# A Xmas Present to myself



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

This arrived just before Xmas and decided to keep it a gift to myself.
Its a very interesting piece, I never realized Wittnauer were so pioneering in their attitude.
This watch falls fantastically into early (very) Hermetic timepieces:
 *1928 SS WITTNAUER "ALL PROOF" Wristwatch*​*In 1928 Wittnauer launched and advertised the "ALL PROOF" wristwatch. With this Wittnauer created the first waterproof, shock-proof and anti-magnetic watch, and even helped Commander Richard E. Byrd navigate the first flight over the North Pole in 1928.
*
This early watch pioneered tackling something never achieved before. Wittnauer promised a watch that was waterproof, dustproof, shock-proof and anti-magnetic. A watch that did it all. A bold assigment for the 20's and 30's. Wittnauer produced the "All PROOF" in a mens and ladies versions. Exactly the same except the ladies version was smaller in size. Mine is the men's version, although small by today's standard it was cutting edge in its day.
The case is solid stainless steel. The hands ,dial and crown are all correct to the watch. The dial is marked ALL PROOF and has a lovely double track sub-seconds at '6', the movement and case back are marked 'A Wittnauer Co' and '7 Jewels' unadjusted .
The case back is beautifully personalized.
*Additional History*
After Albert Wittnauer death in 1916, his sister, Martha, took the firm's reins. During World War I, Wittnauer supplied new military wristwatches and precision navigational devices to American Expeditionary Forces and an aircraft clock to the forerunner of the U.S. Army Air Corps. Around the same time, Wittnauer introduced its All-Proof wristwatch-the anti-magnetic watch was water and shock proof-to the U.S. market.


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Congrats on your present. I'm in the same boat: noone gives me watches so I have to buy them myself - once I get the cash together.....

Hartmut Richter


----------



## pr1uk (Sep 25, 2012)

Beautiful watch and a wonderful present, nice one


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Thanks to you both
Wearing it now, and I love it.
I am tracking the original owner, and I believe I contacted 'maybe' his son??


----------



## joeuk (Feb 16, 2010)

Congrats on your Xmas present to yourself, nice looking piece.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

joeuk said:


> Congrats on your Xmas present to yourself, nice looking piece.


Thanks
I keep looking at it.
Its one of the few vintage pieces that you can wash the dishes with
It is a two piece sealed case from 1928
Thanks again
'A


----------



## joeuk (Feb 16, 2010)

Would you wash the dishes, would be interesting how it would do with a WR test.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

joeuk said:


> Would you wash the dishes, would be interesting how it would do with a WR test.


ABSOLUTELY
WR = ?


----------



## Will3020 (Aug 28, 2012)

Enjoy the unique timepiece.


----------



## Habitant (Jun 27, 2012)

Sweet looking watch, congrats and Merry Christmas to you!


----------



## ottokees (May 24, 2013)

Helllo: Merry Christmas. This is an amazing watch. I love the "All Proof"!!!. Enjoy and regards.


----------



## howards4th (Jan 22, 2012)

Very Nice, Congrats and Merry Christmas!!


----------



## jesse1 (Nov 11, 2009)

That dial is AMAZING!!!! Wear it in good health . Merry Christmas !


----------



## Sparcster (Apr 11, 2009)

Congrats..

Great looking and interesting watch... Someone has been a good boy!



HOROLOGIST007 said:


> WR = ?


WR = water resistant?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## radger (Nov 18, 2007)

Nice pick up.
I like the dial, hands combination.

Is the case back clip on or screw back?
This must be one of the earliest production Stainless Steel watches, I haven't any watch cases in S/S from
the twenties.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

radger said:


> Nice pick up.
> I like the dial, hands combination.
> 
> Is the case back clip on or screw back?
> ...


Radger
Well pointed out.
It is a two piece solid stainless Steel case.
The back screws on, those ridges around the back case is for a tool to grip and open it.

The glass is inserted and sealed inside the case.
The SS case is really solid , I will take better pictures.

I never thought when SS was first used in watches?
STAYBRITE (SS) was first advertised 1915?. Rolex used it from (need to check)

Thanks all your comments

WR = Got it. I would estimate a guess still 100%. The crown is very solidly locked on


----------



## gatorcpa (Feb 11, 2006)

The condition of the dial and movement is a testament that Wittnauer's early water-resistant design was a good one.

Congrats on a nice acquisition!
gatorcpa


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

gatorcpa said:


> The condition of the dial and movement is a testament that Wittnauer's early water-resistant design was a good one.
> 
> Congrats on a nice acquisition!
> gatorcpa


Yes, good point
Its a lovely piece
Thanks


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Just realized (from another forum)
I missed posting the 'unique' case back with its unique locking style
ALSO the engraving is cool.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

The wave in the engrave is cooleeooo... like the whole watch!


----------



## AbslomRob (Jun 13, 2009)

Not to dampen your enthusiasm, but the movement has a US Import code; those didn't exist until the '30s (1936, I think).


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Eeeb said:


> The wave in the engrave is cooleeooo... like the whole watch!


Yes it really is.
I tracked down who I believe may be the owners son, I wrote but no reply.
Must push again
The original owner if I am correct is 90 and still alive!!


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

I know I'm late to the party and apologies, but I had to say that is a very cool watch Sir.

An interesting aside about that model is that it's yet another non Omega Speedmaster that flew in space in the run up to the Apollo missions. An American chap by the name of Jimmy Mattern had attempted the first around the world flight back in the early 30's. Sadly his plane crashed in Siberia so he never completed the journey. He survived the crash and as you do if you're a hard case like Jimmy, he hiked, climbed and swam out of this remote snowy wilderness wearing one of these watches. He praised its robustness publicly. He was a test pilot for a few years, but then was grounded for medical reasons.

Later on he was a big fan of the space programme, attended launches and became friendly with none other than a certain Mr Armstrong, who apparently came to be fairly well known as a pilot himself.  Neil put Jimmy's old watch on a long strap and wore it outside his pressure suit on the Gemini 8 mission, so at least one part of Jimmy would make it around the world. Quite a few times. Gemini 8 turned out to be anything but routine however and they had a real emergency that could have killed both astronauts but for Neil intervening. At one point they were spinning out of control at one revolution a second, the G forces close to rendering them unconscious. Anyway they landed safely and they reported that through all that from launch to splashdown Jimmy's old watch was still keeping good time. All Proof indeed. :-!

If you go to this Wikipedia page HERE and click on the highest resolution and zoom in, there on the right in the capsule is Mr Armstrong just sitting there, chilling in his shades, looking like and being one of the coolest blokes in the history of the world, wearing "your"/Jimmy's watch on the right arm of his suit.

