fellows & Schell in the name of the watch wholesalers who helped finance the new operation with $20,000 [r16 pages 935-936] ($1,636.84 owed as creditors at the later insolvency of the company [r106 Sheet 110]), although no such Fellows & Schell examples have yet surfaced publicly (other than a fake seen by author). DH&D serial numbers range from 1001 to 5000 (#5000 is a new design).

The Dennison, Howard & Davis movement was the forerunner of and quite similar to the so-called Model 57.

Even in the beginning, the focus was on interchangeable parts, “... so that any movement would fit any case, and any part of one movement could be interchanged with any other.” [r94 pages 73-74]; records were kept by serial numbers so that parts could be easily replaced on broken watches [r16 page 939] (although Hoke points out interchangeability was not fully achieved with many parts [r60 pages 24 & 244/245], and that adjusting a high grade movement could take five months [r60 page 224]; also, Howard admitted in a letter that “interchangeability of parts,..., was not found to be practicable in the finer parts...” [r94 pages 73-74] & [r13 page 13]).


Draft

FIGURE 6. DH&D Nos. 1016 and 2673

As explained below, author believes the early movement on left in above figure (S/N 1016) might have actually been made at the Roxbury plant and not at Waltham. Note the addition of the key guard cup around the winding square on later movement (S/N 2673). The steel guard cup was applied to the DH&D top plate some time between serial numbers 1540 and 1718 according to the DH&D data table at end of this monograph (and see Table 1 on page 10).

Not wanting to use English cases any longer and for convenience of a wider opening, Dennison made the back plate on the DH&D movement 2/30ths larger than the Samuel Curtis watch which became the standard 18 size [r16 page 936].

There might have been considerable variance with plate sizes in the early days. People report various sizes up to 20S perhaps not realizing that the standard 18S actually measures 19S according to Dennison’s formula [r26]. Hoke lists sizes ranging from 18S to 20S in the Time Museum catalog [r61] which were obtained during a quick examination conducted in the early 1980s. Patricia H. Atwood, Executive Director for The Time Museum, reported they resized their collection and the movements in question all measured approximately 18S; exact measurements are given here in the data tables. Author’s collection all measure nearly the same, including (for the most part) the set and wind squares; see sample plate measurements in the data tables.

The DH&D also differs from the Samuel Curtis in the train and pillar arrangements. The third wheel is below the center and fourth wheels on the Samuel Curtis like the English watch of its day; this arrangement was reversed on the DH&D watch (and standard Model 57s). On standard M57s the 4th wheel pinion is located between the wheel and the back plate, whereas on the Samuel Curtis this pinion is in the pillar plate (see Figure 7 on page 7). Crossman [r46 page 17] mentions this raising of the third wheel when describing the early movements, but he gives no rationale for the change (but it must have simplified the manufacture of the pillar plate).

This change was apparently introduced in a transitional manner because the train arrangement on the first several hundred DH&D movements is different from both the Samuel Curtis and standard Model 57; i.e., its 4th, 3rd, and center wheels are stacked above one and another, and the center wheel, which is solid, is buried in the pillar plate (see Figure 7 on page 7 and data tables herein). This observation is consistent with Marsh’s statement in [r48 page 15] that the first “few hundred movements had been started in the Roxbury plant”. Author refers to this transitional layout as the Roxbury Train.


Draft

FIGURE 7. Different Train Arrangements Between Samuel Curtis and Dennison Howard & Davis

SC 899

DH&D 1016(Roxbury train)

DH&D 4546(standard M57)

3rd wheel pinion above wheel 4th wheel pinion below wheel

4th wheel pinion below wheel3rd wheel pinion below wheel

4th wheel pinion above wheel3rd wheel pinion below wheel


DraftOn the Samuel Curtis there is a pillar under the balance cock, whereas on the DH&D and standard M57s it is located under the edge of the barrel plate (perhaps this is a consequence of the smaller back plate).There is also a pillar nearly opposite from the balance cock on the DH&D (&M57s) at about 11:55 position with the base of the cock at 6:00, but on the Samuel Curtis this pillar is located at 12:30 (which can be observed by looking at the screws on the back plate; see pictures below.

FIGURE 8. Different Pillar Positions Between Samuel Curtis and Dennison Howard & Davis

Just to be complete, the position of the train is also a little different between the DH&D and Samuel Curtis movements; e.g., the distance between centers of the balance staff and the winding square on the Samuel Curtis is 15.2mm whereas on the DH&D (& M57) it is 16.5mm. On the other hand, the position of the key hole on the cases is the same.

The train was geared for 16,200 beats per hour (4.5 per second) on the DH&D, faster than the slow English train of 14,400 beats per hour (4 per second), but still slower than 18,000 beats per hour (5 per second) which became the standard later (see section on train speed in next chapter, Table 6 on page 54).

According to Kleeb, Aaron Dennison brought a jewel maker (Sibley) back from England in 1850 during his trip to purchase material. However, jewel making at the factory was abandoned in 1852 until about 1855 when a new jewel maker was hired (Sherwood). The new jewels were similar in appearance to the early imported aquamarine jewels (basically colorless to pale blue-green); they were made from beryl and chrysoberyl [r12 page 197].

DH&D movements had a stronger ratchet bridge than the Curtis and introduced several feature changes in addition to the train during its production lifetime including wind guard (mentioned above), “peep holes”, and potance. These changes are explained below.

Samuel Curtis 899 Dennison Howard & Davis 3027


DraftThe progression of pillar plates on the Samuel Curtis and Dennison, Howard & Davis movements is shown in Figure 9 on page 9. Note that the third bridge supports three arbors on the later Curtis and is straightened out on the DH&D. Note the stronger ratchet bridge on the DH&D, and the later versions have “peep holes” in the pillar plate so the escapement can be seen in motion.

FIGURE 9. Progression Of Pillar Plates On The Curtis and DH&D

Although movements produced by the companies that followed BWCo were 16 jewels (center arbor on pillar plate), no DH&D has yet been reported as having 16 jewels. Maybe one will show up some day, perhaps with high serial number (e.g., above 4900). Or perhaps material planned for serial number over 5000 was intended to be 16J. Although the Tracy Baker Sales records indicate several 16J DH&D movements (e.g., S/Ns 4161-4170) [r55 page 24], author believes this data is misleading (see explanation in table in [r102]).

Contributor Michael Edidin brought to the attention of the author the observation that the method of attaching DH&D potances changed from earlier versions to later ones.

The potance, 'U-Bridge' shape (some people call it the butterfly potance), is illustrated in Figure 60 on page 52 (on Model 57 AT&C S/N 6669). As illustrated on next page the potance is attached by a screw in the center of each foot of the potance. The potance also has a steady pin on each foot which protrudes through the top plate along with the screw hole as can be seen in Figure 10 on page 10. The original old fastening method has the steady pins on opposite corners whereas the new style has the steady pins on the same edge.

SC 212 SC 899

DH&D 1016 DH&D 3730


Draft.

FIGURE 10. Old and New Fastening Arrangements of DH&D Potances

The chart below documents when design changes were made to the DH&D by serial number according to the data table at end of this monograph.

TABLE 1. Introduction of DH&D Design Changes

S/No. Train Wind Grd. Peep Hls. Potance 16J

1016 Roxbury None No Old N



1517 M57 None No Old N

1540 None Old

1547 M57 N

1718 Yes Old

1724 M57 Yes No Old N

2299 M57 Yes No Old N

2361 Yes No Old

2471 M57 Yes Old N

2497 Yes Yes Old

2673 M57 Yes Yes Old N

2776 Old N

2886 Yes Old

2929 Yes New N

2938 Yes New N

2954 Yes New N

3020 Yes New N

3027 M57 Yes Yes New N



4915 Yes ?

S/No. Train Wind Grd. Peep Hls. Potance 16J

Old Method on S/N 2673 New Method on S/N 3027

steady pins

steady pins


DraftThe Bankruptcy

The Boston Watch Company met with hard financial times in 1856. The machines made in Roxbury were wearing faster than expected and the factory’s re-tooling efforts were eating away their production profits [r16 page 937], as were many other factors [r65, May 22, 1857]. Indeed, the whole country was facing a “universal financial panic” at the time [r48 page 20]. Dennison was critical of Howard and Davis using funds to engage in unrelated manufacturing efforts (e.g., sewing machines) [r6 page 274]. Howard was critical of Dennison’s ineptness at being superintendent of the factory [r13 page 11]. Whatever the reasons, in the end it was the Waltham Improvement Company that pushed the company into bankruptcy (although the legal term in 1857 was insolvency). The Watch company defaulted on notes to the Waltham Bank which the Waltham Improvement Company was guaranteeing, their property insurance had expired and they owed property tax. Consequently, the Directors of the Improvement Company moved to foreclose their mortgaged properties on February 28, 1857 [r94 pages 116-117]; this was done on March 3, 1857 [see previously referenced deeds][r106]. The Boston Watch Company pursued two refinancing attempts but to no avail [r94 pages 79-80]. Having no other recourse, petitions for insolvency were filed on April 15, 1857 [r106 Sheets 1, Case 116 for Curtis, Case 117 for Davis, Case 118 for Howard, Case 119 for Dennison].

An “assignee”, Nathan W.C. Jameson, merchant in Antrim, NH, was appointed on April 16, 1957, for Dennison, Howard, and Curtis holdings in Waltham [r106 Deeds, Middlesex, Book 768, pages 7-9] and for Howard and Davis holdings in Roxbury [r106 Deeds, Norfolk, Book 274, page 211] (strangely, this record was not recorded till March 26, 1859); however, the court made William B. Fessenden the “assignee” for the two Roxbury factory properties on June 16 [r106 Sheet 98]. Several references incorrectly state that Charles Rice was the assignee; e.g., Crossman [r46 page 25], Hauptman [r16 page 938] and even Robbins himself in an 1883 speech at the AWWCo Factory Foremen’s Dinner in Boston, January 6, 1883 [r48 page 21; full speech available from the Waltham Historical Society].

It is interesting to note that an advertisement for the watch company as “Manufacturers Dennison, Howard and Davis” appeared in a Boston newspaper as late as April 14, 1857 [r106 Post]. The same ad was posted nearly weekly in this daily paper previously. The existence of the ad gives indication of some operational status of the company to the bitter end.

Moving fast, Jameson advertised the insolvency in two Boston newspapers on April 16 as ordered by the court and called for the first meeting of creditors to be held on April 29 [r106 Advertiser]. During the week up to Saturday, May 9, Jameson advertised the sale by auction of the Waltham Watch Factory on May 9 [r106 Advertiser]. Crossman mistakenly wrote the date April 9 [r46 page 39]. References in the literature refer to the sale as a “sheriff sale”, but according to newspaper articles it was actually run by a prominent Boston auctioneer N.A. Thompson, and referred to as “assignee sale” [r106 Herald & Transcript].

Both Howard and Dennison independently looked for investors. Howard teamed with Charles Rice [r13 page 10], Dennison contacted Eliashib Tracy and Theodore Baker who had prior dealings with the company in watch wholesaling and cases. The watch company owed them, the firm Tracy & Baker of Philadelphia, quite a bit of money for gold cases. Dennison talked Tracy and Baker into the deal, but not wanting to go it alone, Tracy contacted Royal E. Robbins and got him to join the venture (actually putting up most of the capital) [r6 page 274]. Mr. Robbins was actually an investor in Tracy, Baker & Co. [r46 article number 32 on watchcase making in the Jewelers’ Circular and Horological Review; also Dawes’ update page 80], and claimed he originally was acting as agent for Tracy, Baker & Co., and did not intend to run the company [r48 page 21 in speech].

Robbins out-bid Rice for the company’s assets. The bid (actually two items) was $8,500 for the real estate & buildings and $33,000 for the factory contents; Robbins also assumed two mortgages amounting to $14,380 in liabilities [r51 pages 28, 38, & 314] (also see [r46 page 37] for additional details of the property). As a point of reference, Keith says at the time of the bankruptcy, the company estimated their investments at $150,000 and their shrinkage at $90,000 [r94 page 56]. This seems low because the insolvency court recording of Curtis’ debts totalled $173,505.44 [r106 Case 116, Sheet 29, etc.].

Howard and Rice had intended to acquire the factory at a bargain price shed of it liabilities, so the Tracy, Baker and Robbins deal probably took them by surprise. Even Tracy said Robbins wasn’t known to them, and that Robbins and he attended the auction separately and bid separately [r6 page 275]. Rice might have been suspicious, though, or at least wanted to cover his bets, because he removed inventory from the factory prior to the sale; and was accused of doing so even the night before. Supposedly Rice had secured a chattel mortgage with this inventory [r6 page 274]. Howard and Rice were challenged in court to describe the details of the inventory that they removed and what right they had to remove them [r106 Case 116, Sheet 153 and Case 118, Sheet 56]. According to Crossman, Rice claimed ownership under his trusteeship with the company which preceded the failure [r46 page 38]. Rice tried to sell this mortgaged inventory to Robbins, but they could not agree on a price. Howard wanting to continue the watch making business made an arrangement with Rice to use the inventory under his management [r13 page 10].


