# What are the best vintage pocket watches?



## omega1234

I'm quite knowledgable about current and vintage wrist watches, but know absolutely nothing about pocket watches. Could the pocket watch experts please tell me what the best vintage pocket watches are? Are they the same as wristwatches, VC, AP, PP, etc.? I was also wondering, about how much does it cost to get a decent pocket watch? Thanks everyone, I hope I can learn a lot from you guys.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

I'll take a Waltham over just about anything except perhaps certain Illinois watches. Hamiltons have a lot of fans, too. 

100 years ago, at least in America, one wanting to buy at the top end might choose a Waltham Premier Maximus with a Kew Class A certificate. Personally, I would choose this over a Patek of the same vintage, even today. 

In general, American railroad watches from any of the big four(Elgin, Waltham, Hamilton, Illinois) are excellent timekeepers if properly maintained, and perhaps more importantly can still be relatively easily repaired(most common parts are available). Plus, most of these have beautiful damaskeening on the movement. Most good 21j RR watches are running in the $200-300 range these days.


----------



## omega1234

Ben_hutcherson said:


> I'll take a Waltham over just about anything except perhaps certain Illinois watches. Hamiltons have a lot of fans, too.
> 
> 100 years ago, at least in America, one wanting to buy at the top end might choose a Waltham Premier Maximus with a Kew Class A certificate. Personally, I would choose this over a Patek of the same vintage, even today.
> 
> In general, American railroad watches from any of the big four(Elgin, Waltham, Hamilton, Illinois) are excellent timekeepers if properly maintained, and perhaps more importantly can still be relatively easily repaired(most common parts are available). Plus, most of these have beautiful damaskeening on the movement. Most good 21j RR watches are running in the $200-300 range these days.


Thanks, I was looking at Waltham and Hamilton, I'll check out Illinois. These $200-$300 watches are similar in quality to the multi thousand $ Pateks? If you wouldn't mind explaining I'd be very grateful. Thank you.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

omega1234 said:


> These $200-$300 watches are similar in quality to the multi thousand $ Pateks? If you wouldn't mind explaining I'd be very grateful. Thank you.


I didn't say that 

I said that a Premier Maximus with a Kew certificate(also several thousand dollars today) might compare favorably to a Patek. We just had some discussion of this recently on here, although I'm not sure any opinions were changed  . I just know what my choice between the two is!

American RR watches were mass produced watches built to maintain certain timekeeping standard while still being durable and easily repairable, and be able to do so at a price that was affordable on a railroad workers' salary. Railroad timekeeping standards were +/- 30s/week, which are tighter than current COSC standards. For that purpose, they were much better suited than pretty much anything coming out Switzerland(taking price into account).


----------



## omega1234

Ben_hutcherson said:


> I didn't say that
> 
> I said that a Premier Maximus with a Kew certificate(also several thousand dollars today) might compare favorably to a Patek. We just had some discussion of this recently on here, although I'm not sure any opinions were changed  . I just know what my choice between the two is!
> 
> American RR watches were mass produced watches built to maintain certain timekeeping standard while still being durable and easily repairable, and be able to do so at a price that was affordable on a railroad workers' salary. Railroad timekeeping standards were +/- 30s/week, which are tighter than current COSC standards. For that purpose, they were much better suited than pretty much anything coming out Switzerland(taking price into account).


Thanks for clearing that up. If I pick a pocket watch I think it will be a Waltham. Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

Waltham is a great choice, although just be forewarned that a lot of the later ones(especially post-1920) were not that great of watches even in the higher grades. The railroad grades are still more than capable of holding RR time, they're just not as pretty or as well finished as the earlier one. 

For the 16 size Vanguards, I like the earlier ones with diamond endstones on the balance. I also really like the 18 size 1892 model Vanguards, although my preference is for the earlier 17 and "21 Ruby Jewel" ones rather than the later 21 and 23j ones(even though the later ones do have a diamond endstone, something lacking in the earlier ones). 

For a "better than usual" Waltham at around $600-800 in gold filled or $1500-2000 in gold, look for a Riverside Maximus. These are a huge step above the usual railroad quality. The Premier Maximus or "American Watch Company" grade would be a further step above this.