Hope you find out more about your particular watches history, but even if you don't wear it well.

PS as a tribute to their mate and his achievements they took Jimmy's old pilots licence all the way to the moon on Apollo 11. IIRC Jimmy lived on until the 1980's. He was pretty cool and All Proof himself.

PPS I've always wanted one of these and I have the scrawny wrists to pull it off, but now if anyone reads that I've just added hundreds to their market value. *facepalm for the newbie*


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

How G-D DAM cool is that.
How do you know it was the WITTNAUER -'ALLPROOF'??
FANTASTIC info.
Really thanks for sharing/Posting

I LOVE it!!


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Ohhh cool it is H.  It's in a few places online. It's probably on here somewhere too . On wikipedia's page on the Wittnauer company, it mentions Mr Mattern and at the bottom it has this: _Life Magazine, 8th April 1966, page 87, ("Neil wore the watch that a wonderful guy called Jimmy Mattern had worn when he attempted the first solo around-the-world flight in 1933. Jimmy's plane had a frozen oil line and cracked up in Siberia, so we decided to make sure the watch went all the way round the world this time. It was almost 11 hours since liftoff, and Jimmy Mattern's old wristwatch was still keeping good time")_. I presume that's quoting his copilot astronaut Dave Scott. The pic of the watch on the capsule recovery photo is definitely not an Omega Speedy anyway. It's too small, looks to have a light faced dial and it would be next to pointless to have a Speedy, or any chrono on the right arm as access to the chrono buttons would be compromised.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> Ohhh cool it is H.  It's in a few places online. It's probably on here somewhere too . On wikipedia's page on the Wittnauer company, it mentions Mr Mattern and at the bottom it has this: _Life Magazine, 8th April 1966, page 87, ("Neil wore the watch that a wonderful guy called Jimmy Mattern had worn when he attempted the first solo around-the-world flight in 1933. Jimmy's plane had a frozen oil line and cracked up in Siberia, so we decided to make sure the watch went all the way round the world this time. It was almost 11 hours since liftoff, and Jimmy Mattern's old wristwatch was still keeping good time")_. I presume that's quoting his copilot astronaut Dave Scott. The pic of the watch on the capsule recovery photo is definitely not an Omega Speedy anyway. It's too small, looks to have a light faced dial and it would be next to pointless to have a Speedy, or any chrono on the right arm as access to the chrono buttons would be compromised.


Thanks Wibbs
I have this page open to studdy Jimmy Mattern - sorry I had never heard of him
NOW! If I can find a picture of HIM wearing a wristwatch - well what a story.

Any pointers/links you can give, greatly appreciated
My email is
[email protected]
SINCERELY Thanks
a


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Clearly he was a well known and respected pilot of the time. Well when you have guys the calibre of the NASA astronauts knowing who he was, namechecking him and bringing his watch along for the ride and even bringing his pilots licence to the moon you know he was one of the heavy hitters of early aviation. Funny how folks like that fade somewhat in the public mind. I suppose you need a Hollywood movie made about you to endure, or expire young in spectacular circumstances to be remembered. Or at least that helps. Thank god for Wikipedia, as men and women like that will get a wider audience and more than deserve one. Another fascinating tale is to be found concerning the women pilots who were aiming to be astronauts back in the late 50's.

TBH I wouldn't know where to look for pics. Google images I suppose? Books on early aviation another source. I love that period of aviation so I knew of the chap, the wristwatch he wore came later. Again TBH I dunno where I read it. 

PS I dunno how prudent it is to be publicly giving out your email address. Lot's of spammers and weirdos out there. Hell, I'm weird enough.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> Funny how folks like that fade somewhat in the public mind. I suppose you need a Hollywood movie made about you to endure, or expire young in spectacular circumstances to be remembered. Or at least that helps. Thank god for Wikipedia, as men and women like that will get a wider audience and more than deserve one. Another fascinating tale is to be found concerning the women pilots who were aiming to be astronauts back in the late 50's.
> 
> TBH I wouldn't know where to look for pics. Google images I suppose? Books on early aviation another source. I love that period of aviation so I knew of the chap, the wristwatch he wore came later. Again TBH I dunno where I read it.
> 
> PS I dunno how prudent it is to be publicly giving out your email address. Lot's of spammers and weirdos out there. Hell, I'm weird enough.


Great reply thanks
Yes its interesting how one gets forgotten.

Do not worry my email address I block rubbis
YOU are welcome


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

I guess I'm also late to the party but Merry Christmas Adam, it is a nice watch for sure - I guess it's also fool proof ?!

Seeing the NASA, pilot etcetera discussion, since I'm still the vintage newbie I wanted to say that I don't worry so much about early 20th century lume being hazardous because - and this is true - I was conceived at the White Sands Missile Proving Test Grounds as my Father was a Physicist there, so I was exposed to an interesting amount of in-womb radiation, maybe like this watch, later we were at Cape Canaveral, sorry just a short aside.

Merry Christmas to all, especially Adam and his Christmas Watch ! SDA 


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Sdasurrey said:


> I guess I'm also late to the party but Merry Christmas Adam, it is a nice watch for sure - I guess it's also fool proof ?!
> 
> Seeing the NASA, pilot etcetera discussion, since I'm still the vintage newbie I wanted to say that I don't worry so much about early 20th century lume being hazardous because - and this is true - I was conceived at the White Sands Missile Proving Test Grounds as my Father was a Physicist there, so I was exposed to an interesting amount of in-womb radiation, maybe like this watch, later we were at Cape Canaveral, sorry just a short aside.
> 
> ...


Where did "lume" or radioactivity enter this thread, or indeed watch?

You LOST me
a


----------



## James A (Jan 5, 2014)

What a wonderful thing this watch is.
Right up there with the early shockproof models. Virtually a year or so after Rolex oyster and looks to pre date Tissot as first anti magnetic wristwatch.
And the magical stories that surround this watch. How do you find these pieces ? If this was in my collection it would be a favourite.

Regards,


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

James A said:


> What a wonderful thing this watch is.
> Right up there with the early shockproof models. Virtually a year or so after Rolex oyster and looks to pre date Tissot as first anti magnetic wristwatch.
> And the magical stories that surround this watch. How do you find these pieces ? If this was in my collection it would be a favourite.
> 
> Regards,


I search and search and search
Then i Research, Research and Research

NOTE: Rolex 'oyster' was NOT shock protected!

A


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

Sorry Adam it was too oblique - in general when flying cet par people or watches are exposed to more radiation I'll be quiet now ..