DraftThe news articles on the sale reported the new company, “will carry on the (watch making) business on an extensive scale, as soon as the present lease to Mr. Charles Rice expires.” No information is given on Rice’s lease. A lease is also mentioned in the insolvency Interrogatories, but no explanation is given [r106 Case 118, Sheet 56]. As noted in the insolvency papers [r106 Case 116, Sheet 139], there is a $4,000 discrepancy between the amount Robbins recorded he paid for the factory and the amount the “assignee” recorded he received for the factory. This author wonders if the lease had something to do with the $4,000 discrepancy.

It is not clear exactly when Robbins got the business going again, but it must not have taken very long. An article in the Waltham Sentinel, May 22, 1857 [r65], reported on a meeting held earlier in the week to see what employees would pledge themselves to Howard starting up his own company. On May 23, 1857, in the Tracy Baker & Co. cashbook, there is an entry: “Manuf. charges Pd. hands to date $822.90” [r51 page 315]. According to sales records [r62 page 2], the first watches sold were DH&Ds on June 30, 1857 (also see Hawkins [r55 page 22]).

The Howard & Rice Watch

Howard returned to the Roxbury plant along with some 15 workmen, where working for Rice’s interests Howard kept the Boston Watch Co. name and completed about 500 watches. These watches were a variant of the DH&D design (and Model 57 movement). They were engraved Howard & Rice, Boston Watch Co., or just Boston [r16 page 940]. But also see E.Howard & Co watches listed in the data table at the end of this paper that are equivalent to Howard & Rice movements.

The existence of E.Howard & Co. dials on Howard & Rice movements, and E.Howard & Co. signature movements based on the Model 57 design, might signify a transitional period when Howard completed his settlement with Rice on December 11, 1858, and formed his own firm, E. Howard & Co. [r13 page 10]. The ‘58 settlement probably did not include the real estate because there is no such record in the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds except for the much later sale (Rice to Howard) of the East & Prescott property on April 30, 1861 [r106 Book 298, pages 92 & 93]; this property was previously transferred to Rice by Fessenden on March 9, 1859 [r106 Book 274, page 258].

The author’s data records confirm that about 500 Howard & Rice styled watches were made as reported in the literature. The survival rate for the Howard & Rice (H&R) watches in the data tables at end of this monograph agrees with the survival rate of the Samuel Curtis and the Dennison, Howard & Davis watches [r101]. Although based on the Dennison Howard & Davis design, the Howard & Rice movement differs in many ways. See description of the H&R escapement in next chapter on escapements, Figure 58 on page 50.

FIGURE 11. Howard & Rice 6011

The Howard & Rice movement has a better regulator than the DH&D (and Model 57). The standard Model 57 regulator has a lip that rides inside the balance staff hole. The regulators on H&R 6011, 6112, and 6252, however, are flat. Instead a bushing has been inserted in the balance hole which forms a small boss above the plate. The Howard regulator rides on this boss. The author can only speculate if Howard did this out of necessity or as an improvement (see Figure 12 on page 13).


DraftInterestingly, contributor Ray Tyulty came across original Howard material some time ago which contained a supply of strange looking regulators. He sent one and it matches this H&R regulator perfectly!

FIGURE 12. Howard & Rice Regulator On 6011

This regulator arm on H&R 6011 is particularly interesting because it has a screw with a non-concentric head on the arm for one of the curb pins. The screw is turned against the other curb pin to grasp the hairspring (see photo). The pointer end is also nicely ground down underneath to ride over the index strip.

A few other noteworthy differences on the H&R (see data table):■ all H&R movements have screw adjustable banking pins (see photo above) whereas the Model 57 did not incorporate this improvement till 1860 on the AT&Co grade (see banking pins in next chapter on page 45).■ on later movements the balance cap jewel is held down with 2 screws, although the first units have 3 screws as on the Model 57s (S/N 6011 has 3, #6047 has 2); contributor Alfred Brain brought this feature to the attention of the author.■ the Model 57 conventional winding square guard cup (see photo above) was replaced with a bushing on later movements (S/N 6099 has M57 style, S/N 6112 has the bushing)

FIGURE 13. Howard & Rice 6112

Note two cap jewel setting screws and bushing for winding square guard cup on H&R 6112. Cock has engraving of factory. Photo permission of Charles Wallace


DraftTracy Baker & Co./Appleton Tracy & Co.

For the first couple of months, Robbins named his new company Tracy Baker & Co. Then Baker sold his interest to Robbins on June 30, 1857, over a disagreement on co-partnership terms, and James W. Appleton was brought on for his influential contacts [r15 pages 690-2]. Baker might also have been in financial trouble because on the same day Robbins bought two large parcels of land from Baker per Moore’s book [r51 page 25 (Moore’s reference for this statement is Robbins’ cash book and journal: DF-1, V.150, 1857-1860, “R.E.R. No.1 Cash Book”, at Baker Library, Harvard Business School)]. Tracy wrote he left in the fall of ‘57 to attend to his watch case business in Philadelphia, but held his interest in the Company for many years [r6 page 276] (however, Moore claims Robbins bought Tracy out on September 8, 1858, according to an entry in Robbins’ cash and journal book [r51 page 317]). Tracy’s name was kept in the title of the company, Appleton Tracy & Company (AT&Co).

The AT&Co name was adopted September 1, 1857, according to Marsh [r48 page 23], but this might have been an official date because the name change was reported on July 17, 1857, in the Waltham Sentinel [r65]. Movements were engraved AT&Co starting in July 1857 per the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1].

FIGURE 14. Sketch of the Waltham Factory as it appeared August 28, 1858 (from newspaper article)

It is speculative history as to how much inventory Howard and Rice took back to Roxbury. Hauptman reports that when Robbins, Tracy, and Baker took over, they completed and sold off the remaining Dennison, Howard & Davis movements. These watches had serial numbers 2601 to 5000 [r10 page 261]. Hauptman might have made this statement based on a Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1]. His statement now appears to be incorrect. Although the Ledger is evidence for the existence of these watches, it is not good evidence for which company actually had and sold them; see [r100]. One can conclude from the surviving DH&D watches that all movements 1001 - 5000 were produced (except maybe the last 100) [r101]. However, we cannot be certain how many were sold by Boston Watch Co, Robbins’ new company, or perhaps even Howard & Rice. Vern Hawkins’ tabulation of sales records lists only about 120 DH&D movements sold by the AT&Co through September 1857 [r55 pages 22-24] (and confirmed in [r62]). Additional DH&D movements could have been sold later, including watches pawned by Robbins [r102]. However, this is unlikely because by September 1857 Robbins was already producing more watches than he could sell [r63 page 590].

Based on the foregoing evidence (especially [r101]), on reference to movements 4891-4910 in the insolvency records [r106 Case 116, Sheet 153] and on a positive statement made by Curtis in his insolvency affidavit [r106 Case 116, Sheet 180], it does not appear that more than perhaps a couple hundred or less DH&D movements were sold other than by the Boston Watch Company, although possibly material for a few hundred DH&D movements with serial numbers in the range 4900 to 6000 or so was cannibalized for AT&Co and H&R movements [r63 page 584] and [r103].

Sca

n a

nd

Ed

it c

ou

rtes

y o

f L

eslie

Nes

ky


Draft

FIGURE 15. DH&D serial numbers 4546 and 4082.

Considering its high serial number (4546), the movement pictured above on the left could have gone to AT&Co, although it likely was sold by the BWCo per above arguments. The one on the right, was sold by AT&Co twice, as recorded: June 1857 ($20) and April 1858 ($18) [r62]. The finish is so poor on this movement that the first owner probably returned it.

In addition to the question on the number of remaining DH&D movements, several references suggest Howard and Rice left very little to no unfinished material. E. Tracy says in [r6 pages 275-6] that, “Rice had taken all, or nearly so, the stock in the factory”, and that the company took several months to get reorganized. Percy Small reports that Howard and Rice removed the “movable goods” including work in progress, material and supplies, and a quantity of tools and small machines [r13 page 10]. Moore shows Robbins’ entry in the Tracy Baker & Co.’s May 1857 cashbook for the factory as “Machinery & tools”; note material is not mentioned. According to the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1], the first production did not start until July, 1857, and only 100 movements (AT&Co.) were finished in the month.The Company therefore had nearly three months to produce these watches from raw material, which makes the “empty factory” argument plausible.

E. Tracy says in reference [r6 page 275] that Robbins offered Rice $10,000+ for the material that Rice took for his chattel mortgage, but Rice wanted $15,000 which Robbins thought was too much. The inventory was actually worth $7,500 according to an insolvency document [r106 Case 116, Sheet 153], but Robbins might not have had access to this document when negotiating with Rice. Hawkins said Robbins sued Rice for the return of material, some of which was returned [r54] & [r55]; however, the source of Hawkins’ reference is unconfirmed. Moore lists Tracy Baker & Co.’s May 1857 cashbook with an expense of $2,359.82 for “Material & work not finished” (this is in addition to 165 oz. coin silver for cases - $202.12) [r51 page 315], which could amount to a couple hundred movements worth of material, or even several hundred depending on the amount of “finish”. Unfortunately the book does not say to whom this money was paid. To repeat the previously mentioned curious discrepancy, the cashbook also shows Robbins’ payment of $33,000 for the contents of the factory, although the assignee recorded $4,000 less [r106 Case 116, Sheet 139].

The Appleton Tracy & Co Watch

Continuing Hauptman’s theme, the new company began finishing watches in the style of the Boston Watch Company and inscribed them with the trademark Appleton Tracy & Co. [r15 page 690]; actually, the first movements were engraved Tracy Baker & Co (at least twenty movements, 5001-5020, per [r62 page 4 for July 31, 1857]). Indeed, the Tracy Baker & Co. movement S/N 5012 has markings identical to DH&D movements (see reference in AT&Co data table). Contributor Jon Hanson reports AT&Co movement, S/N 5047, is identical to DH&D except for the signature. Engravings on AT&Co serial number 5341 have the new AT&Co appearance, but the potance is the same as employed on DH&D movements with its “new fastening method” (e.g., on S/Ns 5012, 5332, 5341, 5761, 6669), and the full four-digit serial number is stamped on the underside of the top plate as on DH&D [n103], neither of which is the case on later movements.


Draft

FIGURE 16. Early AT&Co Model 57 Movement 5042 (permission of Douglas Lynn)

Hauptman reported the first run of AT&Co watches have serial numbers 5001 to 8100 [r10]. More specifically according to the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1], 5001 to 5200 include movements signed Tracy & Baker (see above paragraph), 6501 to 6590 are nameless/private label (but probably AT&Co grade), and 6901 to 8100 were not made.

The AT&Co signature was retained as the quality grade for the full duration of the Model 57 product line which stayed into production through 1878. Vernon Hawkins’ production report lists 62,165 AT&Co grade Model 57 movements were made [r54 page 4].

The Boston Watch Co sold watches in the range of $30 to $50 with silver cases (twice this amount in gold) in 1856 [r23], and Robbins held to this price in July 1857 for the Appleton Tracy watches (e.g., $24.50 for movements, $36.25 in silver hunter case, at 20% discount [r62 pages 4&5]). These watches were still rather expensive for their time. Twenty dollars was a month’s wage, for those who had wages (America was largely a barter society in the mid 1800s) [r29 page 1]. For another perspective, some brass clocks were selling for under $1 by 1855 [r7 page 270]. But the demand for moderately priced personal watches is what drove the industrialized watch industry. Although far from best at the time, AT&Co watches were of higher quality than their competitively priced foreign counterparts [r63 page 587], and 25% cheaper quality for quality [r64 page 5].

The C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett Watches

Almost immediately after resolving his partnership terms with Tracy and Baker, Robbins began plying the “supply and demand curve” and started making lower grade watches. He introduced the 7J C. T. Parker in November, 1857 [r1], for $16 (at 30% discount to retailer) [r62 page 23, sold Dec. 17, 1857]. In the next month, the P. S. Bartlett was introduced [r1] for $12 (30% discount) [r62 page 29, sold Jan. 13, 1858]. The Bartlett appears identical to the Parker in observed examples except the balance cock was engraved. According to Hauptman, the Company ran short of plates to use on the Bartletts, so they used the full-jeweled AT&Co top plates which gave rise to the 11J P. S. Bartlett watch, [r15 page 696-7] which sold for $15 (20% discount) [r62 page 30, sold Jan. 27, 1858]. Harrold believes the 11J version was an intentional marketing ploy to give the appearance of a higher priced 15J movement [r63 pages 591-592]. This run of Parker watches have serial numbers 1001 to 1400; the Bartlett watches have serial numbers 1401 to 2200 [r1].

These watches were offered at much lower prices than the AT&Co grade, presumedly to increase sales, and which in return to compensate for lower margins. Although the BWCo offered some lower cost 7J DH&D movements (perhaps as an experiment [r15 page 695]), Robbins’ lower grade watches were very distinctive.

A couple other differences with the DH&D should also be mentioned.

As previously reported, the early AT&Co movements were 16J with the center pillar arbor being jeweled, whereas the DH&D movements were predominately 15J.

From observation, AT&Co watches were typically fitted with sunk second dials, whereas the DH&D dials were smooth.


