# Very early wristwatch articles



## bobbee

These article snippets come from US papers dating between 1888 and 1906.
They concern both the wearing of w/w's abroad _and in the US.

_The 1890 snippet proves they were being worn _and made_ in the US at that time, which is the earliest known, and disproves the popular opinion that they were not worn in the US that early.
I hav sent pdf's of the original newspaper pages to Adam Harris for verification, as he could not believe his eyes when he saw them posted elsewhere (WTF, vintage watch forums) yesterday!









1898


----------



## bobbee

Sorry about the images being all over the place, but I am not very IT literate and I am using a new tablet that takes some getting used to!

Bob.


----------



## Emre

Now that's really interesting. Also the vocabulary used back then 'Anklet watch'.Love this vintage world, at the point when you think all is surfaced,something else pops up.I don't have that early wristlets but will be interesting to read the discussions further.Thank you for sharing.


----------



## bobbee

Emre said:


> Now that's really interesting. Also the vocabulary used back then 'Anklet watch'.Love this vintage world, at the point when you think all is surfaced,something else pops up.I don't have that early wristlets but will be interesting to read the discussions further.Thank you for sharing.


Thanks for the interest and the comments, Emre.
Bob.


----------



## Literustyfan

I'm kind of pressed for time right now but I will come back and read all of this much closer later on today.

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

It is most interesting stuff, that may indeed change the way we perceived Horology.
The OP kindly emailed me all the documents that I intend to print and study more closely
Then comment.
*FYI the earliest date and picture I have found of American 'man' wearing a wristwatch is 1898. Significantly so important it is on permanent display at the wristwatch display NAWCC Museum.

*Also Europe was earlier than USA, I know 1904 for wristwatch

Regards


----------



## bobbee

Thank you Stan and Adam.
I thought there was some groundbreaking stuff in some of them, especially the 1890 'Nelly Bly' article.
So glad it is appreciated, and I hope it helps in understanding the origins of the wristwatch.
Bob.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Thank you Stan and Adam.
> I thought there was some groundbreaking stuff in some of them, especially the 1890 'Nelly Bly' article.
> So glad it is appreciated, and I hope it helps in understanding the origins of the wristwatch.
> Bob.


hi Bob
Of course it will, I just need to study them.
This is exactly how we learn and how long established 'myths' get broken.

Thanks again
adam


----------



## bobbee

The February 1898 article about early watchmaking mentions thenew fad of the "wristlet", which is the name for the man's pocket watch holder, I thought.
And the 1890 article is describing the wristlet too. This part of the above article is the most interesting, with descriptions of the different bands available.
The first sentence about wristwatches being worn in San Fransisco long before Nelly Bly even thought of going round the world shows just how long they had been worn in the US.


----------



## Eeeb

I posted something similar last February: https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/early-mentions-wristwatches-nytimes-985023.html

What search mechanism did you use to find your articles?


----------



## bobbee

Hello Eeeb, I use good old Wikipedia and Google.

Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google News Archive Search

B
Have fun!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

OK.
Probably going to upset people with this, but I must say I was slightly disappointing in studying these articles. To me they brought nothing new to our knowledge of Horology. Why?

Firstly they were very difficult bordering on impossible to read, at times I wondered if they were a joke or a 'spoof'. No pictures or drawings added to my frustration about the purpose of these articles, and finally they were all basically related to ladies, some thing we knew.

What we know is the following:
*1810* - Breguet makes first wristwatch for Queen of Naples
*1869* - Patek Philippe makes wristwatch for Countess Kosccowicz of Hungary.

*1892* - Earliest advert to depict a wristwatch (ladies); it is described as a 'fine gold keyless watch bracelet'
*(Note I have this advert from 1892)*
*1894* - Earliest advert I have showing a 'wristlet' (leather pocket watch converter) - This can be a mans or a womans

*1898* - Start of multiple 'European' adverts for ladies bracelet watches.