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

I'm likely way wrong here, but I did just this evening post a pic of one of my watches on the Zenith forum and mentioned it had to be redialled because of the crazy amount of radiation from the radium on the original dial and maybe wires got crossed? Either that or the oul radiation has affected Sdasurrey more than he realises. 

EDIT or I got it completely wrong. Looks like the radiation affected me.


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

Extremely oblique references from across the thread more so than actual historical or cum exposure by me to rads but Sorry I said I was going to be quiet sorry ....


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> NOTE: Rolex 'oyster' was NOT shock protected!


Indeed and neither was it the first "waterproof" watch. There were many attempts, some successful, at waterproofing watches long before Rolex was even imagined. Even before the wristwatch, in the 19th century the British Royal Geographical society had come up with a special case for pocket watches so that crazy Victorian weirdos could swan around jungles and swamps in far flung places. Which was quite the fashion at the time. No telly or internet I suppose. Indeed when Britain entered world war two and they needed a divers watch for their newly formed frogmen units they basically stuck lugs on the old Victorian design, jammed a Longines movement in there and had a proper divers watch. The Italians who had been ahead of them had come up with the Panerai with a Rolex movement(mostly).

Another early one(1918 IIRC) was the Depollier case, usually with Elgin movements, with it's bayonet screwdown crown. The actual screwdown crown was invented in 1880s by a certain Mr Fitch in the US(again IIRC). A Mr Borgel in the very early 1900's was a major influence on waterproofing wristwatches. The Rolex Oyster "we were the first" is a _very_ grey area. In fact the only thing they did was buy in a patent that was pretty close to the Fitch design and tweaked it. To be fair to them, what they _did_ do was join the dots and market it extremely successfully.

Rolex, given it's common mind cache today(and for quite a long time) actually innovated remarkably few times in their history. Most of the time they ran the company on bought/brought in design and movements. They were always very clever in spotting the good from the bad though and that's an innovation in of itself.


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Sdasurrey said:


> cum exposure by me to rads


That good Sir is an unfortunate side effect of using touchscreens and autospellcheck.


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

It's just short for cumulative ...which is what I meant...


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> Indeed and neither was it the first "waterproof" watch. There were many attempts, some successful, at waterproofing watches long before Rolex was even imagined. Even before the wristwatch, in the 19th century the British Royal Geographical society had come up with a special case for pocket watches so that crazy Victorian weirdos could swan around jungles and swamps in far flung places. Which was quite the fashion at the time. No telly or internet I suppose. Indeed when Britain entered world war two and they needed a divers watch for their newly formed frogmen units they basically stuck lugs on the old Victorian design, jammed a Longines movement in there and had a proper divers watch. The Italians who had been ahead of them had come up with the Panerai with a Rolex movement(mostly).
> 
> Another early one(1918 IIRC) was the Depollier case, usually with Elgin movements, with it's bayonet screwdown crown. The actual screwdown crown was invented in 1880s by a certain Mr Fitch in the US(again IIRC). A Mr Borgel in the very early 1900's was a major influence on waterproofing wristwatches. The Rolex Oyster "we were the first" is a _very_ grey area. In fact the only thing they did was buy in a patent that was pretty close to the Fitch design and tweaked it. To be fair to them, what they _did_ do was join the dots and market it extremely successfully.
> 
> Rolex, given it's common mind cache today(and for quite a long time) actually innovated remarkably few times in their history. Most of the time they ran the company on bought/brought in design and movements. They were always very clever in spotting the good from the bad though and that's an innovation in of itself.


As a Horologist and one that specializes in the beginning of the wristwatch which includes 'hermetic', please allow me to correct a few errors in your statement.

Yes, Francois Borgel made the first waterproof (termed sealed) pocket watch cases.
His first pocket watch case was patent was 1891.
It was a two piece case and as the crown was not connected to the movement, it had a 'pin set' arrangement to set the hands.

In 1903 he patented a three piece case that indeed is practically identical to Rolex's later designs of 1926.
The earliest current known 'Borgel' wristwatch is a two piece case dated 1906 and owned by David Boettcher. I have a similar piece (IWC) dated 1909
After his death, Borgel's daughter continued to develop and make waterproof cases, moving from the original 'sealed' design to what we termed 'semi-hermetic' in 1921.

The final 'waterproof' version termed 'hermetic' was up to a few years ago attributed to Jean Finger in 1921.
We now know that Gruen applied for an practically identical design (patent) in 1918 (applied) and granted in 1919.
Did Jean Finger steal the Gruen patent? Who knows.
Rolex loved the 'hermetic' watch and also manufactured a wristwatch to the Jean Finger (Gruen) design

Now onto the Depollier.
Actually this was patented in 1912 (applied) and granted in 1914 by Ezra C. Fitch who was the Managing Director of WALTHAM. Patent is headed 'Crown-Guard for Bracelet Watches'
Waltham (not Elgin) made an agreement with 'Depollier' that they would market (heavy advertising) the 'Depollier' water proof and dust proof' case with 'Waltham' movements.

Depollier and Waltham went on to have a long and successful relationship, the Depollier waterproof/dustproof case with the 'reliable' Waltham movement.

Now finally Rolex - Oyster.
The ORIGINAL 'oyster' patent was patented by Perregaux & Perret in 1925 (applied) and granted in 1926.
They designed and patented it.
In October 1926 it was passed to Wilsdorf and he then owned the 'oyster' patent. We have NO idea what Wilsdorf paid for that 'oyster' patent, and we never heard of Perregaux nor Perret again.
In 1927 Wilsdorf slightly changed the Perregaux design and that as we say is now 'history'

I will post pictures of all these designs that I own later

Sincerely
Adam


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Corrections _very_ welcome sir. When I'm running on what passes for my very bad memory such corrections are usually required. :-!

You say _"Francois Borgel made the first waterproof (termed sealed) pocket watch cases. His first pocket watch case was patent was 1891.". _I understood that the Royal Geographical Society sealed pocket watch cases were slightly earlier than that? Again it's more likely my memory is faulty on that score.

I used to own one of those full "Hermetic" cased watches, where the entire movement including crown was sealed under a screwdown top case. Here's an example (Rolex) from a Bonhams sale catalogue;








Sadly mine wasn't a Rolex though. It was a generic 15 jewel Swiss movements found in many "wristlets" of the time. The problem of course being wear in the seal, because of the need to daily wind the watch, so it was a "dead end" as a method of sealing the watch from the elements. I've often wondered that if the automatic winding mechanism had been perfected before this design came along might it have lasted longer? It certainly reduces the number of seals required down to two(the crystal and the case). Maybe it's time someone makes a modern fully automatic/quartz version of the "Hermetic"? It might make for an interesting watch.