Draft

FIGURE 17. First Run C.T. Parker (S/N 1176) & P.S. Bartlett (S/N 1409), Forerunners of AWCo’s Commodity Products

Regarding the differences between the prices of the C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett watches, the Parker might have been a better grade than the Bartlett, and the initial engraving of the balance cock on the Bartlett was probably window dressing and/or an experiment to test customer acceptance. The Parkers were later engraved too, and the spelling out of the abbreviated full signature, “Chas (Charles) T. Parker”, on the second run movements indicates a better grade. Harrold suggests that the Bartlett was simply a price reduction ploy with lower margins, and the Parker was later upgraded to justify the price difference [r63 pages 591-592]. There is no obvious difference between the author’s first run C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett movements to justify a price differential, other than the Parker has a little better regulator (original?).

These first-run so-called inexpensive models have their top plate pinned to pillar posts instead of being secured with screws; this saved labor and costs as screw manufacturing had not yet become highly refined [r15 page 697]. See examples in above figure and Figure 49 on page 43. On the other hand, the pinned plates might have been an intentional distinguishing feature as these watches employed many other screws. The hairspring is anchored in a brass stud on the plate under the balance cock on these watches, presumably hidden like this so the stud could be left unfinished and be less costly to produce (see Figure 48 on page 42). Although the C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett movements did not employ the same potance as on the AT&Co grade, they did share the same design of ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring. See “Features Not Tracked” on page 51. See Figure 60 on page 52 and Figure 61 on page 53.

These design differences alone do not seem to justify the price difference (movements: ~$24 AT&Co, ~$16 Parker and ~$12 Bartlett; per [r55 pages 4-9 & 33-38]). Contributor Michael Edidin has an AT&Co. advertising circular dated Feb. 1858, which includes a price list with comparable prices (depending on jewel count and type of balance); however, the circular states that the Parker and Bartlett movements were not warranted whereas the AT&Co. grade came with a “perpetual warranty”. Mike Harrold points out that Robbins used the AT&Co movement as the quality grade leader and the Parker/Bartlett movements as the common consumer watch. Although the common consumer might not afford the preferred AT&Co grade, he might find a way to purchase the lower grade. This successful merchandising technique launched the success of the American Watch Company into a world-class manufacturing enterprise. Sales of the P.S. Bartlett Model 57 watches far exceeded the AT&Co grade watch [r63 page 589]. Hawkins estimates nearly 293,000 P.S. Bartlett Model 57 movements were made, 35% of the total Model 57 production [r54 page 4].

Incidentally, C.(Charles) T. Parker and P.(Patten) S.(Sargeant) Bartlett were highly valued employees at the Waltham plant in 1857. P. S. Bartlett joined the Company in 1855 at age 21 and became foreman of the plate and screw department in 1858 (his great uncle, Josiah Bartlett of NH, signed the Declaration of Independence) [r49 page 75]. Other than the honor of having their names used as trademarks, Parker and Bartlett received no compensation for the use of their names on movements [r6 page 276] & [r104].

An unexplained mystery is why Robbins used serial numbers starting with 5001for the AT&Co movements and then skipped back to 1001 - 2200 for the C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett movements. These lower numbers are duplicates of the numbers on the DH&D watches produced at the Waltham plant by the Boston Watch Company and sold before the insolvency (or otherwise transferred to Robbins). Harrold suggests the juggled numbers was a subterfuge to allow disavowing the lower grade movements as old BWCo material in the event they were not well received [r63 page 587 & 591]. On the other hand,


Draftperhaps the new company did originally plan to start anew with serial numbers. This would make the duplicate numbers more understandable (see [r105]).

A second run of C. T. Parker watches, signed Chas T. Parker, was produced in 1858. They have serial numbers 8101 to 8300 (although many examples of the “signature” Chas T. Parker exist, author does not yet have evidence that the entire second run was engraved with the abbreviated name.). The second run of P. S. Bartlett watches have serial numbers 8301 to 13700 [r10] (except 11961 to 12000 may have some Bartlett & Parker inscriptions, and a few private label movements according to reference [r1]).

Based on observation, these second run watches were a continuation of the lower grade watch designed to be more affordable, including pinned plates and the hidden hairspring stud, although the Parker appears to be a better grade than the Bartlett (probably to justify the price difference). The second run Chas T. Parker watches have a better finish than the Bartletts according to Jon Hanson. Hawkins lists the second run Parkers as having mostly 15 jewels (reference [r1] does not give the jewel count for these) whereas the Bartletts have 7 and 11 jewels [r55 pages 54-57].

Pinned plates were continued on the Bartlett until late 1858 (around S/N 12500) according to the data table at the end of this monograph [see “Miscellaneous Features” on page 35]. Also as can be seen in the data tables, many Bartletts were fitted with 15 jewels, especially in later runs, but the 15J P.S. Bartlett was discontinued by end 1860, favoring the 11J instead for this grade according to the Serial Number Ledger [r1] and to the P.S. Bartlett data table herein with an 1860 or later production date. These later run 15/11J movements were also made to look higher grade by engraving fake jewel settings into the top plate; the jewels in earlier versions were burnished into the plate with no special adornment.

FIGURE 18. 15J Chas T. Parker 8153 with real jewel settings and 11J P.S. Bartlett 8406 with burnished jewels

Photo of P.S. Bartlett 8406 permission of Hans Dahlke.

Depression of 1857

Sales looked promising up through September of 1857, then the depression hit the company hard [r51 page 29]. Watches were sold at auctions [r6 page 276] & [r48 page 23], and dumped at twice discount [r51 pages 32,36,&268] and [r62 page 19; e.g., Oct 14 at 40%] to get cash (also see [r102]). Robbins was also able to arrange loans from Boston capitalist through his contacts, and employees were asked to work at half salary [r15 page 700]. By autumn 1858 the financial clouds began to break and a market for watches gradually emerged [r47 page 741].


DraftAmerican Watch Company

On August 26, 1858, the Waltham Improvement Company agreed to merge with AT&Co [r48 page 23], and reorganized as the American Watch Company (AWCo) on January 1, 1859 [r51 pages 316-318]. The new name became official February 17 by act of Massachusetts Legislature [r56 page 29]. Robbins signed over the land and buildings to the Improvement Company a little earlier on August 13, 1858, for the same price and outstanding mortgages as when he purchased it [r106 Deeds, Middlesex, Book 799, page 15].

Production under the new name started with serial numbers approximately 14000 [r15 page 698] (actually more like 15000 per [r1]). The AT&Co name was retained as a trademark of excellence [r48 page 24]. Approximately 200 employees produced 50 watches/day in 1859 (compared to 2,000 employees producing 1,200 watches/day in 1883) [r51 page 56][r104]. This production rate was now competitive with foreign manufacturers, and better. According to Cutmore, by 1883 the Swiss share of the American market dropped from virtually 100% pre’50 to 40% [r59 page 38] (although the English did have a significant market share with the Swiss in the 1850s [r65 Nov. 13, 1857]).

Producing consistently good quality watches, the American Watch Company actually provided protection for buyers of watches. Most first time purchasers knew little or nothing of watches at the time. They were at the mercy of deceitful dealers, who at best, dealt in foreign watches of highly variable quality irrespective of price, and who in many instances sold watches from irresponsible makers from across the ocean never to be heard from again [r36]. Quoting New York Times, “It will be a cause of congratulation if this highly useful American enterprise shall have the effect of driving out of the market the thousands of trashy foreign articles, mis-called time-keepers, by furnishing so excellent and economical substitute.”[r64 p. 7]

FIGURE 19. Rear view of the American Watch Company factory along the Charles River in 1865.

The Chronodrometer Watch

The so-called Sporting Watches (chronodrometer stop watch) followed the second run P.S. Bartlett in serial number (13701); see [r1]. The stop watch complication of the chronodrometer was built on the Model 57 design. A wire lever through the plate (at 8:30 in picture on next page) stops and holds the balance wheel when the stop button is pushed. The stop watch, patent 22914, Feb. 8, 1858, by John K. Bigelow was not very successful because as pointed out by Hauptman, “The watch, while ingenious in its simplicity, compared to foreign stop watches, is highly impractical.” [r15 page 697] On the other hand, the limited sporting culture in America from 1858 through early 1860s probably had more to do with its lack of popularity.


Draft

FIGURE 20. Sporting Chronodrometer No. 13853

Contributor Michael Edidin points out that although “Nicole patented the heart-shaped cam that is the basis of flyback chronographs in 1844”, for many years afterwards “the majority of sweep-seconds watches had stop mechanisms that stopped the whole train. The best known are the English center seconds watches that were popular for 20 years or so, from 1880 to 1900. Robert Kemp has a good chapter on these in ‘The Englishman’s Watch’. But, even Kemp doesn’t understand why these watches were so popular. Perhaps it had something to do with looking like a leisured sporting gent. The time for that in the US was after the Civil War, not in 1860.”

According to the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1], material might have been allocated for the stop watch chronodrometer in 1858-1859, but production stretched out through 1865.

The Model 1859 KW18 Watch

The first model change after the Model 57 was the thinner 3/4 plate Model 1859 KW18. According to Hauptman, N.P. Stratton designed the KW18 and Robbins marketed them in 1860 in quality grades (AWCo & AT&Co) to compete with the upcoming Nashua Watch Company [r18 page 176].

FIGURE 21. Thinner 3/4 Plate Model 1859 KW18

The S/N Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1] and reference [r78] list the first M59 as S/N 28701. However, see above photo of AT&Co M59 S/N 27901. [photo permission of W. Ed Christiansen, Jr.]


DraftAfter acquiring the Nashua operation in the spring of 1862, and producing high grade 16S and 20S watches out of the separate “Nashua Department” in the Waltham factory [r27], AWCo’s KW18 was used solely for lesser quality 18S watches [r29 page 65] (a few P. S. Bartlett, but mainly William Ellery [r78 page 44]). Up until this time, the full plate was the most economical design to manufacture [r29 page 44]. An interesting note is that the first ten KW18 watches are specifically listed as being made by N. Stratton in November of 1859 by reference [r1]. This was just before Stratton left AWCo to co-found the Nashua Watch Company. The KW18 watches were deficient in design for ease of manufacturing, which probably bothered Stratton and induced him and others to leave AWCo to produce a better quality watch [r27 page 589]

The J. Watson and R.E. Robbins Watches

In 1859, Robbins still continued to experiment with Model 57 grades.

Based on appearance and the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1], the Chas T. Parker grade was followed by J. Watson and R.E. Robbins grades. First run J. Watson watches have a unique engraving with the name “London” on the barrel bridge and had an English appearance (at least some did). The second run all appear to be engraved “Boston” (see data table at end of this monograph), perhaps to distinguish them from the P.S. Bartlett and to suggest they were not manufactured at Waltham.

FIGURE 22. J. Watson S/N 23878, London, With English Appearance

Several people have argued that these first run Watson watches were probably made for export (e.g., see [r58 page 134]; also “J.Watson”, of The Answer Box, NAWCC Bulletin, Whole No. 252, Feb. 1988, page 66; and, “Reply to Further Criticism of Foggs Article” by Dr. Alfred E. Brain, of Timely Voices, NAWCC Bulletin, Whole No. 273, August 1991, page 443.). Noting that these lower grade watches had not yet received wide market acceptance at the time of their introduction, and that Royal Robbins of the American Watch Company was looking for ways to sell them in quantity, contributor Michael Edidin suggests another theory that this “London” engraving was an attempt to pass off the watches as English imports. Author points out that Robbins was in England in late 1861 [r51 page 45], whereas these first run J. Watsons were made a year earlier which supports Edidin’s theory.

According to the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1], the first run J. Watson movements (all 7J), S/Ns 23601-24300, were made September 1859 through October 1860; the second run, S/Ns 28201-28700, were made November 1860 through April 1861, including 11J versions. R.E. Robbins movements (all 11J) were produced with S/Ns 25101-25300 in September through November, 1859; and with S/Ns 26801-27400 in November 1860 through March 1861.


DraftThe R.E. Robbins movements appear identical to the P.S. Bartlett being produced at the same time, including under sprung hairspring, hidden stud and fake jewel settings (just engraved into the plate). It is unclear why so few, or why any at all, were produced (there must be a story here yet to be heard).

FIGURE 23. 11J R.E. Robbins 21580 (Sep. ‘59) and 11J P.S. Bartlett 33575 (Apr. ‘60)

The Wm. Ellery Watch

Aaron Dennison, co-founder of the Boston Watch Company, was discharged from the company in 1862 for being a vocal dissenter on the staff. Moore reports that Dennison was advocating the making of a cheaper watch to sell to the Civil War trade, and this is what got him in trouble with the company [r51 pages 45-46]. Dennison said the Directors blamed him “for the results of their bad management.” [r39 page 3] Dennison retained his $10,000 in stock [r39 page 3] & [r37 page 3] and sued the company for breach of contract which eventually was settled out of court in November 1863 for back wages ($8,000 [r37 page 3]) and reversing the dishonorable discharge record [r59 page 30].

By this time the company’s next marketing experiment, the Wm. Ellery grade M57 watch, became the popular Civil War soldier’s watch, which vindicated Dennison’s judgement [r51 page 47] & [r18 page 173]. Moore reports that, “By 1865 the soldier’s watch - the Ellery - accounted for 44.6 per cent of unit sales and 30.4 per cent of the dollar volume.” [r51 page 49] The Ellery serial number at the close of the war “between the states” was around 161,000 according to the Serial Number

Ledger [r1].1 Dennison chose the name as being distinctive and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence from Rhode Island [r48 page 27]. However, because of the war market, this watch probably would have sold well under any name [r18 page 174]. See pictures of Wm. Ellery movements on next page.