----------



## Oldgit

Have you ever looked into fusee or verge escapements ,early ones ? .I tend to steer away from the turn of the century ones as i love the detailing ,shape and sound of the older pair cased watches ,in fact one that i have been watching and my wife has actually disabled my paypal account or i would have had this one 180966103430 on ebay (cleanest one i have seen for a while) ,restored it will be worth a lot of money ,so a shrewd investment .I have had a lot of walthams etc ,think i have a half hunter waltham badged up as swiss made ,but i would swap 10 walthams for one pair cased watch absolutely have a serious problem with them .


----------



## radger

I don't know what to make of the pretty Damaskeen on U.S watches.
It produces a dazzling result, no doubt, you almost need sunglasses to view some U.S railroad watches.
I prefer the Howards for their more subdued approach to decoration.
The pretty engine turned Damaskeen is no measure of quality and can be seen also on cheap U.S watches.

I'd also pick the Waltham with Kew certificate over a comparable Patek Philippe, these must be rare as hens teeth
and would be worth a fortune to the die hard U.S collector. Are any of these still in existance? Did they send these
to a master English watchmaker/adjuster for modification and adjustment before submission to the tests?

But the original question who produced the best?

I'd say P.P, V&C and several others over Waltham or Illinois and Hamilton, disregarding best value or best affordability
or best glitz or best stock of spare parts.

Best Swiss Geneva watches were built to Geneva seal standards, this assured a quality the best U.S watches never managed to achieve,
I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this but as yet can find no evidence to the contrary.

As far as accuracy was concerned, the best Swiss watches would be supplied with observatory certificates, those that
were not would still be adjusted to temp and position to a high standard of accuracy of far better than 30 secs a week.

Observatory chronometers and other extreme rarities aside, only the most dogmatic, diehard American collector would pick
a high grade Waltham over a Patek Philippe.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

radger said:


> The pretty engine turned Damaskeen is no measure of quality and can be seen also on cheap U.S watches.


Actually, I'm not so sure that I agree with that. While a lack of a fancy damaskeen pattern certainly does not indicate a lack of quality, there ARE quantifiable and discernible differences between different grades of American watches and in many cases they are an indicator of quality.

In particular, low grade watches tend to have fairly simple and relatively easily executed patterns.

Higher grade watches tend to have more complicated and difficult patterns. Furthermore, at least on better grade Walthams of the 1870s through 1890s, the patterns are essentially unique on each individual example. On some particular watches, especially the 1872 and 1888 model "American Watch Company" grades, there are differences in the pattern on every example. I collect 1883 model "Crescent St" grades(I'm up to 10 of them now) for this very reason. I have been told that the rose engines employed in the damaskeen department required a master to operate, and that the artists were given a good deal of freedom as to what they did with them.

Furthermore, American watches tend to have the pattern spread out over multiple plates, and on many high grade watches(especially the top grades of the 1872 model) the pattern is also carried over to the pillar plate. I'm told that it required a great amount of skill to get perfect registration of the pattern across multiple plates, and higher grade watches tend to do this.

At the end of the day, damaskeening adds about as much to the timekeeping ability of a watch as do chamfered plate edges, and as I explained above, can allow the maker to show their skill.



> I'd also pick the Waltham with Kew certificate over a comparable Patek Philippe, these must be rare as hens teeth
> and would be worth a fortune to the die hard U.S collector. Are any of these still in existance? Did they send these
> to a master English watchmaker/adjuster for modification and adjustment before submission to the tests?


I have heard of one. As far as I know, they were adjusted entirely in-house(Waltham did have very capable adjusters).



> Best Swiss Geneva watches were built to Geneva seal standards, this assured a quality the best U.S watches never managed to achieve,
> I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this but as yet can find no evidence to the contrary.


The later 10 size "thin model" Howard meet Geneva seal standards.

The Edward Howard is very, very close but fails in having banking pins. Even so, it excels in other areas(such as in having a free sprung balance) and I would still choose this over any time-only Patek.


----------



## sherwoodschwartz

interesting. it was my impression that time-keeping ability wasn't one of the stipulations of the geneva seal. so, with this in mind, i have always found it an over-rated standard. i'd be interested in counter-points.


----------



## radger

sherwoodschwartz said:


> interesting. it was my impression that time-keeping ability wasn't one of the stipulations of the geneva seal. so, with this in mind, i have always found it an over-rated standard. i'd be interested in counter-points.


It is a quality assurance, pure and simple.
No one ever mentioned timekeeping ability as being a stipulation.

Ah 'overated' standard? Maybe if you are coming only from the point of view that quality is irrelevent
to function. After all a Chippendale chest of drawers will do the same job as a MDF chest of drawers from
MFI or Ikea.