Looking forward to your photos of these early designs. It's a fascinating time in the history of the watch.


----------



## radger (Nov 18, 2007)

'Water proof' and attempts at water proofing are quite a different thing.
I've never saw a water proof Borgel case.

No matter how well fitted the cork or leather seals to the stem, the pinset
is always a weakness, water resistant would be a better description.

I have a few borgel cased watches including a gold cased Longines and a pocket watch, to be honest I think they are
a poor design.
The early 'hermetic' designs where whole movements, including crown and stem, are sealed in an 'outer case' with screw down bezel
are, I think, the first true waterproof designs...

Marrick has one.

Edit
And Wibbs has posted an example at the same time I posted this.
Nice one


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

I'm not so sure the Borgel design was a "poor" one Radger. Certainly not for the time. It's quite an innovative approach to the problem. It didn't require cork/leather seals, the crown is held tight to the case by the spring and even the pinset has a pretty good seal on the inside of the case. When brand new with good metal to metal surfaces and no wear I suspect they were pretty water resistant. OK as you say, not waterproof and you wouldn't go swimming with one, but well up to handling the dust and mud and water of everyday use.

EDIT Sadly I don't have the Hermetic any longer R. Sold it on years ago. TBH It wasn't very practical and the threads were loose on the case(and the movement was pretty worn too, so a bad timekeeper). I wear my watches regardless of age and rotate them on my wrist regularly so it wasn't for me. The new owner was more a collector than a wearer if you know what I mean.


----------



## radger (Nov 18, 2007)

Wibbs said:


> I'm not so sure the Borgel design was a "poor" one Radger. Certainly not for the time. It's quite an innovative approach to the problem. It didn't require cork/leather seals, the crown is held tight to the case by the spring and even the pinset has a pretty good seal on the inside of the case. When brand new with good metal to metal surfaces and no wear I suspect they were pretty water resistant. OK as you say, not waterproof and you wouldn't go swimming with one, but well up to handling the dust and mud and water of everyday use.


Fair enough and I understand that when brand new they would be pretty water resistant, I just think they were a 'cheap' design sa'll.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Please let me try to answer you both.

There were designs prior to 1891 - so called 'explorer' watches with 'canteen style cases.
Great examples can be seen here at David Boettcher EXCELLENT site.
The Development of the Waterproof Watch
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: "Information from VintageWatchstraps.com © David Boettcher" with any material you use.

The Borgel design of 1891 was I believe the first patented 'sealed' watch. Between that and 'oyster' there were many, many examples ranging from 'semi hermetic' to Jean Finger/Gruen 'fully hermetic' patents.

Radger
David Boettcher did some waterproof tests on a Borgel two piece case and found it very water resistant.
Please note that Horologists do NOT term Borgels first 1891 or his later design waterproof. They are termed 'sealed and semi hermetic'
ONLY the Jean Finger/Gruen design gained the name 'fully hermetic'

Here is the test done by David Boettcher 
"I tried an experiment with one of my Borgel wristwatch cases, one that is rather battered and showing its age. I held it under water in a sink for a few minutes. It didn't let in water. Although I was cautious enough to try this experiment with the movement out of the case - just in case - I was surprised by the result. I am sure that when they were new and "factory fresh", Borgel watches were in fact quite resistant to the kinds of water challenges found in every day life; the odd splash from hand washing or getting caught in the rain for example. The proof of this can be seen in the very good state of preservation of movements found in Borgel cases when compared to those in ordinary cases."
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: "Information from VintageWatchstraps.com © David Boettcher" with any material you use.

I have I believe every variation of sealed/semi hermetic/fully hermetics pcs made from 1910 to 1950s

*Here is my 18kt - 1923 Eberhard - Fully Hermetic*








*MARVIN - Fully Hermetic*






I will post other designs of mine later

Sincerely
Adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

G*RUEN Patent 1918(a)/1919(g)*

*
Jean Finger Patent 1921*


Basically NO difference
Rolex also patented an exact copy in 1924!!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

*Waltham Depollier in its ORIGINAL box 1917?*





*Another Hermetic Design 1922?:*


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

*A 1917 Waltham Depollier with swing lugs. crown at 12.*







*ROLEX - ROYALITE OBSERVATORY.*


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Wow. Lovely watches H. The AllProof is in fine company it seems. Thanks for link to VintageWatchstraps.com. I'd forgotten about that chap. Fantastic place for information on this period of the wristwatch, never mind that he makes equally fantastic straps by all accounts. Interesting reading about the patents*. A patent lawyer would have a field day in todays world over that. 





* I like the Gruen one with the addition of the strap. For me the evolution of straps/lug design is another interesting sideline to the narrative, albeit a small one.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> Wow. Lovely watches H. The AllProof is in fine company it seems. Thanks for link to VintageWatchstraps.com. I'd forgotten about that chap. Fantastic place for information on this period of the wristwatch, never mind that he makes equally fantastic straps by all accounts. Interesting reading about the patents*. A patent lawyer would have a field day in todays world over that.
> 
> * I like the Gruen one with the addition of the strap. For me the evolution of straps/lug design is another interesting sideline to the narrative, albeit a small one.


Thanks
Now going to research James Mattern!


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Every time I refresh the page you come back with even more beauties. 



HOROLOGIST007 said:


>


This example I find interesting. Given it's a snap shut topcase rather than a threaded one, one would think it not nearly as "hermetic" as the others. Maybe an independent casemaker copying something fashionable?



> Now going to research James Mattern!


And I've no doubt you'll dig up more information on the chap and his watch. :-!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Not sure on that last one, but I had to have it.
I have a few more including a CYMA and a Borgel 'semi hermetic;
*Here is my 1930 Harrods Borgel - SEMI-Hermetic. 
Notice NOT pin set, the crown is attached to movement:*






*Here is my write up in my 1916 - 9kt Borgel (sealed). Two piece case, pin set*


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Not sure on that last one, but I had to have it.


Oh well do I know that feeling... ;-)

That Mappin & Webb is _gorgeous_. It looks like new. As does the Waltham. Actually most of your examples do. Almost like you bought them yesterday. 
Hmmm :think: do you have a funny looking Delorean or a big blue Police Box in your garage by any chance?








That's what I _love_ about enamel dials. So long as they don't crack they pretty much remain the same as the day they were fired. IMHO they're not _that_ delicate either. Every example I've personally seen of a hairline/crack has started from the dial feet. I suspect overtightening the dial feet screws by watchmakers through the years stresses them to the point where they crack.