The Serial Number Ledger [r1] lists the Wm. Ellery being introduced in May/Aug 1861, 42501-800; the next run was January 1862, 42911 - 43100. Hauptman reports the first Ellerys start with S/N 46201 [r18 page 174], including some 15j movements. Author has yet to see any 15J M57 Ellery movements (per Hauptman). The barrel bridge on the earlier runs were engraved “Boston”, perhaps to distinguish them from the higher grade P.S. Bartlett watch and to suggest that they were not manufactured at Waltham. Later runs were equipped with closed (uncut) bimetallic composition balances to give the appearance of the higher grade expansion balances used then on Bartletts (see See “Balances” on page 43.).

Hawkins estimates nearly 212,000 Wm. Ellery Model 57 movements were made, a quarter of the total Model 57 production (second to the P.S. Bartlett, but starting 4 years later) [r54 page 4].

1. Unfortunately, many people mistakenly advertise Model 57s for sale with serial numbers above 161,000 as Civil War watches.


Draft

FIGURE 24. Progression of the Wm. Ellery

See another example of 11J Wm. Ellery (450166) with steel balance in Figure 26 on page 24.

Dennison Pocket Watch Cases

As a side note, Aaron Dennison founded the Tremont Watch Company in 1864, but departed a couple of years later over disagreement with the managers of the company. He immigrated to England in 1868, got involved with another watch venture in 1872, the Anglo-American Watch Co., then founded the Dennison Watch Case Company at the age of 62 [r57 page 15].

Manufacturing began at the end of 1874, with most of the output going to the London Office of the American Watch Company. The company was successful and became well known in the world jewelry trade. With this last venture, Dennison finally reaped the profits of his own inventive skills [r32] & [r35 page 69].

Hallmarks on a silver case believed to be made by Dennison are illustrated in Figure 25 on page 24 (also see Crescent Park S/N 816849, Martyn Square S/Ns 816849 & 868153, and Home Watch Co 937902 [under custom] in the data tables). Aaron Dennison used the AWCo managers’ hallmarks for his cases on American Watch Company movements probably because Robbins did not want to see Aaron’s hallmarks on AWCo watches sold in England [r35 page 72].

11J, Closed Balance, Waltham 7111937J, Over Sprung, Waltham 641366

11J, Exposed Stud, Boston 7244811J, Hidden Stud, Boston 46211

Ph

oto

co

urt

esy

Ch

arle

s W

alla

ce


Draft

FIGURE 25. Aaron Dennison Used FFS Hallmark On This Case Of Crescent Park 816849

Very likely Dennison used this FFS hallmark on his early cases by Frederick Francis Seeland, assistant manager of AWCo office in London. See Crescent Park in Figure 29 on page 26.

The Home Watch Co. Watch

The next low end Model 57, the Home Watch Co. (HWCo) grade, was introduced in December 1866 with serial number 283001 with 7 Jewels (the following January, 11Js were also offered) according to Serial Number Ledger [r1], probably to compete with the newly founded National Watch Company. The barrel bridge was engraved Boston instead of Waltham possibly as camouflage to convey the impression that this watch was not made by the AWCo [r18 page 189]. The Wm. Ellery M57 was already engraved Boston, and at this time was changed to Waltham (see data tables). These HWCo watches were characterized by steel balance, engraved index and no key guard protecting the winding square. Hawkins estimates 131,000 HWCo grade Model 57 movements were made, 16% of the total Model 57 production (very successful considering this grade started December 1866) [r54 page 4]. Author has data of 7J Home movements selling for $8 in 1867.

FIGURE 26. 11J Home Watch Co. Boston 468253 and 11J Wm. Ellery Waltham 450166

About the time the HWCo grade was introduced, the Wm. Ellery grade was upgraded with a sprung over balance and an applied index strip. They also were offered with a closed (uncut) bimetallic composition balance to give the appearance of the higher grade expansion balances used then on P.S. Bartletts. See Wm. Ellery 711193 in Figure 24 on page 23.


DraftThe Waltham Watch Co. Watch

The Waltham Watch Co. (WWCo) grade was also introduced in 1867 apparently as a bridge between the high grade AT&Co and low grade HWCo movements. However, material might have been reserved for this grade as early as 1862. According to the Serial Number Ledger [r1] a single WWCo movement S/N 58115 was made March 1865; S/Ns 58216-58220 and 58222-58290 were made January 1867 (other grades of watches in this serial number range were made in 1862 to 1863); the next batch S/Ns 295001-296000 were made March to May 1867. Total number made was about 60,000 per Hawkins [r54 page 4].

FIGURE 27. Waltham Watch Co Grade M57 882249

According to the data tables herein, all WWCo movements were given 15 jewels, but not quite all of the features of the AT&Co grade (e.g., jewel settings are fake, just engraved in the plate). It was provided with a stem wind even before the AT&Co grade, albeit not a very good one (probably because at the time the company was offering stem winds in models higher grade than the Model 57; see Stem Winds in next Chapter on page 37).

Upgrading the Grades

As Robbins introduced new Model 57 grades, he continually upgraded the existing grades with added features (as mentioned above with the Wm. Ellery). The AT&Co Model 57 in below picture was delivered in 1869 several years after the AWCo offered its better grade 3/4 plate models. Although no longer the company’s top offering, the AT&Co grade was the best in the Model 57 line. It was spruced up to look more like the 3/4 plates, but was offered at a more affordable price. Robbins was covering all bases. Note the plate jewels are smaller than on the earlier version and their settings are secured with two screws like the 3/4 plates versus three on earlier versions. Perhaps more important, the regulator and index were moved to the balance cock like on the 3/4 plates. This was done only on the AT&Co grade Model 57 (not even the WWCo grade). Also note that the serial number is engraved on the plate on the AT&Co, whereas it is on the barrel bridge on all other Model 57 grades.

FIGURE 28. 15J AT&Co 365660 and 11J PSB 406849


DraftThe P.S. Bartlett (PSB) grade became Robbins’ mainstay Model 57, the middle ground grade, and was produced throughout the entire life cycle of the Model 57. As can be seen on the above 11J example made in 1869 (previous page), it is fitted with an expansion balance like the two higher AT&Co and WWCo grades. Although there are exceptions (perhaps not original), the two lower Ellery and HWCo grades were not given expansion balances. Like the WWCo grade, the balance is sprung over and the jewel settings are fake on the PSB.

By 1869, with the 3/4 plate models for people with money and these five varying grades of M57s (AT&Co, WWCo, PSB, Ellery and HWCo), Robbins was making a watch to match every taste and pocket book!

Crescent Park and Martyn Square Watches

Introduced in May, 1875, the Crescent Park and Martyn Square grades appear to have been made for export (at least the only Crescent Park the author has seen and several Martyn Squares surfaced in England - another successful Robbins experiment). Their style of engravings, balance cock (with hairspring stud and wider base), and curved barrel bridge look like a cross with the Model 70 perhaps to be more acceptable to the English market. The balance cock and barrel bridge on these export Model 57 watches are not listed in the “Waltham” 1885 Materials catalog. Perhaps these grades should not be called Model 57s, but they share most of the same parts, including the 4-pillar plates.

A good number of Martyn Squares were made, mostly 7J and 2-pair 11J (about 16,000 per Hawkins [r54 page 4]). The Serial Number Ledger [r1] lists Crescent Park as all 15J, S/Ns: 816801-890 (May - June, 1875), 816901-930 and 816941-960.

FIGURE 29. 15J Crescent Park (816849) and 7J Martyn Square (979843) Movements

Note the S-shaped barrel bridge and studded hairspring. Also the plate jewels are smaller than on the standard Model 57.

The Crescent Park and Martyn Square watch grades were undoubtedly named after locations in Waltham close to the factory; “Martyn Square, junction Crescent, Spruce and Adams, Ward 5” and “Crescent Park (C.P.) formerly known as Packards’ Island, Ward 6” (1893 Waltham and Watertown Directory, pages 34 & 38). Martyn Square is believed to have been dedicated to Waltham resident Henry Martyn a few years after his tragic death at age 38 in a swimming accident on August 24, 1871. Mr. Martyn was the popular Associate Director and Chief Accountant of the American Watch Company at the time of his death. Mr. R.E. Robbins was a pall bearer at his funeral (see three related articles in the Waltham Free Press, August 25, 1871, and September 1, 1871, page 2, respectively). {Thanks to England contributor, Philip Priestley, for ferreting out this information.}

Central Park Watch

The Serial Number Ledger [r1] lists Central Park S/Ns 842801-842875 (September to December 1875) as nickel movements.


DraftThe Broadway Watch

Hauptman reports (perhaps incorrectly) the The Broadway Model 57 was introduced in 1872, first as 7J KWKS, but later 11J SWLS were made as well (although 11J Broadway Model 57 watches have yet to be reported in the data tables; possibly Hauptman was referring to Model 77/79 Broadway movements if any of these were produced with 11 jewels) [r18 page 194]. Hauptman’s dates for the Broadway appear to be inconsistent with the Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1]; i.e., [r1] indicates an introduction date around 1875-1876 for S/Ns 596901 - 597000, although the listing for the range 596901 - 597000 is not clearly written. Author has not yet seen evidence of any 11J Broadway nor stem wind, including in [r1]. Robbins might have reserved material for this grade much earlier because these beginning serial numbers are in the range of movements made in 1872 for other grades. Perhaps he was waiting for the right time to introduce his next low grade (this might explain Hauptman’s early introduction date).

Note in the pictures below the absence of the key guard cup protecting the winding square. From observation, only the Broadway and HWCo Model 57 watches did not have key guards (author has seen only one Broadway exception to-date).

FIGURE 30. Example Home (715881) and Broadway (833896) Grade Model 57 Movements

The Broadway was probably Robbins’ response to the cheap unjeweled watches beginning to appear on the market at the time (see Harrold’s paper on “inexpensive watches” [r29 page 53]). Except for their predominantly nickel balances, the Broadway does not appear to be any “cheaper” than a 7J KWKS HWCo; however, this grade bore the distinctive A.W.Co. Waltham signature perhaps because by then the Home was selling well. From observation, when the Broadway was introduced, the HWCo grade was upgraded with Fogg’s safety center pinion (See “Fogg’s Safety Center Pinion” on page 45.); the Broadway was never given this feature.

The Broadway was very popular. Although late in the Model 57 life cycle, according to Hawkins [r54 page 4], a sizeable number of Broadways were produced (approximately 54,000). In fact, more Broadways were made per production year than any other Model 57 grade!

Remaining Model 57 Watches

Vern Hawkins lists the production run of all the Model 57 grades: P grade (American Watch Co, Appleton Tracy & Co, C.T. Parker, Sporting, Central Park, Crescent Park, Martyn Square, Waltham Watch Co); and A grade (Waltham Watch Co, Am Watch Co, DH&D, Watson, P.S. Bartlett, R.E.Robbins, Wm. Ellery, Martyn Square, Riverside, Home Watch Co, Broadway, Sterling, Special) [r54 page 4].

Author has not yet seen evidence of any American Watch Co, Am Watch Co, Riverside or Sterling grade Model 57 movements. See AWCo data table at end of this monograph for reference on that grade.


Draft “Sterling” grade movements 1367501-1369000 (possible last run M57s) CA’79/80 are listed as quick train (and stem wind) in [r78 page 31], but author and others (e.g., contributor Philip Guest who submitted comments on this) believe this reference is a misprint and that the last Model 57s made were probably Broadway S/Ns 1122001 - 1124000 (Oct - Dec ‘78) as seems to be indicated by listings in reference [r1]. On the other hand, the [r1] listing for 1367501 definitely does not show the letter ‘N’ before F.T.F.P. which would have indicated “new fast train full plate”, but neither do many other listings with even much higher serial numbers and no M57 has yet been reported with such a high number.

Next Full Plate Models, 1870 and 1877

From beginning to end, 836,067 Model 57s were produced according to Vernon Hawkins in [r54 page 4]. The designation, Model 57 (for the year of its introduction), was not actually used until many years later. The 1885 American Waltham Watch Co. Materials catalog lists the M57 as the “Series A - Formally known as Old Model”, and the next full plate 1870 model (KWKS from the back) as the “Series B”. It lists the full plate 1877 model as the “Series C - Formally known as New Model”.

Charles Vander Woerd modeled the Crescent Street (M70) in 1869 out of the Nashua Department of the factory. It was produced only in quality grade for the railroad trade. However, it was soon abandoned because its key set from the back required a special case [r46 pages 31 & 49]. See [r27 page 585] for more details on the M70 movement.

Although continued to be made for another year, the M57 was modified by C.V. Woerd in 1877 to produce the 3-pillar full plate movement [r48 page 10].

Other than for the Crescent Street name, the M70 is not distinguished from M57 full plate movements in the Serial Number Ledger [r1] (probably because there was only one M70 grade) whereas the Model 77 is given the “N” New Model designation.

FIGURE 31. Model 70KW 520,176 (left) and Model 77KW 1,652901

Custom Watches

The AWCo made many custom, private label/contract watches. A number of unique watches also exist which are believed to have been made by employees of the factory. Examples are documented in the data tables at end of this monograph.