----------



## AbslomRob

Its important to remember that all those "standards", whether it's the Kew certificiate, COSC standard, or "Railroad standard", existed largely as marketing gimmicks to help sell watches to the common folk who didn't really understand the difference between geneva stripes and engine turned damasking. The watch makers were primarily focused on selling watches (of any type); the only significance to the "higher quality" watches was that they tended to have a higher margin. That, itself, tells you something. The railroad standard was one of the "better" standards in that there was an understandable logic behind them, and a well-understand sense of liability. If a watch worn by an engineer wasn't accurate enough, the consequences could be dire. That gave the railroad standards a degree of consumer appeal that things like observatory certification had a hard time matching.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

AbslomRob said:


> the only significance to the "higher quality" watches was that they tended to have a higher margin.


Everything I've seen and read seems to indicate that at the extreme high end, quite the opposite was true.

High grade American watches were _very_ slow sellers by most accounts. Waltham made fewer than 1000 "American Watch Company" '72 models from the mid-1870s up through the 1880s, and still had a significant number of these in stock after 1900.

Everything I've seen seems to indicate the American makers had very slim margins on the highest grade watches, and mostly made them as a proof of the fact that they could.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, witness the fact that Ingersol/Timex continued along quite happily even after most of the other American companies had long since closed.


----------



## AbslomRob

Oh of course, I'm referring to watches that adhered to (and marketed) the various standards that have come and gone over the years. I'm sure, for instance, that most of the American Watch Company watches would have qualified under the "railroad standards", but I doubt that was ever a design criteria for them. At the very high end, the goal is simply to have the watches exist almost as a status reference, not as a revenue stream. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many of those "high end" watches ended up as gifts for notable clients, and provided no revenue at all. 

As for the notion of "Ingersol/Timex" continuing on quite happily, those companies existed on a very thin margin, and survived by volume alone. In some respects, their low-quality was to their benefit, as the watches would typically not last very long in regular use, and so gave them a level of repeat-sales.


----------



## radger

AbslomRob said:


> Its important to remember that all those "standards", whether it's the Kew certificiate, COSC standard, or "Railroad standard", existed largely as marketing gimmicks to help sell watches to the common folk who didn't really understand the difference between geneva stripes and engine turned damasking. The watch makers were primarily focused on selling watches (of any type); the only significance to the "higher quality" watches was that they tended to have a higher margin. That, itself, tells you something. The railroad standard was one of the "better" standards in that there was an understandable logic behind them, and a well-understand sense of liability. If a watch worn by an engineer wasn't accurate enough, the consequences could be dire. That gave the railroad standards a degree of consumer appeal that things like observatory certification had a hard time matching.


I have to disagree that observatory chronometry standards and testing was just 'largely a marketing gimmick' and had less consumer
appeal than the U.S RR standard.

An Observatory Chronometer certificates primary function was to 'guarantee the accuracy of a time piece', consumers who required a very accurate watch to maybe 3 secs a week would look to this standard and purchase watches which passed these standards, they would not look to the RR standard.

Consumers like just about every government in the world who wished to purchase very accurate watches (and hence very expensive watches) for their Navies and Airforces.
Pre WW11 even the U.S government had to look to the Continent to supply them with very accurate watches, watches which were over and above the U.S RR standard.

The need for an accurate watch goes far beyond mere marketing gimmicks and the 'understandable logic' you apply to the R.R standard yet not to
an Observatory Chronometer doesn't make sense.


----------



## radger

Ben_hutcherson said:


> Actually, I'm not so sure that I agree with that. While a lack of a fancy damaskeen pattern certainly does not indicate a lack of quality, there ARE quantifiable and discernible differences between different grades of American watches and in many cases they are an indicator of quality.
> 
> In particular, low grade watches tend to have fairly simple and relatively easily executed patterns.
> 
> Higher grade watches tend to have more complicated and difficult patterns. Furthermore, at least on better grade Walthams of the 1870s through 1890s, the patterns are essentially unique on each individual example. On some particular watches, especially the 1872 and 1888 model "American Watch Company" grades, there are differences in the pattern on every example. I collect 1883 model "Crescent St" grades(I'm up to 10 of them now) for this very reason. I have been told that the rose engines employed in the damaskeen department required a master to operate, and that the artists were given a good deal of freedom as to what they did with them.
> 
> Furthermore, American watches tend to have the pattern spread out over multiple plates, and on many high grade watches(especially the top grades of the 1872 model) the pattern is also carried over to the pillar plate. I'm told that it required a great amount of skill to get perfect registration of the pattern across multiple plates, and higher grade watches tend to do this.
> 
> At the end of the day, damaskeening adds about as much to the timekeeping ability of a watch as do chamfered plate edges, and as I explained above, can allow the maker to show their skill.