I have a Mappin retailed wrist watch myself. A silver half hunter hallmarked for 1916 with Brevet serial/patent numbers(35mm case). Sadly the Mappin & Webb writing was overprinted on the dial and by the time the watch came down the years to me the writing had all but vanished and all I was left with was a very faded M and part of an A. 








Even the attached very dry strap was of the period, or close enough to it. After some soaking in moisturiser of all things it came back to life.

Anyway H I've distracted you more than enough, so good luck with your research into your AllProof.

OK maybe another pic of Armstrong from the Gemini 8 mission.








You can see he's wearing two wristwatches. It looks like an Omega Speedy on his left wrist, sadly you can't see what's on his right wrist, but it's definitely another watch on a strap. Comparing this and the previous picture I linked it's most likely Jimmy's old Allproof. I'm sure if you were to trawl the NASA/US gov photo library you'd maybe find a better, clearer shot.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Thanks
Your half hunter looks very nice. I too have a couple, I like them a lot.
Thanks all your good input, appreciated
adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

OK
What I have tracked.
First a better picture Armstrong wearing it:


And more importantly proof that he did wear the Wiinauer 'All-Proof'
Here on page 20 of The Watch Buffs Book of Trivia we have:
_*"Following his failed attempt in 1933 to set a world's record for flying around the world, James "Jimmie" Mattern wrote a letter to A. Wittnauer"
To congratulate the company on the durability and accuracy of its All-Proof watch, which Mattern had worn during his attempt to make a solo flight around the world.: He was forced to crash land in Siberia.
His 'All-Proof', however proved to be invincible. After the ordeal he wrote to Wittnauer that the watch had survived not just the hard landing, but also the days long trek that followed, one that entailed swimming across rivers.
"It personifies mechanical perfection heretofore unknown to me," he wrote. Others were impressed with it as well, he pointed out: "it was a sensation to the Eskimos in Anadyr (Siberia)who considered it something super-natural"

*_How cool is all that. Just need a picture now of him wearing it!! Wow!!
_*
And here is is in Siberia with those Eskimos.
*_


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

In today's world, this type of 'front and centre' product placement would be driven by product marketing departments such as Zenith and Baumgartner with Statos, nothing against Zenith watches as I have one, but doing a quick 6 minute web search, admittedly not definitive, it seems NASA was looking for chronos for astronauts and tested a few including Rolex and so it seems this use of Omegas at the time was not so much marketing driven - although looking at them wearing the watches over their space suits it sure looks like it's marketing driven...


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

Nice finds H :-!



Sdasurrey said:


> In today's world, this type of 'front and centre' product placement would be driven by product marketing departments such as Zenith and Baumgartner with Statos,


True, though it was always thus. Product placement and famous endorsement is nothing new. Rolex got a woman endurance swimmer attempting to swim the English channel to wear one of their new Osyter cased watches(around her neck rather than wrist I seem to recall). Longines made much of their Lucky Lindy connection from very early on. It's just today such advertising is more studied, more powerful, focused, reaches more people and does so more quickly.



> it seems NASA was looking for chronos for astronauts and tested a few including Rolex and so it seems this use of Omegas at the time was not so much marketing driven


I always found this such an odd narrative. The story goes they realised they needed a wristwatch for space and EVA work a couple of years in, got one of their guys to wander into a local jewelers and bought a few examples of whatever chronos were on the shelf. They then tested them to destruction and the Omega was the winner(though still suffered at the hands of the testers).

OK, but what I find odd is they surely realised early on they needed such a timepiece? The first such timepieces were a Heuer stopwatch and a custom Brietling(with the unfortunate title of cosmonaut). The astronauts themselves wore all sorts of personal watches, including non chrono Rolex, Omega speedys, Hamiltons and Accutrons(a particular fave among the text pilots of the X plane programme). It just sounds so haphazard, "amateur" for want of a better word, especially for a programme that was anything but in every other aspect of the mission requirements. OK it would have been likely wasteful of resources and time to design such a watch from the ground up, though I'd imagine every manufacturer on the planet would have done it gratis. They could have asked a manufacturer to adapt an existing case/chrono movement that would better serve than the Omega, or any others on the commercial market. Bulova would have been the obvious one. An American company that was already supplying timers for all the onboard systems(and sattelites) and many of the pilots already favoured them. Then again being battery driven(especially the early batteries) probably precluded it being exposed to hard vacuum, so it had to be mechanical. IIRC no quartz watch is cleared for EVA even today.

Still the Speedmaster is hardly ideal. For a start it's a manual handwind so the astronauts would have to remember to crank it every couple of days. The dial is also quite busy and small for such a purpose. Buzz Aldrin noted that it wasn't ideal on that score. Something of the size/simple design of the WW2 German B-uhrs would have been a better bet to wear outside a suit. It would need the chrono and elapsed mission time, but why would "ordinary" earth time be required? Basically I suspect you could design and build a better fit for purpose "moonwatch".

Anyway the Omega was the one that was chosen, I just find it interesting as to how it got there.



> - although looking at them wearing the watches over their space suits it sure looks like it's marketing driven...


Well to be fair a watch wouldn't be very legible _under_ their suits.


----------



## Sdasurrey (Oct 1, 2013)

sorry


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Sdasurrey said:


> Correct, on the legibility point ! + 5 points for you -100 points for me !


PLEASE, try to leave this post on topic.
Wibbs additional info was outstanding
Lets NOT lose it in garbage
thanks


----------



## isabellabliss (Mar 31, 2014)

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> PLEASE, try to leave this post on topic.
> Wibbs additional info was outstanding
> Lets NOT lose it in garbage
> thanks


I am not sure if I am doing this right but I wanted to thank you for your last post - I am Jimmie Mattern's granddaughter and have been trying to locate this watch for sometime. We are not sure how it disappeared but desperately want it back. By the way - Neil Armstrong and my grandfather were dear friends and there was much meaning behind him taking it to the moon. He also took his pilots license with him as Jimmie Mattern was one of Neil Armstrong's hero's. I loved him dearly and miss him so much.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

isabellabliss said:


> I am not sure if I am doing this right but I wanted to thank you for your last post - I am Jimmie Mattern's granddaughter and have been trying to locate this watch for sometime. We are not sure how it disappeared but desperately want it back. By the way - Neil Armstrong and my grandfather were dear friends and there was much meaning behind him taking it to the moon. He also took his pilots license with him as Jimmie Mattern was one of Neil Armstrong's hero's. I loved him dearly and miss him so much.