Draft

FIGURE 32. Example Private Label Model 57 Watches

Exhilaration is the feeling when one comes across a private label (such as the above two Model 57 movements) or a custom watch in the models he or she collects. [photo of #1878 (its date) permission of Martin Cullen] Example of nickel “employees” movement 914778 below on left. Picture of WWCo # 448110 (below right) with after market Teske micro-regulator permission of Hans Dahlke.

FIGURE 33. Example Custom Model 57 Watches


Draft

Fake Model 57 Watches

FIGURE 34. Fake Model 57 Wm Ellery and an AT&Co

The AWCo’s watches became so popular and successful that foreign manufacturers began copying them. They are typically called “fakes”, although they might be of better quality than the watch they copy. Here are two good fake Model 57s, a Wm Ellery and an AT&Co. Can you see anything wrong with them?

On the William Ellery “fake” (compare with Figure 24 on page 23):■ style of lettering of “Wm” and “Boston” is not quite the same as on a real Wm Ellery■ barrel bridge has different shape than M57s ■ index is a little different and larger■ jewel holes are a little larger

On the AT&Co “fake” [quality watch with matching serial numbers on dial and case] (compare with Figure 16 on page 16):■ sprung under hairspring with hidden stud (although like an early PSB, not on an AT&Co)■ signature on wrong position on plate; script signature not used till approx. S/N 310000■ cock is different shape than M57s (look at position of mounting screw)■ solid closed fake compensation balance (different from even that employed on Wm Ellery M57)

Photo of “made only for Howard & Co EXCELSIOR” private label Model 57 S/N 877682 in nickel by Dillon Cole

Photo of after market rim wind mechanism mounted on pillar plate of Broadway M57 1067726 permission of Dick Ziebell


DraftDesign Changes in the Model 57

The Model 57 incorporated many improvements and changes during its 25 year history. Most of these features are recorded in the data tables and are described below in the order listed in the data tables. Many features are highlighted in picture below.

FIGURE 35. Appleton Tracy & Co Model 57 Stem Wind

Picture AT&Co SW 778953 permission of Tom McIntyre.

The following headings are in order by columns in the data tables; see legend for definitions.

Position of Serial Number

Curiously, probably as an unique distinguishing feature, the American Watch Company began engraving serial numbers on the top plate instead of on the barrel bridge on the AT&Co M57s movements (see above Figure) starting sometime after S/N 25000 according to the data table herein, but left the serial number on the barrel bridge on all other grades, including the Waltham Watch Co. grade M57 (see Table 7 on page 55). The earlier chronodrometers also had their serial numbers engraved on the top plate.

Style of Engraving

Note that the serial number in the tables is indicated as to whether or not it is preceded with the abbreviation No. if known.

The City and State columns are self explanatory. Interestingly, there were periods of times when the state Mass was not engraved on the barrel bridge on some grades as can be seen in the data tables.

The style of lettering varies from script to block letters to a wavy pattern, etc.; for example, see Figure 36 on page 32 (next page) for various AT&Co grade feature changes.

regulator & engravedindex

patentlet-downscrew

serial numberon plate

“Fogg’s Patent”pinion inscription

screw adjustable banking pins

note contrast of real jewelsettings (held with 2 screws)with gilt on plate

dust bandalignment screw

hands set lever (LS)

male winding pinionfits female stem wind

feather style of engraving

two case screws onstem winds


Draft

FIGURE 36. Early Design Changes on the AT&Co Grade Model 57

Note within this small range of serial numbers, changes with engraving of serial number and Waltham/Mass; also hairspring changing from sprung under to sprung over.

AT&Co 27902

AT&Co 21792

wavy style ofengraving onplate

serial number on barrel bridgewith No.abbreviation

block lettering style of engravingon barrel bridge

serial number on plate w/o No.abbreviation

wavy style of engraving on barrel bridge (note featherstyle in previousFigure)


DraftDials

The first dials were plain and not marked with a name until around serial number 6500 on the Appleton Tracy & Co. grade according to an early reference by Townsend, [r41 page 34] but many earlier examples are listed in the data tables herein. From the data tables we can also see that standard dials have the Company name written out in full, typically in a straight line. Many dials were also written in a curved arc during the years 1865 to 1869 on P.S. Bartlett and WWCo grade movements. Progression of P.S. Bartlett dials is illustrated in Figure 38 on page 34.

Block lettering was typically used on the dials, but script examples exist as shown below.

FIGURE 37. Dial Signed In Script On P.S. Bartlett 560619

By observation of representative watches, seconds sunk dials were employed on all AT&Co movements, although not on their predecessor DH&D movements; perhaps this was a distinguishing feature (but then we do not have good data on the last DH&D movements made). Sunk seconds were also put on the Waltham Watch Co. grade; the introduction on other grades is listed in the summary table on page 55.


Draft

FIGURE 38. Progression of P.S. Bartlett Model 57 Dials

Approx. January 1858 - plain,not sunk seconds

Approx. June 1869 - AWCo,straight signature, sunk seconds

Approx. April 1865 - AWCo,curved signature, not sunk seconds

Approx. January 1860 - AWCo,straight signature, not sunk seconds

Approx. April 1858 - AT&Co,curved signature, not sunk seconds

Approx. August 1858 - AT&Co,straight signature, not sunk seconds


DraftMiscellaneous Features

This column in the data tables is used for tracking prominent features that have a limited time application. See Legend.

• The type of train on the early DH&D movements is tracked (see Figure 7 on page 7).

• Pinned plate movements are tracked (e.g., on the Bartlett until late 1858, around S/N 12500).

• The serial number on the underside of the top plate is tracked; i.e., whether the full number or subset, or different.

Stop Works

During the years approximately 1860 to 1870, the Appleton Tracy & Co grade Model 57 movement was equipped with stop works for the mainspring. The “Waltham” 1885 Materials catalog lists only the AT&Co as having stop works. With stop works the mainspring is given a small amount of pre-winding and the mechanism limits the amount of winding. The result is that only the middle portion of the spring is used to drive the watch which yields a more constant torque.

The stop works employed on the Model 57 is hidden in a recessed section of the barrel on the pillar plate side. It is annular stop works like that found on a Chinese Duplex. By preventing over winding, stop works also reduces breakage which might be its main attribute, as reported by contributor Donald Dawes [r66].

As listed in the “Waltham” 1885 Materials catalog, the barrel for stop works has 65 teeth instead of the regular 60 teeth, presumably to compensate for the lower amount of uncoiling of the mainspring. Interestingly, though, the earlier stop works barrel has 60 teeth (e.g., see AT&Co S/N 27902). After 1870 the stop works were apparently discontinued probably because mainsprings were of sufficient quality by this time to give constant torque, and perhaps because the stop works barrel was difficult to remove from the movement and watchmakers were complaining (the plates have to be separated to remove the stop works barrel because the arbor is longer and gets in the way; whereas on other movements the barrel can be removed simply by first removing the barrel plate and cock). For some reason, probably interchangeability (within the AT&Co grade), barrels with 65 teeth were still continued to be put on AT&Co M57s even without stop works (they did have the shorter arbor which simplified removal of the barrel).

See Figure below for four different barrel arrangements on AT&Co M57s; pillar plate view is shown on next page.

FIGURE 39. Four Types of AT&Co Model 57 Barrels

S/N 1644760 teethno stop works

S/N 57791065 teethno stop works

S/N 2790260 teethw/ stop works

S/N 19417665 teethw/ stop works

enlarged view


Draft

FIGURE 40. Three Types of AT&Co Barrel Ratchet Arrangements

Contributor Charlie Wallace reports that one way to see if a movement has a stop works barrel is to slip a piece of heavy paper stock between the barrel and pillar plate to feel the built-up edge around the annular section of the stop works barrel. Stop works is not supported if the bottom of the barrel is smooth up to the arbor.

Another clue to recognize if the a watch has stop works is to look at the ratchet bridge covering the ratchet and click on the pillar plate. With stop works, the barrel arbor is longer and is given a rounded pivot end; then the hole in the ratchet bridge serves as a bearing hole for the arbor. Without stop works the arbor is shorter and its end is squared off just to fit the ratchet; then the hole in the ratchet bridge is a little larger and the ratchet is visible through the hole. However, just to confuse collectors, the above statement is not true for the earlier stop works movements which do not have the pivoted arbor (e.g., see AT&Co S/N 27902).

Three different ratchet arrangements are shown in above. This figure also illustrates two basic types of clicks employed on Model 57s. The left-most movement has a circular click surrounding the ratchet. Although this movement does not have a pivoted barrel arbor, later movements with the circular click do have the smaller bearing hole in the ratchet bridge if the watch has stop works. Later, a larger hole in the ratchet bridge with a visible square end arbor signifies no stop works.

Aside from the barrel, stop works consist of two parts, a male part that fits over the arbor and a female part in the recessed section (parts #167 and #168, respectively, in the “Waltham” Materials catalog). Incidentally, few stop works survived the years. Probably many watch makers pulled the stop works out because they were a nuisance and were not really needed with the better quality mainsprings. Note that the male part of the stop works on the arbor of S/N 27902 in Figure 39 on page 35 is so badly worn that it is inoperative.

S/N 27902 has stop works withopen ratchet bridge hole, asquare barrel arbor, and circularclick

S/N 365660 has stop works withbearing ratchet bridge hole, apivoted barrel arbor, and camclick

S/N 577910 does not have stopworks; has open ratchet bridgehole, a square barrel arbor, andcam click


DraftTop Plate Encircling Barrel

On the subject of ease with which the barrel can be removed from the movement, the plates had to be separated on the early movements because the top plate encircled the barrel (see figure below). This deficiency was corrected around 1860; e.g., see AT&Co 27902/43297, PSB 22622/22769, and J. Watson 23878 in the data tables.

FIGURE 41. Top Plate Barrel Clearance

Stem Winds

Stem wind watches were offered on the Model 57 before this model was discontinued (see Figure 35 on page 31). The stem wind is listed in the 1885 American Waltham Watch Co.’s Materials catalog for the M57. According to reference [r1], the first M57 stem wind was 15J Waltham Watch Co grade, S/Ns 555501-600 CA 1871, although American Watch Co. pendant winders were made as early as 1868 [r48 page 40] & [r78 page 14]. Other grades are listed in the summary table on page 55.

FIGURE 42. Click Let-Down on Stem Wind Lever Set Movements

plate on PSB 9506 encircles barrel plate on PSB 33575 leaves barrel free

let-down screwdisabled

note rubbing mark on plate caused by original equipment click

let-down screw about toengage click spring and lift click

AT&Co 778953[photo permission Tom McIntyre]

PSB 778362view of pillar plate under dial


DraftThe standard winding and lever setting mechanism on Model 57 movements is illustrated on previous page in Figure 42 on page 37. {Note: The convention used in this monograph to describe the sex of the stem wind is to associate it with the part in the case; however, the winding pinion on the movement is male on M57s.}

The early stem winds with the lever setting mechanism were also fitted with a mainspring click let-down [r82 page 21]. The let-down screw appears at the edge of the barrel plate (see Figure 35 on page 31) and the let-down mechanism is located on the pillar plate (shown in the right-hand photo on previous page (Figure 42 on page 37). The main spring let-down is provided by this screw arrangement passing through the entire movement and out the barrel bridge for releasing the barrel click spring. The “Waltham” 1885 Materials Catalog lists this let-down screw and combined click-spring part for the SW let-down.

This design was apparently unreliable and was phased out as can be seen in the data tables at the end of this monograph where the let-down click spring is missing in later movements (shown in left-hand photo on previous page (Figure 42 on page 37), and eventually even the let-down screw was removed (see Table 3 on page 47). The “Waltham” 1885 Materials catalog lists these two click arrangements for stem wind.

Although there are exceptions, the first M57 stem winds were still key set (SWKS) [r18 page 186] (left picture below). Not only are these watches key set, their winding train has no ratchet release so the stem cannot be turned backwards (apparently to offer stem winding at minimum cost). Later Home Watch Co grade watches were also produced as SWKS for lower costs (right picture below).

FIGURE 43. Waltham Watch Co. SWKS 597388 and Home Watch Co. SWKS 749376

The stem cannot be turned backwards on the left movement in above figure because there is no release for the ratchet. Note thatthe let-down spring has been removed [photo permission of Joseph Brown]. The winding train is not extended for setting thetime on the right movement. Note that the let-down spring has been removed (it is wrapped around the let-down screw to holdthe click), but the lower spring releases ratchet when stem is turned backwards.

Marsh credits Charles Vander Woerd with remodeling the original 18 size full plate movements to incorporate a stem winding mechanism, but claims they were very unsatisfactory [r48 page 46]. We see in picture on next page the inscription “Woerd’s Patents” on the train side of the pillar plate on PSB stem wind S/N 778362. Two of Woerd’s patents were employed: (1) the rocking-bar winding/setting mechanism illustrated on previous page in Figure 42 on page 37 (#65,034, May 21,1867), and (2) the mainspring let-down feature described above (#101,398, March 29, 1870). The “rocking-bar” mechanism was designed both for winding the mainspring and setting the hands.