I can see by your description of the process, the skill and artistry required to produce these unique Damaskeen patterns.
Do you know if this was all down to the skill of the rose engine operator or did the manufacturers have in house graphic designers sending down these
Damaskeen patterns to the operators on a daily basis.

I can see how this uniqueness in individual watches of the same cal appeals to collectors and it definately adds interest to the subject, I used
to collect postage stamps I understand these things.


----------



## AbslomRob

Your concept of "consumer" is a bit broader then I had intended; I wouldn't consider Governments to be "consumers"; customers yes, consumers no. There was definitely a market for extremely precise movements, same as there was for extremely high-quality watches. Both markets are, however, extremely small. The role of the observatory certificates for that small market is, unsurprisingly, rather important. However, all of this means very little to the guy on the street looking to buy a watch. The fact that a company was capable of making extremely accurate watches doesn't in any way imply that the watch <_> buy from that same company is going to be any better or worse then one made by any other company. That doesn't (and didn't) prevent companies from touting this ability in their sales and marketing. The cuvette's of many early 20th century watches were often covered with competition medals; there weren't doing that for fun, or even pride. They did that because they wanted the consumer to associate their brand with watchmaking excellence, and the observatory trials were to the watch industry what the professional racing circuits are to cars._


----------



## radger

AbslomRob said:


> Your concept of "consumer" is a bit broader then I had intended; I wouldn't consider Governments to be "consumers"; customers yes, consumers no. There was definitely a market for extremely precise movements, same as there was for extremely high-quality watches. Both markets are, however, extremely small. The role of the observatory certificates for that small market is, unsurprisingly, rather important. However, all of this means very little to the guy on the street looking to buy a watch. The fact that a company was capable of making extremely accurate watches doesn't in any way imply that the watch <_> buy from that same company is going to be any better or worse then one made by any other company. That doesn't (and didn't) prevent companies from touting this ability in their sales and marketing. The cuvette's of many early 20th century watches were often covered with competition medals; there weren't doing that for fun, or even pride. They did that because they wanted the consumer to associate their brand with watchmaking excellence, and the observatory trials were to the watch industry what the professional racing circuits are to cars._


_

So what are the best vintage pocket watches?

Surely Horological excellence in a hard and fast physical form such as a pocket watch is self evident and even more so when backed
up with certification of standards, be it Geneva Seal, Observatory or R.R standard.

You argue that the marketeers have been fooling us all, maybe they have, or maybe only some of us._


----------



## AbslomRob

The OP's question was a bit vague and maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but my sense is that they're asking about the best pocket watch _makers_. And my point is that it depends. A watch that has an observatory certificate is clearly a good watch. Even the modern COSC certification, as watered down as it is, still tells you that the movement was a good movement. But that only tells you about that watch. It doesn't necessarily tell you about the non-certified watches from the same company. Some brands (like Patek) have always focused on higher-quality, so it's easy to point to them and say "high quality". Waltham, on the other hand, made a range of products from cheap, simply finished 7j watches to exquisitely finished and high precision Observatory Certified watches. That means that you can't just pick up a Waltham and say "That's a good watch". The same is true of most American companies. In fact, that's true of most watch companies period, but the Swiss have this knack for re-inventing themselves. Omega is the most notable; back in the early 20th century, they were the same as any of the American companies in terms of the range of products they offered. But to the modern consumer, there's this implicit belief that if it says "Omega", it must be high quality. Rolex went through an early phase of offering lower-quality watches, but nowadays even their 2nd tier brands go for a premium.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Omega and Zenith had observatory chronometer grades in some of their pocket chronometers. Jaeger Le Coultre, Longines and IWC have also made some extremely fine calibers


----------



## omega1234

AbslomRob said:


