# Hamilton GG-W-113 questions



## Crusader (Apr 30, 2005)

Hi guys,

I have two questions:

- Did the Hamilton GG-W-113 originally come with an armored or an un-armored acrylic crystal?

- Also, would someone happen to have a copy of the instruction sheet that came with the watch? I have an original issue one, with box, but without the instruction sheet and would appreciate a copy very much.

Thank you very much.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

The Hamilton GG-W-113s came in two styles, with either the "wedge-ledge" (Stella LD "low-dome"), or the tension ring crystal (Stella "WRA"-style, these are a little too tall, maybe the GS ones are lower?).

The early one-piece case (that is dimensionally identical to the Benrus MIL-W-3818 and GG-W-113) uses the "wedge-ledge." The one you have pictured before is the same as mine and is the later style two-piece case. These use the tension ring type.

Or, am I misunderstanding what you mean by "armored?"

Instructions? Were instructions even provided?


----------



## redjackbonney (May 8, 2006)

Before '82 or '83, when the one piece case was in use, crystals tend to be fairly primitive. Elasticity was the main characteristic they had to have as their main purpose is to hold the movement in place, so they tend to be rather thick at the base and without a tension ring. After '83, everything goes. The 2 piece case is more versatile and you will also encounter watches retro-fitted with a tension ring. Original crystals for the early ones are almost impossible to find and so, when they have been fitted with a new crystal, the movement has a tendency to wobble inside the case. Some watchmakers remedied to this by using an old tension ring and cut it so it would fit inside the crystal to hold the dial and movement. Sometimes, these are painted black so it doesn't show too much. This is often the case on flat dial watches produced in the mid 70's-early 80's (late 60's ones have a curved dial, following the Benrus original model)Although questionable, the practise has the merit to hold the movement in place. 
As a rule, these watches were made for function more than looks also I would say that an armoured acrylic crystal must indicate a replacement. This is not necessarily wrong, it just means the watch has been worn and has "seen action"...



lysanderxiii said:


> The Hamilton GG-W-113s came in two styles, with either the "wedge-ledge" (Stella LD "low-dome"), or the tension ring crystal (Stella "WRA"-style, these are a little too tall, maybe the GS ones are lower?).
> 
> The early one-piece case (that is dimensionally identical to the Benrus MIL-W-3818 and GG-W-113) uses the "wedge-ledge." The one you have pictured before is the same as mine and is the later style two-piece case. These use the tension ring type.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crusader (Apr 30, 2005)

Thanks, guys. I was indeed talking about the two-case watches from the mid-eighties.

I have an issued but unworn USAF Hamilton GG-W-113 from that period, but I can't for the heck make out whether it has an armored crystal or not. It does have a very low dome, though. 

Of my two refiurbished GG-W-113s from the same period, one was fitted with an armored (very high dome), one with an un-armored crystal (low dome).

I am wondering whether the armored high-dome crystal is reasonably authentic (not original, just close to it), or - in fact - the low-dome unarmored crystal for Hamiltons from the mid-80s.

Will try to take a few pics later today or tomorrow to illustrate my points.


----------



## rouge (Apr 18, 2006)

lysanderxiii said:


> The Hamilton GG-W-113s came in two styles, with either the "wedge-ledge" (Stella LD "low-dome"), or the tension ring crystal (Stella "WRA"-style, these are a little too tall, maybe the GS ones are lower?).
> 
> The early one-piece case (that is dimensionally identical to the Benrus MIL-W-3818 and GG-W-113) uses the "wedge-ledge." The one you have pictured before is the same as mine and is the later style two-piece case. These use the tension ring type.


Interesting!!! :think: 
Have you any picture for my better understanding of the differences existing?
Thanks.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

> The 2 piece case is more versatile and you will also encounter watches retro-fitted with a tension ring. Original crystals for the early ones are almost impossible to find and so, when they have been fitted with a new crystal, the movement has a tendency to wobble inside the case. Some watchmakers remedied to this by using an old tension ring and cut it so it would fit inside the crystal to hold the dial and movement.


No, the two piece Hamilton always had a tension ring; the case design will only allow for the use of a tension ring crystal. And since the movement was accessed from the back and held in place by a brass case ring with srping tabs, the fit of the crystal would have no bearing on movement wobble. (And, the crystals for the old style case are very easy to get, it was easier that getting a new crystal for a Seiko Diver!)

This is a Benrus MIL-W-3818B, the early Hamilton GG-W-113s and all the Benrus GG-W-113s used exactly the same case, which is a U.S. Army Ordnance Department Drawing Number C8289362, the Crystal is USA Ord Dept Drawing No. B8289351:










On 14 June 1968, Amendment 1 to GG-W-113 was released and among other things, paragraph 3.7.1 was changed

*OLD*
3.7.1 Case. The watch case shall be fabricated in accordance with Drawing C8289362. The suspension ring shall be as required by the applicable movement.

*NEW*
3.7.1 Case. The watch case shall be fabricated in such a manner as to be similar to Drawing C8289362. The suspension ring shall be as required by the applicable movement.

This allowed Hamilton the latitude to use the same case they using in the MIL-W-46374B, when they were awarded a contract for GG-W-113s in the early eighties.

The differences in the two cases are: 1) old: one piece case, new: two piece case, 2) old: curved dial, new: flat dial, 3) the proportions of case diameter to crystal diameter are different, making the older case seem bigger, even though the case are the same diameter, 4) very minor difference in the shape of the case. Strangely enough, they continued to use a two piece stem with the two piece case, which is why so many now sport replacement crowns.