The “rocking bar” (or lever) was not Woerd’s patent; that was invented by A. Lecoultre in 1846. Woerd’s claim is that by hanging the fulcrum of the lever at the center of the wheel which is turned by the crown gear, the hands-setting mechanism is made entirely independent of the winding mechanism, and additionally the hands can be set in either direction.


Draft

FIGURE 44. Inscription “Woerd’s Patents” On Train Side of SW Pillar Plate, S/N 778362

Robbins later hired Duane H. Church to design a better stem wind, which he did in the Model 83 that fits both open face and hunting cases (winding pinion on movement is female).

Why the deficient transitional winding-only design was used many years after Woerd’s patent was available is unclear; perhaps the answer is simply that for marketing reasons the better stem winds were being offered at that time only in the better grades of watches. However (apparently to confuse future collectors), the factory built the full “rocking bar” movements right in the middle of stem wind/key set serial numbers (200,000 numbers earlier) as typified by Hugh Sanborn’s WWCo stem wind lever set movement S/N 597244! See pictures below.

FIGURE 45. Early Full “Rocking Bar” SW M57 Movement

As can be seen from the data tables at end of this monograph, stem winds in P.S. Bartlett and Wm. Ellery grades were equipped with two pair of plate jewels for a total of 11 jewels instead of four top plate jewels (see above picture in Figure 44 on page 39), but why only with stem winds when we can see early example above in Figure 45 on page 39 with four plate jewels?. Stem winds were also given two case screws versus the single screw on KW Model 57s (see Figure 35 on page 31).


DraftNumber of Jewels

The standard number of jewels on the Model 57 is either 7, 11, or 15. The Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1] lists these as plain, 4 holes, 4 pairs, respectively. The eleven jeweled watch has four top plate jewels; although P.S. Bartlett and Wm Ellery stem wind movements have two pairs of jewels (2 pairs in [r1] for a total of eleven) for some mysterious reason as can be seen in the data tables (see Stem Winds above).

The early AT&Co grade has the center arbor jeweled on the pillar plate (4 1/2 pairs in [r1]) for a total of 16 jewels, whereas its predecessor, DH&D, does not, at least not predominately (but then we do not have good data on the last DH&D movements made, and see Sales Records reference [r102]). The Howard & Rice watch is the same way. This 16th jewel is missed by many collectors, and a jewel count entry in the data tables of 15J for these watches is probably incorrect for early movements.

Some custom “employee” M57 watches have 16 jewels, but the 16th jewel is on the top plate center (e.g., S/Ns 914778 and 933061 in the Custom Watches data table at end of this monograph).

P.S. Bartlett and Wm Ellery watches are also often incorrectly reported as having 15 jewels instead of 11jewels. Only the early P.S. Bartlett watches had 15 jewels as mentioned above in the section on the P.S. Bartlett watch (page 16).

Jewels

According to Crossman, when the “Waltham Watch Co.” full plate movement was introduced, garnet plate jewels were used on the finer grades instead of the larger clear jewels [r46 page 30], although Hauptman points out that early Waltham Watch Co grade movements actually came with aquamarine jewels [r18 page 191] (e.g., see examples in data table at end of this monograph). The garnet jewels have a red (maroon) vitreous (glassy) luster.

Smaller sizes of plate jewels were successively introduced with clear translucent jewels until garnet jewels were introduced. Just to confuse matters, the 1885 American Waltham Watch Co.’s Materials catalog in the M57 section lists “Chrysolite” (chrysoberyl [r12 page 197]) plate jewels for Appleton Tracy & Co., but both garnet and aquamarine jewels for the P.S. Bartlett (and Home, Wm. Ellery, & Waltham); note this catalog was issued after the last M57 was made.

There seem to be three size categories: large, medium, and small (measuring the 3rd wheel back plate jewel (from the top in the plate) approximately: 4mm on the earliest movements, going to 3.5mm; 3mm for a period of time; then 2mm when the garnet jewels were introduced (see figure below). Jewel size is difficult to measure accurately in the plate on an assembled movement, but a good approximation (which is all we need here) can be obtained with a scale and loupe under good lighting.

FIGURE 46. Size Range Of 3rd Wheel Plate Jewel On Model 57s

P.S. Bartlett movements

S/N 678959S/N 366576S/N 9506

4 mm 3 mm 2 mm


DraftThe PSB plate on the right side in figure on previous page has the smaller garnet plate jewels, whereas the PSB in the middle has medium size clear translucent jewels.

According to Crossman [r46 page 20] and others, the initially made aquamarine plate jewels were not very successful and had to be imported from England up until the time the factory was moved to Waltham. Crossman also describes how the jewels were set directly into the plates without settings. This information appears to be inconsistent with published photographs of very early movements (both Warren and Samuel Curtis) that show jewel settings (e.g., see examples referenced herein), unless Crossman was referring to later lower grade M57 movements.

Jewel Settings

Although not an improvement, the employment of fake plate jewel settings should be noted. The Waltham Watch Co and P.S. Bartlett grade watches have fake jewel settings engraved on their plates. The jewels are actually just burnished into the plate. Except for the predecessor DH&D movements and the early Chas. T. Parker movements, only the Appleton Tracy & Co. grade have real jewel settings. The fake settings can be easily recognized by observing that the fake setting’s groove is a much too perfect concentric ring and that the surface area of the fake setting looks the same as the gilded plate; indeed, on some P.S. Bartletts, the top of the B is engraved right through the fake setting. See picture below.

FIGURE 47. Fake Jewel Settings on P.S. Bartlett Model 57

The screws around the fake setting have no purpose other than decoration. A contrast can be seen between the real jewel settings and the plate surface in Figure 35 on page 31.

The early P.S. Bartlett watches are listed in the data tables herein as having no jewel settings, but they were engraved with a circular design that looks like a bezel. For example, see S/N 2182 in Figure 49 on page 43 and S/N 9506 in Figure 41 on page 37 & Figure 46 on page 40. Fake settings were apparently introduced just before serial number 11000 according to the data tables.

The expense of engraving fake settings was not spent on the lower grade Wm. Ellery and Home Watch Co. watches. The plate jewels on 11J versions are burnished into the plate without any decoration. See Wm. Ellery examples in Figure 24 on page 23.

S/N 260518


DraftIndex Scale

The hairspring stud is mounted on the plate under the balance cock on the early P.S. Bartlett movements (and all C.T. Parkers), but later was move out to the side with a small bar attached to the plate. With this change, the regulator is swung around from the right side of the balance cock (looking down on it) to the left side of the plate (see figure below). Interestingly, the stud is in the outer position on the Samuel Curtis, Dennison Howard & Davis, and Appleton Tracy from the very beginning, indicating a higher grade.

FIGURE 48. Sprung Under Model 57 Hairsprings

An index scale strip for the regulator was applied to later PSB plates to replace the engraved scale even before exposing the stud; presumedly the applied index scale was more important to customers than the stud and even pinned plates (see figure on next page) [picture of S/N 12451 permission of John Saby].

The scale was later engraved on the balance cock on AT&Co movements (seeFigure 35 on page 31), but not on the other grades (except for export Crescent Park & Martyn Square movements), probably to convey the appearance of a higher grade movement as provided by the 3/4 plate movements that had been introduced by this time.

P.S. Bartlett Movements S/N 164936S/N 33575

hairspring stud hidden under cock

exposed stud barmounted on plate


Draft

FIGURE 49. Sprung Under Hairspring with Hidden Stud

Balances

The Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1] lists the type of balance used by serial number. The first use of compensation expansion balances on Model 57s is listed in the summary table on page 55. Closed (uncut) bimetallic composition balances were used on the lower grade watches to give the appearance of the higher grade expansion balances (e.g., see figure below and the Wm Ellery data tables).

FIGURE 50. Composition Balances (Closed/uncut & Expansion)

Plate Pins

S/N 2182 S/N 12451P.S. Bartlett Pinned Plates

applied indexengraved index

Closed Bi-metallic Composition Open Compensation Expansion

Wm Ellery 711193 P.S. Bartlett 678959


DraftSeveral subtle differences will be observed on balances, even on same grade (e.g., thickness of rim, number and placement of timing screws on expansion balances). Author has collected some data on number of timing screws, but does not yet have any clear pattern to report. Reference [r1] does make a point of mentioning chronometer and “adjusted” balances {might be worth investigating}. Contributor Dick Ziebell pointed out the difference of the arm on early versus later expansion balances. The arm is wider and has a hole near the rim on early balances, but the opposite on later ones (e.g., compare the balance arms in Figure 35 on page 31 with Figure 36 on page 32). Dick believes the change occurred at the time of the introduction of the Nashua watches (e.g., Model 1860).

Hair Spring

The hair spring was sprung under the balance on all early grades of the Model 57. For example, see P.S. Bartlett sprung under movements in Figure 48 on page 42 & Figure 49 on page 43, and a sprung under AT&Co movement in the top photo of Figure 36 on page 32. According to an introductory note in the Serial Number Ledger [r1], the earliest sprung over Model 57 with the hair spring mounted above the balance arms was made March, 1865, on a WWCo movement; AT&Co grade is not mentioned. Hauptman reports that sprung over balances were introduced in late 1868 [r18 page 189], but from observation the Appleton Tracy grade Model 57 was fitted with sprung over balances around 1860 (see summary table on page 55).

The regulator is mounted on the balance cock on sprung over watches instead of on the plates as on sprung under watches; also, the setting for the balance cap is held down with two screws on sprung over movements instead of three screws as on sprung under movements (see figure below and also Figure 36 on page 32).

FIGURE 51. Sprung Under versus Sprung Over Hairspring

Quoting Hauptman, “The new way proved to be much better, as there was less chance of the spring rubbing either plate or the balance wheel and also it was far easier to adjust the collet if for any reason the watch got out of beat. This method of placing the hair spring over the balance wheel also enabled the use of the hair spring stud in the balance cock, which in itself was a great improvement and a boon to the watchmaker.” The Crescent Park and Martyn Square export grades took advantage of the studded hairspring (see Figure 29 on page 26; also see custom “employee” watch S/N 914778 in Figure 33 on page 29).

Heat treated hairsprings were introduced in the 1870s. According to Michael Harrold the earlier hairsprings had more error than the benefit derived from temperature compensated balances at that time. References to tempered hairsprings being employed in Model 57 movements include: Home Watch Co Model 57 ad in 1871 Waltham catalog reprinted in [r82 page 96]; an 1870s AWCo newspaper ad says “Hardened and tempered hairsprings... are used in all grades of Waltham watches” [r40]; also, the unique American Watch Co. grade movement S/N 38320 is described as having “tempered balance-spring” [r77 page 81].

Sprung Under S/N 224266 Sprung Over S/N 704107P.S. Bartlett movements


DraftBanking Pins

By observing example movements, screw adjustable banking pins (see Figure 35 on page 31) were introduced about 1862 on all grades (see data tables at end of this monograph). The screw pins are also visible on the P.S. Bartlett in Figure 47 on page 41.

Fogg’s Safety Center Pinion

Crossman reports that Charles W. Fogg’s safety center pinion was introduced in 1865 and was adopted on all grades during the years 1866-7 [r46 page 30]. This feature unscrews the center wheel pinion in reverse direction when the mainspring breaks (see picture below), thus protecting the train from damage.

FIGURE 52. C.W. Fogg’s patented safety center pinion (pinion unscrewed in picture)

See “Fogg’s Patent” mark on movements in Figure 35 on page 31, Figure 46 on page 40, & Figure 51 on page 44. From observation, Crossman’s date appears to be about a year early for the Model 57.

Charles W. Fogg’s patent safety pinion is patent No. 46,343, Feb. 14, 1865. This date is inscribed on the train side of the pillar plate, and the patent marking is inscribed on the top plate. An example inscription of the date is shown on the next page in the left-hand picture of AT&Co S/N 342887 (CA 03-05 ‘68). The serial number of this watch is close to when the “Fogg’s patent” markings were begun to be applied. For more details see Evolution of the Safety Pinion by Craig O. Risch, NAWCC Bulletin, Whole No. 250, Oct. 1987, page 339.

According to Serial Number Ledger “Record Of Watches” [r1] and attached data tables, Fogg’s safety pinion was not employed on Model 57 watches until around 1867 per [r1], or 1868 per the tables, two years after the patent. Why? Perhaps the safety pinion was installed on these watches but the plates were not marked accordingly. This does not seem likely, as the table on next page seems to confirm, because the safety pinion was worth advertising. {More movements in this time frame need to be examined because the center wheel with its pinion could have been replaced during a repair.} Competition from the National Watch Company in 1867 probably had something to do with this subject because Fogg’s safety pinion was offered on the high grade 3/4 plate movements by January 1866 per reference [r1].


Draft

Also, Crossman’s reference [r46] is before the lower grade Home and Broadway movements were introduced; they were not so equipped, but see below.

FIGURE 53. Date Inscription Of Fogg’s Patent Safety Pinion

Interestingly, the above right-hand picture of the date inscription of Fogg’s patent safety pinion is from a Home Watch Co. grade M57, S/N 749376. As can be seen from the data table at end of this monograph, HWCo movements were not equipped with the safety pinion until 1876, at least they were not inscribed with the Fogg’s patent marking. The Waltham 1865 Materials catalog did offer the safety pinion on Home Watch Co M57 movements (not Broadways however). Why this watch has the date inscription but not the “Fogg’s patent” inscription is not clear. It does not have the safety pinion. Although it is a stem wind, it does not have the “Woerd’s Patents” inscription normally on stem wind movements as shown in Figure 44 on page 39 (however, it does not have Woerd’s “rocking bar”, only the let-down screw feature).