Wow!
Firstly welcome.
TRUTHFULLY, I am wearing the watch now, as I eat and type.
I love it, and I love the fact the great Jimmie Mattern wore one!
I am not sure why you believe MY piece was the GREAT Jimmie Mattern's actual watch, but a similar piece. Mens versions are not so rare.

I have found an original picture of Jimmie Mattern wearing the watch.

You may contact me at
[email protected]

If MY piece is Mattern's actual watch, its yours. Your post touches me, I hope I can help.

Adam R. Harris


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

And I believe THIS picture 1942
Shows him wearing the All-Proof!!


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

Just been looking though this thread and i noticed a couple of possible errors or misconceptions either by others or myself!

I was under the impression that the all proof was introduced to the American market in 1918 not 1928 as mentioned by adam I have just double checked info from various sources and always the 1918 date that shows up. 

As for it beating the tissot antimagnetique as the first anti magnetic watch is to my mind wrong as I am under the impression that only the case on the all proof is anti magnetic whereas the movement on the tissot uses anti magnetic parts

If the watch was launched in 1918 it must have been one hell of an advanced watch given the feats it achieved and with that deserves more credit with regard to waterproofness 

Let me know your thoughts jon


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> Just been looking though this thread and i noticed a couple of possible errors or misconceptions either by others or myself!
> 
> I was under the impression that the all proof was introduced to the American market in 1918 not 1928 as mentioned by adam I have just double checked info from various sources and always the 1918 date that shows up.
> 
> ...


I doubt, indeed think it is impossible that Wittnauer launched this watch in 1918. That period was still using nickel or silver or gold fixed lug watches.
This watch is Stainless Steel, something only patented in 1916, and not used till later in USA?
ALSO
Hermetic watches like these were 1922 by Eberhard.

I researched this a LOT, I am sure 1928 is correct, the SS makes it about then!!

STOP PRESS
Just RE-Checked : It is clearly stated watch was launched 1928!!!

Regards
adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

ADDITIONAL to above on 1918 versus 1928

ANTIMAGNETIC
Does NOT matter if its done by the case OR the movement parts.
Just the result.
Watch was 'anti-magnetic'

Too what level, I do not know


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

Hi Adam thank you for your reply

I agree that the date of 1928 does seem like a more appropriate date than 1918 however every article/info I find refers to the earlier date. 

Given that all the models achievements dates do appear to fit more with your time frame.

Is the watch case defiantly stainless steel? Or could it be a primitive mix I have seen some cases marked with contracid not sure what this is

As for the anti magnetic point I was not trying to discredit the all proof just the point that it was done in a incomparable way to the antimagnetic as this was the first known wristwatch movement that was antimagnetic totally different.


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

Sorry last bit was meant to read

As for the anti magnetic point I was not trying to discredit the all proof just the point that it was done in a incomparable way to the tissot antimagnetique as this was the first known wristwatch movement that was antimagnetic totally different.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> Hi Adam thank you for your reply
> 
> I agree that the date of 1928 does seem like a more appropriate date than 1918 however every article/info I find refers to the earlier date.
> 
> ...


Hi, No issues to me, research is Horology


> I agree that the date of 1928 does seem like a more appropriate date than 1918 however every article/info I find refers to the earlier date.


Please post those articles. I rechecked two sources and 1928 was the launch.
Case is SURELY HEAVY and late (not primitive) SS
It SURELY is NOT Nickel or any other base metal!


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

Just checked a screen print from old wittnauer website does state 1918 tried posting however using phone at the mo and its not working will post when I'm on PC next for reference


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Articles on the web and in magazines often represent one author's view, formulated without peer review. Anyone can comment on threads here. That sometimes uncovers hidden truths and exposes accepted untruths.

I usually trust the collective wisdom of the forum over the expertise of one individual. Sometimes the individual author is right and the forum is wrong. But less than the other way around.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Eeeb said:


> Articles on the web and in magazines often represent one author's view, formulated without peer review. Anyone can comment on threads here. That sometimes uncovers hidden truths and exposes accepted untruths.
> 
> I usually trust the collective wisdom of the forum over the expertise of one individual. Sometimes the individual author is right and the forum is wrong. But less than the other way around.


Exactly.
I am waiting to see it prior to commenting.
The Museum insist on 3 independent sources to confirm facts.

Regards


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)




----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

not the best screenshot however is from wittnauer official website from 2004, does state in 1918 the allproof debuted still looking for other info


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Thanks for posting that, appreciated.

Probably a typo? I NEVER heard it being dropped from Empire State Building, that was MIDO! I wish my watch WAS from 1918, but I doubt it, nor do the facts bear that out.

Apart from the style, metal dial, spring lugs, Stainless Steel, cushion shape.
How many watches 'LAUNCHED' in 1918 were still being made in 1930s? Jimmie Mattern was wearing that watch in 1933, I doubt Wittenaur were still making an identical piece 15 years after its launch.
Think about it.
I will also check my original research.

Regards
adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Here is another piece of Wittnauer official history, again points to 1928.



> A bit of research on the company suggests an interesting history. Founded in America in 1890, Wittnauer timepieces that were used on trips made by navigators, explorers, and astronomers. They were thought to be at the cutting edge of accuracy and style, and were de rigeur with pioneer aviators in the early twentieth century. They created the first waterproof, shock-proof and anti-magnetic watch, and even helped Commander Richard E. Byrd navigate the first flight over the North Pole in 1928.


That said
Wikipedia and other sites date it to 1918??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittnauer
During first world war Wittnauer produced instruments and watches for the early aviation units.[SUP][2][/SUP] The most famous model was probably the Wittnauer AllProof, produced for the first time in 1918,


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

OK I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible the "AllProof" name was attached to an earlier hermetic type case that indeed came out in 1918 and the name was later attached to the more modern designed AllProof that of Jimmy and Horologist007's example and this is where the confusion springs? Kinda like the Rolex "Oyster", one name, but many iterations over the years. 

I'd have to agree with H that the design of the Mattern watch is very much of a later type. I'm not even close to being an expert like he is, but I've been interested in early watches as an amateur for many a year and I've seen quite the number of designs from the "small pocketwatch with afterthought lugs" to more funky, out there designs, but in all that time I never saw a watch as "modern" looking as H's AllProof before 1920. Even in the 1930's it would have been pretty forward looking. Make it much larger and it wouldn't look too out of place today. I'd be truly shocked if it was from 1918.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Wibbs said:


> OK I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible the "AllProof" name was attached to an earlier hermetic type case that indeed came out in 1918 and the name was later attached to the more modern designed AllProof that of Jimmy and Horologist007's example and this is where the confusion springs? Kinda like the Rolex "Oyster", one name, but many iterations over the years.
> 
> I'd have to agree with H that the design of the Mattern watch is very much of a later type. I'm not even close to being an expert like he is, but I've been interested in early watches as an amateur for many a year and I've seen quite the number of designs from the "small pocketwatch with afterthought lugs" to more funky, out there designs, but in all that time I never saw a watch as "modern" looking as H's AllProof before 1920. Even in the 1930's it would have been pretty forward looking. Make it much larger and it wouldn't look too out of place today. I'd be truly shocked if it was from 1918.