*1902* - Omega launches mans and ladies wristwatch (fixed lugs) as we know today. First men's watch advertisement 1904 ( I have the 1906 advert)

*1905* - Cartier launches mans wristwatch (Santos)

*1905* - Longines launches ladies wristwatch as we know to-day (fixed lugs)
*1910* - Longines launches mens wristwatch as we know to-day (fixed lugs)

*All above are Europe manufacturers.*

*USA followed:*
Mainstream
Ladies - Circa 1913 and men Circa 1916.
We do have some good examples of American manufacturers advertising men's wristwatches in 1913, but in general 'mainstream' wristwatches in USA started 1916 and took off during WWI - so called Trench Watch.

I truly did not feel those articles changed these 'observations' of mine.
Note: I can post pictures of all above adverts/statements.

Regards
adam


----------



## bobbee

"Firstly they were very difficult bordering on impossible to read, at times I wondered if they were a joke or a 'spoof'. No pictures or drawings added to my frustration about the purpose of these articles, and finally they were all basically related to ladies, some thing we knew."

I wonder why you had difficulty in reading them? No-one else has made this complaint.

I find it slightly insulting that you consider them a "joke" or a "spoof". That is basically accusing me of falsifying the information. If not me then the providers of this information to me, and most, if not all of these articles are taken from reputable historical collections and heritage sites, who use original copy.

"all basically relating to ladies".



















The above are not "groundbreaking" maybe, but they are interesting nonetheless. And easy to read.

You say they brought nothing new, but in the 1890 article, the reporter is talking to a *leading jeweler*, who then goes on to explain that they can be bught for very little, and come in different cases. This means they are in fact being made in the US at least as early as 1890.
They may be using imported movements, but the fact remains this is the earliest proof of wristwatches being made in America.

Here is a teasing little snippet that tells of men wearing watches in New York City in 1912. And the picture actually shows a woman wearing a wristwatch too.
Maybe someone will believe it! 









You are entitled to your opinion Adam, but to belittle my hard work is quite frustrating.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> You are entitled to your opinion Adam, but to belittle my hard work is quite frustrating.


I sincerely was not in any way trying to "belittle your hard work" - to the contrary, I have made a lot of responses to your threads both here and other forums.
Indeed I believe I pointed you here.
I apologies if my response came across that way.

That said to your "hard efforts", I still believe my observations and timelines are correct.
I did point out that we knew some early wristwatches were worn in USA circa 1912 (woman) and 1913(men)
But not 1880 or 1890?

Sincerely
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> I sincerely was not in any way trying to "belittle your hard work" - to the contrary, I have made a lot of responses to your threads both here and other forums.
> Indeed I believe I pointed you here.
> I apologies if my response came across that way.
> 
> That said to your "hard efforts", I still believe my observations and timelines are correct.
> I did point out that we knew some early wristwatches were worn in USA circa 1912 (woman) and 1913(men)
> But not 1880 or 1890?
> 
> Sincerely
> adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> I sincerely was not in any way trying to "belittle your hard work" - to the contrary, I have made a lot of responses to your threads both here and other forums.
> Indeed I believe I pointed you here.
> I apologies if my response came across that way.
> 
> That said to your "hard efforts", I still believe my observations and timelines are correct.
> I did point out that we knew some early wristwatches were worn in USA circa 1912 (woman) and 1913(men)
> But not 1880 or 1890?
> 
> Sincerely
> adam









(These both date to 1890)


----------



## Literustyfan

Thank you for taking the time to post all of your results!

I read the articles and found them very interesting.

This will undoubtedly be a hot button issue for years to come.....................

What hard core researchers like Adam and I like to go by is FACTORY advertising from companies such as Elgin, Waltham and Ingersoll.

It is certainly nice to read an article from a newspaper or magazine that writes of a men's wrist watch that pre-dates the generally accepted time frame for when American wrist watches first came out.

But, without a FACTORY name attached to it, it will not be generally accepted as a "new date".

The VERY earliest mention of a men's wrist watch that I have ever found from an American watch manufacturing company with genuine FACTORY advertising to back it up is from Ingersoll, the makers of the "dollar watches".

This hardcore undeniable evidence can be found in the September 14, 1912 issue of "The American Stationer" magazine where Ingersoll states that they in fact have "men's wrist watches" available.