The Fogg’s pinion patent date inscription seems to have been paired with the “Woerd’s Patents” inscription. The inscriptions were discontinued late 1875 or early 1876 when Woerd’s let-down screw was discontinued (as seen in table on next page).

TABLE 2. Sample Movements finished after Feb 14, 1865, that do not have the “Fogg’s” inscription

Grade S/N Safety Pinion Date MadeAT&Co 202461 N 03’66

PSB 260518 N 11’66

PSB 269045 N 12’66

PSB 314036 N 07’67

AT&Co 335743A

A. This movement in [r1] is not listed as having the safety pinion, but movements in nearby range 335821-861 are.

Y 10-11’67

Ellery 340067 N 01-02’68

PSB 344596 N 01-02’68

Ellery 345351 N 02-07’68


Draft

Dust Bands

Dust bands were patented February 4, 1868, and the bands are so marked with the patent date (see picture below). See dust band alignment screw on AT&Co movement in Figure 35 on page 31 which indicates movement was fitted at factory for a dust band.

FIGURE 54. Standard Model 57 Dust Band

TABLE 3. Application of “Woerd’s Patents” & Fogg’s patent date inscriptions

Grade S/N Woerd’s Fogg’s Date Made Let-Down ScrewWWCo 597244 N Y 11’71-12’73 Y

WWCo 707064 N Y 05’73-03’78 Y

Home 749376 N YA 10’74-01’76 Y

AT&Co 759940 Y Y 06-12’74 ?

PSB 775475 Y Y 09-12’74 Y

WWCo 775513 Y Y 01-05’75 Y

PSB 778362 Y Y 11’74-01’75 Y

WWCo 778763 Y Y 07’75-03’76 Y

WWCo 784899 Y Y 05-06’75 Y

Ellery 787084 Y Y 01-03’75 Y

Ellery 793652 Y Y 02-04’75 Y

WWCo 808829 Y YB 06’76-01’77 Y

ExcelsiorC 877696 N N 02-06’76 N

PSB 923637 N N 09-12’76 ?

AT&Co 923944 N N 10’76 N

Ellery 926448 N N 10’76-01’77 N

Ellery 937508 N N 12’76-02’77 N

AT&Co 941841 N N 12’76-01’77 N

AT&Co 976133 N N 05-06’77 N

WWCo 979343 N N 06-09’77 N

WWCo 982153 N N 06-09’77 N

AT&Co 1003215 N N 12’77-01’78 N

PSB 1069899 N N 03-05’78 N

A. Has inscription, but not the safety pinion

B. Neighbor S/N, WWCo 882249 (not stem wind), does not have the Fogg’s inscriptions

C. See Custom (Private Label) Table


DraftDust bands appear to have been introduced much earlier than 1868 on P.S. Bartlett grade Model 57s as can be seen in the data tables herein. For example, PSB S/N 20944 has what appears to be a factory fitted alignment screw on the pillar plate for the dust band although this movement was made in 1859 (it also has the hidden sprung under hairspring stud). See other pre’68 examples in listing; e.g., PSB 31885, PSB 32769, PSB 37881, and those listed below in Table 4 on page 48. According to the data tables herein, the standard introduction of dust bands appears to be in 1867, earlier than the 1868 patent date.

The reader should be aware that evidence of a factory dust band being originally on the movement is indicated by the presence of the dust band alignment screw (see Figure 35 on page 31), or the hole for the screw, not whether the band is still on the watch. The seemingly early application of dust bands on P.S. Bartlett movements could be from watches being returned to the factory years later for repairs and the band was applied then. There does seem to be quite a number of PSB examples, but not of AT&Co grades (but maybe AT&Co examples will surface someday).

The dust band patent is #74,041, B.D. Bingham, February 4, 1868. It provides for a close-fitting, narrow (as possible) ring that is held in place without screws by two opposite indentations (“spurs”) in the ring. Slots are cut in the band, one under each spur (see picture on previous page). One slot (foreground) is for prying the dust band off the movement with a screw driver, the other slot (background) slides over the alignment screw in the pillar plate.

As explained in the patent, the spur which is above the wider “prying” slot has an inclined upper surface so that it easily snaps off the back plate when a screw driver is twisted upwards in the slot. The other spur over the “alignment” slot has a square shoulder which prevents the ring from rising (actually, the alignment screw is not mentioned in the patent). The dust band is quickly installed by positioning the band with its alignment slot to line up with the alignment screw and pressing this edge down first.

Since dust bands were used before the patent on Model 57 watches, Bingham’s bands exist with a “patent applied for” marking; example donated by contributor Charlie Wallace (see picture below). Contributor Pat Caruso donated a plain dust band with a cutout for the alignment screw which appears to be held in place with friction [can we be certain it came from an early M57?]. Sample pre-1868 movements with the dust band alignment screw on the pillar plate are listed below that have been inspected for dust band screws on the back plate (they would look like small case screws with half heads).

FIGURE 55. Pre-1868 Dust Bands

Escapements

The English style side lever escapement was employed on all Model 57 movements. However, the English style pallets were replaced with the “Waltham” design around 1874 (by examining representative movements). The English pallets were so-called covered where the pallet stones are set in slots running in the plane of the pallet, whereas the Waltham (or American) pallet has its stones exposed which visibly stand out from the body of the pallet (see figure on next page).

See introduction of the Waltham pallet in the summary Table 7 on page 55 and in the data tables.

The initial escape wheels had pointed ratchet teeth which later were flattened at the ends a little because the pointed teeth were easily damaged through handling [r46 page 18]. The ratchet style eventually gave way to the full club tooth design to add an impulse face to the end of the tooth [r82 page 20] (see figure on next page).

TABLE 4.

Dust Band Screws in Back Plate

Grade S/N Date band screws

PSB 20944 06’59 No

PSB 40416 11’60 No

PSB 65998 01’63 No

PSB 224226 05’66 No


Draft

FIGURE 56. Right-Angle Model 57 Side Lever Pallet

FIGURE 57. Six Designs of Model 57 Escape Wheel

English Closed Pallet

Waltham Exposed Pallet

blunt-end tooth PSB17053 toe-end tooth PSB 33575 4-spoke TE tooth PSB 40416

pointed tooth PSB 9506 club tooth PSB 164938 4-spoke CL tooth PSB 678959


DraftReferences indicate that the club tooth was incorporated rather early on escape wheels (e.g., after several thousand movements were made; even Crossman [r46 page 18] says the club tooth was adopted at the time when the Waltham factory started operations). But the blunt-end tooth style of the early Model 57s could hardly be called “club tooth” compared with the later versions. Even the 1885 American Waltham Watch Co. Materials catalog does not list different types of escape wheels, yet the blunt-end style is illustrated for the Model 57, and the illustration is clearly different in other models. Ehrhardt in [r82 page 20] does point out the gradual change in the escape wheels, “with the higher grades making the change first.”

There actually was an additional transitional design where the end of the blunt-end tooth is given a bit of a toe edge. The blunt-end design (especially the “toe-end” transitional design) is essentially equivalent to the full club tooth except the full club tooth gives more clearance for the drop. The four designs are illustrated above in Figure 57 on page 49. The earlier escape wheels had the English design with three spokes which later was changed to four spokes (also illustrated in above figure).

The club tooth escape wheel was employed on the “Nashua Model” design [r27] which sets the time frame for this improvement at Waltham, Circa 1862; late 1863 for the AT&Co grade M57 according to the data tables herein.

The reader should be aware of the difficulty in distinguishing between the four designs. Whereas the pointed tooth design can usually be determined simply by looking between the plates, and the club tooth can sometimes be determined the same way with good lighting and a powerful loupe, this method is generally not reliable. The best way, without disassembling, is to get closer by removing the dial and looking through the peep holes with good lighting and a good loupe.

The above figure of escape wheels illustrates a 4-spoke TE escape wheel. This particular part might have been custom made as the author has seen no other example; this movement does have some (mixed) parts with different serial numbers.

Interestingly, Howard & Rice movements were fitted with a club tooth escape wheel before the Model 57 per the data tables herein (see below [picture permission of Bob Richards]).

FIGURE 58. Howard & Rice Club Tooth Escape Wheel

The shanks of Howard’s club tooth design on have a backward slant and look quite a bit different from the M57 club tooth escape wheel.

Howard & Rice movements were also fitted with pallets similar to the Waltham design many years earlier. The Howard pallet has large clear vertical jewels in the plane of the pallet (see picture on next page [picture permission of Bob Richards]).


Draft

FIGURE 59. Howard & Rice Lever with Clear Vertical Pallet Jewels

This leads to questions. Did Howard redesign the escapement to make it better, or was the Boston Watch Company importing the escapement and Howard got them from a different supplier? The fact that Howard was experimenting with new designs very early on (e.g., see D,H&D 5000), including introducing quick train in the spring of 1858 while working under the settlement with Rice [r13 page 12] & [r99 pages 21-23], one could conclude that Howard did design his own escapement.

The fact the early M57 escape wheels had the English 3-spoke design before changing over to a 4-spoke design supports the importing hypothesis. The common position is, though, that escapements were made at the Waltham factory.

Although Marsh does not specifically mention escapements in [r48 page 19] he says, “Several portions of the movements were procured from Europe such as: dials, hands, mainsprings, hairsprings, balances and jewels.” Contributor Edidin comments, “I don’t think that escapements for the early watches were imported. All the items on Marsh’s list, even hands, are specialized items that involve more than metal-cutting. Escapements are important enough to have made the list if they were imported, and they are just the sort of part that could be made locally. Styles of escape wheel would be influenced by experience with English watches and by exchange of ideas and techniques with travel.” Crossman in [r46 page 19] says BWCo’s third employee, James L. Baker, was their escapement maker, and describes the process of making pallets. A June 19, 1857, Waltham Sentinel article says Baker stayed with Robbins’ new company TB&Co [r65]. Crossman goes on to say that balances were made by a Mr. Brown, an English balance maker who the Company hired to come to America to take charge of this work [r46 page 21]. Another comment, a reporter for the Waltham Sentinel wrote on March 13, 1856, about his observation during a tour of the factory conducted by the “foreman” Mr. Stratton. The reporter describes the making of watch hands in his article [r23 page 144]. Hauptman reports in [r16 page 929] that dial hands were imported at first, but a Mr. George Hastings was engaged just before the company moved to Waltham to make hands.

Features Not Tracked

A number of changing features described in this monograph were not formally tracked in the data tables for a variety of rea-sons (including: “there were just too many”), and are listed here to be complete:

• introduction of “peep holes” on the pillar plate (see Table 1, “Introduction of DH&D Design Changes,” on page 10)

• application of “Woerd’s Patents” & Fogg’s patent date inscriptions (see Table 3, “Application of “Woerd’s Patents” & Fogg’s patent date inscriptions,” on page 47)

• number of screws holding down the balance cap jewel setting changed with sprung over “Hair Spring” on page 44

Types of Potances (see Figure 10, “Old and New Fastening Arrangements of DH&D Potances,” on page 10):Early movements incorporated a “U”-bridge shaped potance (including Howard & Rice movements), but this was quickly replaced with the standard M57 issue cantilevered design which evolved through three series as illustrated in the “Waltham” 1885 Materials catalog. See examples in the data tables herein and figure on next page. The “U”-bridge shaped potance was not employed on the C.T. Parker and P.S. Bartlett watches and was discontinued on the AT&Co grade probably before the second run as shown in the table on next page.


Draft

FIGURE 60. Four Types of Model 57 Potances

TABLE 5. The Change in the ‘U’-bridge Shaped Potance to the Cantilevered Potance part #215

Grade S/N Type Potance Date MadeCTP 1176 #215 11’57

PSB 1409 #215 12’57

PSB 2182 #215 02’58

PSB 9192 #215 04’58

AT&Co 5341 ‘U’-bridge 08-09’57

AT&Co 5901 ‘U’-bridge 01’58

AT&Co 6534A

A. private label B. Stevens, So. Danvers Mass

#215 12’58

AT&Co 6590B

B. private label Charles L Gorham, Barre Mass

#215 1860

AT&Co 6669 ‘U’-bridge 01’59

AT&Co 15691 #215 01’59

AT&Co 16447 #215 03’59

PSB 17053 part #215 PSB 40416 part #216

AT&Co 6669 ‘U’ bridge PSB 678959 part #217


DraftStyle of Click:Model 57 movements were introduced with the same style of ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring as on the DH&D movements (including the Howard & Rice movements). The long click spring attached to the edge of the pillar plate, the large comma-shaped click, and oblong ratchet bridge are illustrated below.

FIGURE 61. Pillar Plate Views of 1st Series Click and Spring

Except for the ratchet bridge, these parts are listed in the 1885 “Waltham” Materials catalog for “1st Series” M57s. The “comma” click is part #231; the click spring is part #236. The oblong ratchet bridge is not listed in the catalog; in fact, the half-circle “1st Series” design (part #208) listed in the catalog has been seen by the author only on Warren #44, Samuel Curtis #212, and Samuel Curtis #899 (and on a John Warren movement #170 which is probably a custom “Samuel Curtis”), see Figure 9, “Progression Of Pillar Plates On The Curtis and DH&D,” on page 9.