Ah, maybe! Marketing departments are the bain of historians :-d


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> OK I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible the "AllProof" name was attached to an earlier hermetic type case that indeed came out in 1918 and the name was later attached to the more modern designed AllProof that of Jimmy and Horologist007's example and this is where the confusion springs? Kinda like the Rolex "Oyster", one name, but many iterations over the years.
> 
> I'd have to agree with H that the design of the Mattern watch is very much of a later type. I'm not even close to being an expert like he is, but I've been interested in early watches as an amateur for many a year and I've seen quite the number of designs from the "small pocketwatch with afterthought lugs" to more funky, out there designs, but in all that time I never saw a watch as "modern" looking as H's AllProof before 1920. Even in the 1930's it would have been pretty forward looking. Make it much larger and it wouldn't look too out of place today. I'd be truly shocked if it was from 1918.


Yes, BUT No!

The description put beside people that claim it was launched in 1918, describe its features as my piece - waterproof, shockproof and anti magnetic.
I just can nOT believe that in 1918
HELL, Rolex Oyster took to 1926 and he TRIED EVERY type of sealed and hermetic cases including Borgel AND Eberhard (1922).

Nothing in Horology is impossible, but I would need more proof to believe 1918, and WHY with a 'metal' dial and HOW with 'SS'

?confused?


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Yes, BUT No!
> 
> The description put beside people that claim it was launched in 1918, describe its features as my piece - waterproof, shockproof and anti magnetic.


My point was that maybe they're confusing it with an earlier watch with the same name and including the features in this confusion.



> I just can nOT believe that in 1918 HELL, Rolex Oyster took to 1926 and he TRIED EVERY type of sealed and hermetic cases including Borgel AND Eberhard (1922).
> 
> Nothing in Horology is impossible, but I would need more proof to believe 1918, and WHY with a 'metal' dial and HOW with 'SS'
> 
> ?confused?


Agreed. Whatever about the metal dial(I've seen a few teens watches with them), a stainless steel case is _highly_ unlikely in 1918, never mind in that design.


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

hi chaps still looking for info on dates but found this on my travels thought you may like






from newspaper in may 1934


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> hi chaps still looking for info on dates but found this on my travels thought you may like
> View attachment 1445217
> from newspaper in may 1934


Thats VERY cool.
Points again to 1930s
Can you email me a link to that advert
[email protected]

Its GREAT!
Thanks for helping in the research


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Wibbs said:


> My point was that maybe they're confusing it with an earlier watch with the same name and including the features in this confusion.
> 
> Agreed. Whatever about the metal dial(I've seen a few teens watches with them), a stainless steel case is _highly_ unlikely in 1918, never mind in that design.


FULLY AGREE
BUT
We do have two conflicting dates each having more than one source.
So I am curious to research more

Thanks again Wibbs, you brought a LOT to this thread
adam


----------



## James A (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi, Early waterproof, early anti magnetism , early aviation and space exploration this watch connects so many dots. A NAWCC thread suggest the early Wittnauer movements has been supplied by Revue so if we find the right movement it might give us a production date?

Here is another image of Jimmy but not too clear on the wrist.



Regards,


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

ok all info i have found other than the earlier posted pic from the wittnauer website is from a third party source, so with that is not overally relieable however all info points to the watch been made in 1918 which was later refined for the puplic market in the late 20s early 30s.

now i am by means suggesting i argee this to be true, but it could be.

could wittnauer have made a watch for the military market or prototype of some kind that was all-proof to some small extent and was later used as a marketing tool for its later public market watch. or was it just dreamed up to help sell watches

as for all the info about wittnauers all proof marketing stunts, empire state etc why arnt there more ads floating around ? was it all just hipe i could only find one ad just mentioning been dropped from a plane .... so far!

i have also looked for patents with regard to there so called invention both in 1910s and later which showed up nothing and the all-proof trademark was only reg in 1934 which seems late to me?

my next question was it even wittnauers invention or rather a case makers (see caseback pic)??? take a look at the watches below not wittnauers however very very simlar one even with the name all proof on the dial! could have been licensed to other makers tho


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Jonsvjon
OUTSTANDING research and findings.
Let me study and comment
The VERTEX uses a Francois Borgel case, does Wittnauer? I did not think mine was, wil check?

And a trademark of 1934 is very late.

The "dropping" from an airplane refers to Jimmiw Mattern crash and swimming in waters with the 'ALLPROOF' on!

Don't you just love Horology? We are discussing on another thread a watch with an assay mark, and we can not agree its date.
What a subject!
Thanks MORE later


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

sorry trademark was 1933 not 1934 typo please see pic


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> sorry trademark was 1933 not 1934 typo please see pic
> View attachment 1446496


NO odds
1934 v 1933
Only 
1928 v 1933/4?


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

heres another similar watch
View attachment 1446584
View attachment 1446587

seems to be a link between all the watches like the wittnauer all proof i have found

Thommens Uhrenfabrik AG

limit have multiple links
revue trade name
vertex was the uk trade name

as wittnauer used revue movements maybe wittnauer liecensed Thommens Uhrenfabrik AG to use the allproof case not sure on the f.borgel caseback tho


----------



## Wibbs (Mar 7, 2014)

If ye will pardon my indulgence and aside...



HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Don't you just love Horology? What a subject!


That it is sir, that it surely is. It encompasses so much more than the watches too. It brings in history and real people, like Mr Mattern*. Even more when one of his family has chimed in on this. I do _so_ hope she finds Jimmy's watch. It's out there somewhere. It was worn by a real survivor and very cool bloke(actually two very cool blokes considering a certain Mr Armstrong also wore it), it's bound to have picked up some of that DNA along the way. 

Call me a dopey sentimentalist, but for me one of the really great things about watches are the personal stories they bring with them, from the everyday person, known only to friends and family, to the historic, known by many and for me both are equally valid. Long may the debates continue, because if it brings back amazing folks like Mr Mattern to a new audience, that will appreciate his life and accomplishments, then bring it on.