But, the very first PICTURE of this Ingersoll Men's Wrist Watch does not show up in their advertising until the May 1913 issues of "Our Navy" magazine, about 7 months later.

Now it is very possible that pictures of the wrist watch showed up earlier but no evidence has been found so far.

The first "known" advertising for an Elgin Men's Wrist Watch shows up on September 1, 1913 and then again on October 29, 1913.

These advertisements featured race car drivers Louis Disbrow and "Wild Bill" Endicott who competed in the first Elgin National Road Races (1910) and the very first Indy 500 back in 1911.

The Indy 500 is being run TODAY and I bet if you watch the race you will see a commercial for a race car driver promoting a high end wrist watch.

Elgin certainly hit the mark and set the bar for celebrity endorsements 101 - 103 years ago which is still being copied today! 

Other evidence from Elgin does exist that they were in fact making men's wrist watches back in 1911 because "Wild Bill" Endicott is was photographed wearing one at the 1911 Elgin National Watch Races.

This picture can be seen in Bill Briska's book "Elgin Time: A History of the Elgin National Watch Company".

According to Bill Briska, Elgin Men's Wrist Watches were supplied to "Wild Bill" and the entire crew of the "Case Tornado" car in 1911 for the races.

I personally could care less about when American men's wrist watches hit the "mainstream", I only care about when they first came out with hard core dates attached to them that can be verified.

Speculation about when they became popular is insignificant in my opinion as they were in fact being mass produced by major American manufacturers in 1911 - 1912.

Plus, you must take into consideration that it takes awhile to even get a product to the market place. Overall wrist watch case design must be approved and tested, market research, focus groups, advertising must be drafted and final drafts must be approved by the suits, plus they had to buy advertising space in newspapers and magazines and so on.....................this could have taken six months or even up to a year for all of this to happen (just like today).

The debate will go on forever when it comes to which American watch manufacturer came out with the very first men's wrist watch, BUT a pretty nice picture can been seen of "Wild Bill" wearing an Elgin Men's Wrist Watch that was supplied to him by the Elgin National Watch Company on August 25, 1911, give or take a day as the races were run over 2 days.


----------



## dom_

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> OK.
> Probably going to upset people with this, but I must say I was slightly disappointing in studying these articles. To me they brought nothing new to our knowledge of Horology. Why?
> 
> Firstly they were very difficult bordering on impossible to read, at times I wondered if they were a joke or a 'spoof'. No pictures or drawings added to my frustration about the purpose of these articles, and finally they were all basically related to ladies, some thing we knew.
> 
> What we know is the following:
> *1810* - Breguet makes first wristwatch for Queen of Naples
> *1869* - Patek Philippe makes wristwatch for Countess Kosccowicz of Hungary.
> 
> *1892* - Earliest advert to depict a wristwatch (ladies); it is described as a 'fine gold keyless watch bracelet'
> *(Note I have this advert from 1892)*
> *1894* - Earliest advert I have showing a 'wristlet' (leather pocket watch converter) - This can be a mans or a womans
> 
> *1898* - Start of multiple 'European' adverts for ladies bracelet watches.
> 
> *1902* - Omega launches mans and ladies wristwatch (fixed lugs) as we know today. First men's watch advertisement 1904 ( I have the 1906 advert)
> 
> *1905* - Cartier launches mans wristwatch (Santos)
> 
> *1905* - Longines launches ladies wristwatch as we know to-day (fixed lugs)
> *1910* - Longines launches mens wristwatch as we know to-day (fixed lugs)
> 
> *All above are Europe manufacturers.*
> 
> *USA followed:*
> Mainstream
> Ladies - Circa 1913 and men Circa 1916.
> We do have some good examples of American manufacturers advertising men's wristwatches in 1913, but in general 'mainstream' wristwatches in USA started 1916 and took off during WWI - so called Trench Watch.
> 
> I truly did not feel those articles changed these 'observations' of mine.
> Note: I can post pictures of all above adverts/statements.
> 
> Regards
> adam


I would be interested in seeing the 1906 omega advert and the 1892 advert. Very interested


----------



## bobbee

Well Stan, it seems that evidence of wristwatches being worn in America by men as early as 1889 is not enough to change people's minds that wrist watches were worn by men in America as early as 1889!