> The OP's question was a bit vague and maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but my sense is that they're asking about the best pocket watch _makers_. And my point is that it depends. A watch that has an observatory certificate is clearly a good watch. Even the modern COSC certification, as watered down as it is, still tells you that the movement was a good movement. But that only tells you about that watch. It doesn't necessarily tell you about the non-certified watches from the same company. Some brands (like Patek) have always focused on higher-quality, so it's easy to point to them and say "high quality". Waltham, on the other hand, made a range of products from cheap, simply finished 7j watches to exquisitely finished and high precision Observatory Certified watches. That means that you can't just pick up a Waltham and say "That's a good watch". The same is true of most American companies. In fact, that's true of most watch companies period, but the Swiss have this knack for re-inventing themselves. Omega is the most notable; back in the early 20th century, they were the same as any of the American companies in terms of the range of products they offered. But to the modern consumer, there's this implicit belief that if it says "Omega", it must be high quality. Rolex went through an early phase of offering lower-quality watches, but nowadays even their 2nd tier brands go for a premium.


Correct, I was asking about makers.


----------



## RON in PA

I'll put my two cents into this discussion, the best easily obtainable and servicable, affordable, high quality pocket watches are the American 16 size pocket watches built to railroad standards. Specifically, watches such as the Hamilton 992 and 992B, the Illinois Bunn Special, the various Elgin B. W. Raymonds and the Waltham Vanguard. If you are in Canada watches made for Canadian RR use by Brandt (Omega) are equal to the Yanks, but I don't know about parts and service for them. I have left out the size 18 RR watches as I don't think they are as serviceable, but correct me if I'm wrong on this. Waltham 1892s and Hamilton 940s are certainly great watches.

As for the high end Swiss watches such as PP and VC I have no doubt that they are excellent time keepers and showing extra hand finishing (part of the qualifications for the Geneva Seal), but they are very expensive in comparison.


----------



## radger

RON in PA said:


> I'll put my two cents into this discussion, the best easily obtainable and servicable, affordable, high quality pocket watches are the American 16 size pocket watches built to railroad standards. Specifically, watches such as the Hamilton 992 and 992B, the Illinois Bunn Special, the various Elgin B. W. Raymonds and the Waltham Vanguard. If you are in Canada watches made for Canadian RR use by Brandt (Omega) are equal to the Yanks, but I don't know about parts and service for them. I have left out the size 18 RR watches as I don't think they are as serviceable, but correct me if I'm wrong on this. Waltham 1892s and Hamilton 940s are certainly great watches.
> 
> As for the high end Swiss watches such as PP and VC I have no doubt that they are excellent time keepers and showing extra hand finishing (part of the qualifications for the Geneva Seal), but they are very expensive in comparison.


I agree entirely.

The 'best value' pocket watches are U.S Railroad watches.

and The best horological examples of the watchmakers art are all continental of which there are many Swiss,
English, German and French.


----------



## Emre

with my zero knowledge in pocket watches I would say Piguet - Meylan. affordable category, Longines split second caliber


----------



## Matt11

Is any early (pre-1920 or pre-1900) Waltham, Elgin, Hamilton, Illinois pocket watch generally a good watch, or only railroad models and other specific models?


----------



## Dan S

Matt11 said:


> Is any early (pre-1920 or pre-1900) Waltham, Elgin, Hamilton, Illinois pocket watch generally a good watch, or only railroad models and other specific models?


What is a "good watch"? Manufacturers almost always make a range of products, from entry-level affordable watches to high-end watches that last for generations.


----------



## pithy

Matt11 said:


> Is any early (pre-1920 or pre-1900) Waltham, Elgin, Hamilton, Illinois pocket watch generally a good watch, or only railroad models and other specific models?


Troll much?

Like Patek? Vacheron?


----------



## Matt11

More specifically, a watch that is durable, reliable, repairable. I see a lot of Waltham pocket watches on Ebay in a wide price range, and thought of buying an inexpensive one to start since I don't yet know a lot about which models will "last for generations." My preference would be to get a watch that is durable and worth restoring. I think your going to tell me I need to do the research to find the best models.


----------



## Dan S

It's your choice what type of watch you'd like to collect; we can't decide that for you. Some people like to accumulate inexpensive watches and save them from oblivion. Others feel that if they are going to invest money in restoration, it's better to focus on more desirable examples that will hold their value better. You probably want to stay away from low-jewel movements (less than 15j), and if the movement is "adjusted", it's generally a good sign. However, there is really no substitute for research about particular models, and the price will depend not only on the movement, but the case materials, the size, the originality and condition of dial/hands, etc.


----------



## OleBob

I'm new to pocket watch collecting but from what I've read Howard watches were well regarded for quality. Am I misinformed?


----------