The ratchet bridge and click were changed as the Model 57 evolved as illustrated in Figure 40, “Three Types of AT&Co Barrel Ratchet Arrangements,” on page 36; the circular click (part #240) was next in line. Note that the click and spring in Figure 40 on page 36 for the movements with the non-circular type of click (parts #232 & 237, respectively) are not quite the same as the similar parts shown above. Contributor Pat Caruso reports that the combined circular click and spring is fragile and breaks easily.

Winding Square Key Guards:As mentioned above with the Broadway grade, it, Home, and early DH&D watches did not have key guards. See Figure 30, “Example Home (715881) and Broadway (833896) Grade Model 57 Movements,” on page 27.

Steel guards were introduced on DH&D movements early in their production and continued on early AT&Co, C.T. Parker and PSB grades. See Figure 6, “DH&D Nos. 1016 and 2673,” on page 6, Figure 16, “Early AT&Co Model 57 Movement 5042 (permission of Douglas Lynn),” on page 16 and Figure 17, “First Run C.T. Parker (S/N 1176) & P.S. Bartlett (S/N 1409), Forerunners of AWCo’s Commodity Products,” on page 17. According to the data tables, the steel cup was replaced with brass on AT&Co around Serial number 6000 and on the PSB around S/N 9000; both cups can be seen in Figure 49, “Sprung Under Hairspring with Hidden Stud,” on page 43

P.S. Bartlett S/N 2182 Howard & Rice S/N 6252[photo permission Bob Richards]


DraftTrain Speed:

According to Crossman, all 18S grades were converted to fast train by 1880. [r46 page 29] According to references [r78 page 31] and [r2], the last run of Model 57s was a Sterling grade S/Ns 1367501 - 1369000 (CA 1879/80) and they are listed with quick train (and stem wind); but this listing might be incorrect. The 1885 AWWCo Materials Catalog does not offer M57 train wheels with different numbers of teeth, and see “Remaining Model 57 Watches” on page 27.

Types of Mainspring:No examples are given here for the type of mainspring (but see [r78 page 5]). The T end mainspring hook was introduced from 1862 to 1866 according to Hauptman [r18 page 188], 1868 according to Crossman [r46 page 30]. The 1885 “Waltham” Materials Catalog page 106 does list the T end mainspring (#2202) as well as the old style with brace (#2201) for stem wind Model 57s (#2201 was also used on key winds).

Trivia Items:Here is a trivia item. The style of lettering of the P.S. Bartlett was changed at some point in time. For example, the letter ‘l’ is open in early movements, but closed on later movements; the difference can be clearly seen between PSB S/N 260518 in Figure 47, “Fake Jewel Settings on P.S. Bartlett Model 57,” on page 41 and PSB S/N 778362 in Figure 44, “Inscription “Woerd’s Patents” On Train Side of SW Pillar Plate, S/N 778362,” on page 39. And more trivia, contributor Chris Carey points out that the case screw on early movements were short, but later the screw was longer and screwed into the lower plate; this happened around S/N 400,000 (1869/70). And more, author found that the hair spring stud between two P.S. Bartlett movements with serial numbers 406849 and 579402 were not interchangeable. The index pins were different size. So much for interchangeability.

TABLE 6. Train Speed Of Different Movements With Count Of Wheel Teeth and Pinion Leaves

watch (beats per hour) # escape teeth/# pinion leaves # 4th wh teeth/# pinion leaves

Warren #44 (14,400) 15/7 56/7

Samuel Curtis #211 (14,400) 15/7 56/7

Samuel Curtis #899 (14,400) 15/7 56/7

DH&D #1016 (16,200) 15/7 63/8

DH&D #3027 (16,200) 15/7 63/8

P.S. Bartlett #2182 (16,200) 15/7 63/8

AT&Co #5341 (16,200) 15/7 63/8

standard Model 57 (16,200) 15/7 63/8

“Quick Train” (18,000) 15/8 80/10

The initial isolation of the factory was a distinct advantage, permitting unrestricted development of idealsurroundings. The average person looking upon the system of parks, opposite and extending the entire length,of the building saw in them nothing more than a very successful attempt to please the eye. This was far frombeing the whole objective, however. The chief value of the planted grounds and sprinkled streets was inproviding an almost dustless environment; somewhat analogous to today’s “clean rooms” in semiconductorfactories. [Photo of Fitch Park and the other two views of the Factory from The Home of the Waltham Watch, 1911 promotional brochure.]


Draft

Please note that the tables that follow here contain raw data; some mistakes can be expected from data entry and submitters. Use discretion. Look for patterns, not single examples. Interestingly, changing features usually follow serial number and not date of production (although there are exceptions); the reason is probably that material was reserved based on serial number and features were not retrofitted when the movement was actually made.The “Additional Notes” section at end of each table provides more details for a watch when available and appropriate, especially on cases. In this regard it is noted that the orientation of the head on eagle marks is recorded, but it is not always clear if the view is from the front or back of the eagle.

TABLE 7. Summary Range Of Serial Numbers At Which Feature Was Introduced

Improvement Appleton Tracy & Co Waltham Watch Co P.S. Bartlett Wm. Ellery

blunt-end tooth escape 6006 - 6377 none? 10621 - 10952 none A

A. The 1st Wm. Ellery, S/N 42501 CA 05’61 [r1], is likely to have the toe-end design. The J. Watson grade, preceding the Wm. Ellery, and essentially equivalent to the Ellery, has the toe-end design.

toe-end tooth escape 16447 - 19085 first mvts? 21014 - 23415 first mvts

full club escape wheel 64581 - 118614 before 295913 83747 - 94050 513101-515268

applied index scale 6531 - 6534B

B. Private label watch S/N 6534 is equivalent to AT&Co grade.

all? 11725 - 11977 345351-372183

scale on balance cock 279879-304063 none? none? none?

Waltham pallet 577910-717106 707592-741826 724555-735442 711193-723105

expansion balance 5541 [r1] C

C. The balance is listed as “Chrono”, made Oct. 1857; 1st sold #5543 per [r62 page 21, Nov. 2, 1857].

58115 [r1] 9541 [r1] 42672 [r1]

hair spring sprung overD

D. All Waltham Watch Co grade movements are sprung over according to [r1]. 152 movements were made in this grade with serial numbers between 58115 - 58290 from Mar. ‘65 to Jan. ‘67 (other grades of watches in this number range were made in 1862-3). Reference [r1] does not mention the AT&Co grade, but apparently, by observation, the AT&Co grade was fitted with sprung over balances around 1860, many years before the other grades.

25327 - 27842 all? 373001 [r1]CA’68 379001 [r1]CA’68

hair spring side anchored all all 34691 - 34913 46577 - 49038

3mm 3rd wheel plate jewel 202461-252958 before 295913 156035-161032 145774-161828

2mm 3rd wheel plate jewel none? 602492-618459 616901-638286 653169-655624

garnet jewels none? 334276-341471 536058-560387E

E. See listing for intermittent use of 3mm garnet jewels as early as 1865, but garnet jewels apparently became standard issue in late 1871.

566437-611460

fake jewel settings all real? all? 10621 - 10952 all burnished Js

Fogg’s center pinion 335001 [r1]F

F. Not all movements immediately after this serial number have the Fogg’s pinion; e.g., see examples on data table (at least these movements do not have the “Fogg’s Patent” inscription on the plates).

341001 [r1]G

G. Similarly to ‘F’, movements exist with the “Fogg’s Patent” inscription before their recording in reference [r1]; e.g., see WWCo S/N 327205.

352701 [r1] 363001 [r1]

stem wind H

H. Home Watch Co 749001[r1] CA’74; also see WWCo 1871 in Custom Table.

759801 [r1]CA’74 597001 [r1]CA’71 762301 [r1]CA’74 759001 [r1]CA’74

seconds sunk dial all? all? 387478-391256 345351-372884

dust band alignment screw 279850-311021 303687-310284 31725-37881 I

I. Standard dust band introduction: PSB 302283 - 306137 (CA ‘67).

249809-256319

S/N on top plate 25327 - 27902 none none none

Screw banking pins 38273 - 42375J

J. However, note variance of production dates in data tables.

all? (<58265) 40739 - 52020 before 46211


DraftConcluding Comments

Author’s Note: Wesley Hauptman’s series of articles in NAWCC Bulletin ([r15], [r16], & [r18]) are quite useful, especially considering the information available at the time he wrote them (several corrections are noted herein). These articles, Michael Harrold’s [r29] & [r63] and Moore’s Timing a Century [r51] would satisfy most readers’ desires for more details not found herein.

While the above recommended references provide a comprehensive background on the history of the Waltham Watch Company and of the watches the company made, if you want to see real examples, pick up all the books you can that Roy Ehrhardt wrote on “Waltham” watches (for example my bible, [r78] Waltham Pocket Watch Identification and Price Guide, 1976, Heart Of America Press). Although I received an unbelievable amount of inspiration from many people for this project, only one person, Roy Ehrhardt, showed me by his examples how to conduct my research. You will notice a similar process, except I focused only on one model from one manufacturer, where Roy covered many models from many companies.

Hopefully the above information and following data tables will enable collectors to direct their quest of Model 57 pocket watches in a more orderly manner. Perhaps the historical value of these watches will take on more significance.

This report will also better enable collectors to recognize movements with mixed parts, and to recognize imitations (commonly called fakes). Features on movements with mixed parts or on imitations will not likely line up correctly with the real object.

Another value of having the above data tabulated is that the data can help identify and date an unknown or private label Model 57 movement. For example, see the custom watch S/N 1859 listed in the data table. For a rule of thumb, if you have a private label movement with real jewels settings, it probably is an Appleton Tracy & Co. grade; 15Js with garnet jewels in fake settings, a Waltham Watch Co. grade; 11Js with translucent jewels in fake settings, a P.S. Bartlett; burnished jewels, a Wm. Ellery.

In retrospect, many of the new features or changes on the Model 57 were probably unnecessary, but the vast number of them sure make collecting Model 57s a joy. Considering all of the improvements, and all of the design changes for marketing purposes, the company probably would have been better off not replacing the Model 57 with the next introduced full plate Model 70, Model 77 and Model 79 watches. The Model 57 could have likely satisfied the market until the Model 83 was introduced (but of course the powers to be didn’t know that at the time).

Nevertheless, by 1879, 25 years after the Waltham watch factory open its doors, and after producing nearly a million Model 57 pocket watches, the company was producing a large number of quality industrialized watches in a variety of models, grades and sizes, and made its mark as a world class manufacturing company. This was a magnificent achievement for the mid-19th century. The Model 57 had done its job!

In closing I would like to pay homage to a certain person for the success of the Waltham Watch Company. Many historians in the past have given credit to Dennison at the expense of Howard; this certainly was inappropriate as we now know. William Keith wrote his A Family Tale in 1883 in response to a news article [r95] that claimed Aaron Dennison was the “father of watchmaking”. Keith gave appropriate credit to Edward Howard for his “mechanical and horological skills”, to Samuel Curtis who “probably sacrificed more money in this experiment at watchmaking than all others combined except Mess. Howard & Davis”, and to Royal Robbins who was “by far the most prominent agent, and the one most successful in organizing and developing American watch-making” [r94]. However, I would like to point out that it was Keith who concocted the ingenious scheme to establish the Waltham Improvement Company; this got the watch company to Waltham in the first place. It was Keith as treasurer of the Improvement Company that arranged three successive yearly mortgages for the financially troubled watch company. It was Keith who courted Robbins upon hearing rumors of Robbins wanting to move the watch company to New York. It was Keith who accepted favorable terms for the watch company in the merger to form the American Watch Company. And Keith served the Company admirably as its president during its formative years. In my book, William Keith is the “unsung hero” who helped make industrialized watchmaking a success in Waltham.

Enjoy! -- Ron Price


Draft* * *

Chronology of the “Waltham Watch Company”:

1842 Edward Howard and Aaron Dennison became acquainted[r13 p.3] & [r94 p.67]1849 Initial capital of $20,000 arranged from Samuel Curtis [r47 page 739]Sep 1850 Construction begins on factory building [r16 page 925] Jan 1851 American Horologe Co. [r47 page 739], Howard to Keith [r94 p.70]1851 Warren Manufacturing Co. [r47 page 740] & [r94 page 70]Sep 1853 Boston Watch Co. [r58 page 73]Mar 1854 Formation of the Waltham Improvement Company with BWCo [r47 page 740]05/09/1857 Tracy Baker & Co. - Boston news articles May 12/13[r106] & [r6 p. 275]07/17/1857 Appleton Tracy & Co. per [r65]; 09/01/1857 per [r48 page 23]02/17/1859 American Watch Co. [r56 pages 24 & 74]1885 American Waltham Watch Co.[r56 cover page] & [’85 Materials Catalog]1907 Waltham Watch Co. [1907 Materials Catalog]1923 Walthm Watch and Clock Company [r51 page 12]1925 Walthm Watch Company [r51 page 12]

origins of the waltham model 57 - price-less ads

Documents