The irony is, I knew of Jimmy because of my interest in early aviation pioneers(too many forgotten) and it was only a back of my mind connection that was aroused when I saw your thread H. And I call myself a WIS? *hangs head in shame* 

Great input from jonsvjon BTW. Very interesting

*You'd _have_ to call him Mister or Sir. Now I suspect and from my reading of him, he'd be the type of man who would insist on you calling him Jimmy, his kind usually are, but it would feel somehow not quite right to be that familiar with such a person.


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

Right here gos

I don't believe wittnauer made the all proof watch 

First thing I noticed was that all text I have read does not refer to wittnauer inventing patenting or making an all proof watch but rather debuting or introducing minor fact that at first I over looked but helps with my argument

I believe it was THOMMENS UHRENFABRIKEN AG that made the watch. Mainly known as the revue-sport along with the alternatives vertex all proof for UK market and wittnauer all proof for the us market 

As we know wittnauer was in some cases a disrepution channel into the us market for watch manufacturers eg many us market longines watches (pre merger) where marked as wittnauer but where still a longines watch

So with this in mind I believe that the wittnauer all proof was attually a revue-sport watch for the American market

Take a look at all models mentioned they are the same. 

The only reason I believe why the wittnauer model is more prominent is due to its famous owners and there achievements

Have a think and let me know your thoughts

Jon


----------



## James A (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi,

Remarkable! Of course this watch still remains wholly remarkable even if what you're saying is correct. This timepiece continues to amaze me.
Did you find a production date?

Regards,


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> Right here gos
> 
> I don't believe wittnauer made the all proof watch
> 
> ...


Hi Jon
I think I disagree. Here are some facts I dug up

*WITTNAUER*
Trade marked name ALLPROOF.
1928 Wittnauer introduced All-Proof.
Manufactured many years and was used in WWII.
It does not use a Francois Borgel case like Vertex, but I think their own design of case. More on that below.
Source Kathleen Pritchard + 1 other

*VERTEX. -* 
Seems registered only in 1920. No great history at all?
VERTEX (not Thommen) ALSO trademarked name 'ALLPROOF'
1973 ALLPROOF was registered as a brand of VERTEX.

Important:
This uses a Borgel case and a later version. 
It is not the original 2 piece case, not even the Charles Rothen ' swing movement' patents of 1923. No this case is a 'Taubert' introduced FB case from around 1927/28
What we need to see is the style of the back of that case. Does it have a Decagonal Back Case - The patent (trademark) of a Taubert Borgel case?
Also Stainless Steel was not introduced to watch industry till late 1920s or early 30s
Not 1918!

*THOMMEN*
Other company names - Revue and Majestic
1924 'Majestic' was imported by guess who? Wittnauer!
Thommen has NO trademark of ALLPROOF

*QUESTIONs*
1) Your All-Proof trademark 1933. Who registered it??
2) Is the Vertex back case Decagonal - pointing to the very protected Taubert design from 1928?

*Conclusions*
1) I am sure the Wittnauer watch is 1928 and not 1918.
2) I am sure Wittnauer used their own propriety case. They made cases in USA (Brighton Watch Case Co.)!
3) Did Wittnauer make the movement? That I am not sure, they claim to have had their own production.
4) 1934 Wittnauer were still advertising the ALLPROOF
5) VERTEX - also a later design (192X) used a Borgel Case by Taubert

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
David Boettcher- Francois Borgel - Watch Case Makers Geneva (Printed NAWCC)
Kathleen Pritchard


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

right then

VERTEX

After Gédéon Thommen's death, his son Alphonse took over the business and in 1905 registered the company name, "Thommens Uhrenfabriken AG" . Alphonse continued as the company's president until 1932. In March 1910, the company registered the trademark, "Revue" and due to the increasing demand for wristwatches Thommen opened an additional factory in Waldenburg as well as others in Gelterkinden and Langenbruck.

The company supplied watches for the U.K. market under the name "Vertex". The U.K. agent for Vertex watches was Claude Lyons whose office was at 28 Hatton Garden, London.

Both wittnauer and vertex(revue) had a trademark for all proof wittnauer in 1933 and vertex 13/09/1935

i have no doubt the wittnauer watch you have is from late 20s early 30s however we have no evidence to suggest there wasnt an earlier model 

i have seen examples of vertex allproof and revue sports in the same case as the wittnauer allproof all marked the same non taubert will upload pics when i find them again


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)




----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

jonsvjon said:


> right then
> 
> VERTEX
> 
> ...


OK
As I previously posted both Wittnauer and Vertex trademarked the name ALLPROOF in 1933/1935 respectively. I doubt they would launch an ALLPROOF watch in 1918 and wait till 1933 to trade mark it?

The back of the 'revue sport' looks like mine, and that is not a Borgel case, do you have pictures of inside of the revue case to that watch?
ALSO
Can you confirm that trademark date you posted (the picture) was that Witnnauer?

This is all good Horology, and there is no evidence to prove that the watch was not released in 1918, but in the absence of any evidence to prove it was versus the vast amount of evidence pointing to 1928, I am still that way (date) inclined

Thanks again
adam


----------



## jonsvjon (Sep 1, 2012)

no sorry there was no inside shot

yes the trademark pic was wittnauer

got an example of a vertex no rear shot but a movement shot listing also says that it has contracid caseback so i think similar to revue and wittnauer not borgel case















listing reads
VERTEX 15 JEWEL SWISS MADE MANUALLY WOUND MECHANICAL WRISTWATCH IN GOOD WORKING ORDER - PROBABLY DATES FROM THE 1930s AND IS VERY COLLECTABLE DIAL HAS "BLUED" HANDS AND WORDS "VERTEX" , "ALLPROOF" , "SWISS MADE" SCREW BACK IS ENGRAVED "CONTRACID" AND HAS SERIAL NUMBER 53913 CASE ( 30mm diameter) APPEARS TO BE STAINLESS STEEL WITH LIGHT SCRATCHES / "GLASS" HAS A FEW SCRATCHES


----------



## busmatt (Aug 5, 2012)

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I have just got hold of one of these beauties,

Mine is a 1937 Vertex and is in the same case as the revue sport in post 93








like the Op's mine has a cool inscription








Matt


----------



## HOROLOGIST007 (Apr 27, 2013)

Hi Matt.
I like it a lot.
Its just like Wittnauer, but I think yours uses a different movement.
I think maybe 'MAJESTIC'??

Enjoy
adam


----------



## Charon (Apr 22, 2013)

Thought I might contribute with the ladies watch I acquired in a lot a while back.


----------