Hamilton would continue to produce these watches after the cancellation of the GG-W-113 Specification as MIL-W-46374D, Type 1. They are identical, except for the case back markings.

BTW, there is one of the major crystal manufacturers (Stella, GS, Sternkreuz) that makes tension ring crystals that are exactly right, I have had to replace all the crystals of my MIL-W-46374s and GG-W-113 over the years and one of them is the correct profile.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

Close up of the MIL-W-46374, showing the proper tension ring type crystal:










Another shot of the USA Ord Dept, Drwg No. C8289362, Case, Watch (again in the MIL-W-3818 guise):


----------



## rouge (Apr 18, 2006)

Very interesting. I will consider this as a reference for my Hamilton MIL-W-46374D, in case of restoring.

I have also a Marathon GG-W-113 which has a totally different case design. Which glass was used for it? Can you help me?


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

rouge said:


> Very interesting. I will consider this as a reference for my Hamilton MIL-W-46374D, in case of restoring.
> 
> I have also a Marathon GG-W-113 which has a totally different case design. Which glass was used for it? Can you help me?


I would assume it would be the same tension ring crystal used on the British CWC G10 watches. Which, also, uses a lower dome than most current tension ring crystals, as discussed above. That case, though, from the pictures you posted elsewhere, has a bead blasted tension ring, which are not very common.


----------



## Crusader (Apr 30, 2005)

lysanderxiii said:


> BTW, there is one of the major crystal manufacturers (Stella, GS, Sternkreuz) that makes tension ring crystals that are exactly right, I have had to replace all the crystals of my MIL-W-46374s and GG-W-113 over the years and one of them is the correct profile.


Do you happen to know which one exactly?

[email protected] fitted a "GS Evrtite" to the refurbished 1984 GG-W-113, and that is the one that is very hi-domed - much higher than the original crystal on the 1985 USAF issued watch.


----------



## Crusader (Apr 30, 2005)

Finally, here is a somewhat imperfect picture of the dilemma:

The watch on the green strap is the 1984 GG-W-113 refurbished by IWW with the high-domed GS Evrtite crystal. The watch on the black strap is the 1985 GG-W-113, original USAF issue, unworn and in the original state with a lower-domed crystal. Both crystals are armored.










Here is another oblique shot of the IWW replacement crystal on the 1984 watch:


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

I'll be honest, I don't remember who made the low domed one that I have. I'd have to order one of each of the eight or nine tension ring crystals available to be sure which one is the low profile.

I really wish I kept better records back then. I'll see what I can find out, and report back later.

Does anyone have a profile shot of a new manufacture Hamilton Khaki with the 18mm lugs, that is (more or less) the same case, I'm wondering if they use a high or low dome crystal.

Do you have a picture of the one with the un-armored crystal?


----------



## redjackbonney (May 8, 2006)

Yes... I get mixed up (age?)


lysanderxiii said:


> No, the two piece Hamilton always had a tension ring; the case design will only allow for the use of a tension ring crystal.


----------



## peewee (Feb 11, 2006)

don't have picture, but looking at my Hamy Khaki looks like a low domed crystal.
Very interesting thread.
Just started getting into the MIL-W-46374's.
Have Benrus 46374 to Marathon 46374G and almost all in-between. Some in NIB or mint others with minor flaws.
I had my Hamilton GG-W-113 serviced by a local watchmaker but not sure now if it was done right.
You guys know if there is literature on the repair of SandYs, Marathons, or Hamys? I called Marathon and they told me they do not send out repair info and that I must bring it to a watchmaker.
I'm in the NY area and would like to know if you know of any watchmaker here who services 46384's?
Thanks


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

The Marathon mechanicals are almost impossible to open up. Yeah, you can pull the crystal, but to get the movement out you have to a) drill out the steel plug on the back, and ruin the case, or b) pull the hands, pry the dial up as high as you can and find the dial feet locks and try and get tham loose so the dial can be removed, and detach the stem from the dial side.

These were not intended to be serviced, unless it stops working, I wouldn't try to open one up, too much chance of damaging it.

SandYs are a different matter. The steel plug on the back can be carefully removed and under it is the stem removal detent. Poke straight down and pull out the stem. Pop the bezel off and the crystal comes loose. Up-end the case and the movement drops out, but take care not the damage the hands.

The one piece steel Hamiltons and Benrus' have two piece stems that can be either pulled straight out, or aligned to the vertical and slid apart. In my experience, either way, it's a nerve-racking experience.

The plastic cased MIL-W-46374s are probably similar to their steel case bretheren, but I won't swear to it. They were never meant to be disassembled, ever.

None of the MIL-W-46374, Type 2s were maintainable and are therefor difficult to disassemble. These include the following:

Belfort (Benrus) 11K1185Q
Benrus GY1179Q
Benrus 11U7178Q
Benrus 11U1B
Benrus 185Q
Benrus 179Q
Benrus 178Q/7
Benrus 178Q
Hamilton 39988 (made with a one piece or a two piece case)
Hamilton 39989
Marathon 348
Marathon 348A
Stocker and Yale 184
Stocker and Yale 184-B
Timex 939
Westclox 75081
Westclox 75092
Glycine 46374 (If anyone has ever seen one of these let me know)


----------