Whose watches do you think were being worn in these straps by American men?
It is no great leap to realise that the watches being put into these new wrist straps were US made pocket watches, surely?
Looks like I'm going to have to borrow Stewie Griffin's time machine! LOL!

1899 article on men's fashion.









Edit- here is the full 1912 article with a photograph of the watch.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

We know well this. 
I mentioned that the very first picture we have of a man wearing one of these wristlets was 1898, one of Theodore Roosevelts Rough Riders. 
It is the earliest picture I have of a man wearing a wristwatch. And I have searched and searched. 
This picture is so important it's on permanent display on the History of the Wristwatch display at NAWCC Museum

Did the 'wristlet' have an American or European pocket watch? I got no idea.

Will respond your other post later. 
Sincerely



bobbee said:


> Well Stan, it seems that evidence of wristwatches being worn in America by men as early as 1889 is not enough to change people's minds that wrist watches were worn by men in America as early as 1889!
> 
> Whose watches do you think were being worn in these straps by American men?
> It is no great leap to realise that the watches being put into these new wrist straps were US made pocket watches, surely?
> Looks like I'm going to have to borrow Stewie Griffin's time machine! LOL!
> 
> 1899 article on men's fashion.
> 
> View attachment 1505014


----------



## Literustyfan

Americans were certainly wearing wrist watches during that time.

BUT, they were Swiss made watches, not American made wrist watches as absolutely no evidence exists to that fact.

In order for it to be proven without ANY doubt any article, snippet or advertising MUST state the name of the AMERICAN company that manufactured the wrist watch and it MUST say "WRIST WATCH" with a date to back it all up.

Heck, back in June of 1904 The New England Watch Company who later became "Timex" put out an advertisement that "suggested" that their "Golf Watch" was to be "worn".

This can be found in the June 1904 issue of "The Philistine" magazine.

The advertisement does NOT come right out and say it but it certainly "suggests" that this watch was worn on the wrist.

No picture was included in the advert and it did not state "wrist watch" so this "golf watch" cannot be considered the "first" American Wrist Watch.

I personally would not be surprised to see hard core evidence come out down the road that states the Americans were in fact manufacturing men's wrist watches in the early 1900's.

But, all of the criteria MUST be met for it to be bona fide.


----------



## Wibbs

Interesting stuff. I think there may be some aspect of cross purposes/misunderstanding here? It seems that going by these newspaper snippets a fashion arose for men in the US to start wearing fob watches in "straps" designed to hold them. Enough of a fashion for it to be reported anyway. As the article notes the British military types had started to do this(reports and photos from the Boer war show this) and the American lads took it up. So it's entirely possible, if not a given that many of these watches carried in those wrist conversion straps were of local US manufacture.

_However,_ while they were watches carried on the wrist*, they weren't wristwatches. They weren't designed, made or sold as wristwatches by the companies involved on either side of the Atlantic at this stage. They were end user conversions. It would be akin to me buying a brand new Panerai or whatever, cutting off the strap, attaching a chain to it and calling it a pocketwatch. It might function as one, but it wouldn't be one.

For the first real Man's wristwatch the definition would surely be one designed and made from the get go for the purpose. In this case the Omega's Horologist007 referenced would be such a beast.

Now I have read in a few places that Girrard Perregaux had built a batch of wristwatches for the German navy before this time. The 1880's I think? That's the claim, but I've never seen any documentation, never mind an actual example of one to prove it. On their own website a few years back the example they had was clearly from circa 1916, not the 1880's. For pre Omega examples I'd reckon a long perusal of photos from the Boer war might turn up an actual wristlet, though making out who made it would be next to impossible. I have seen the fobwatch bracelet in pics from that time alright. I recall reading of a letter from a guy in that conflict who wrote about an engagement where his wristwatch was specifically mentioned.

From this page Anglo Boer war musuem
(first pic on the page has a Canadian bloke sporting one of these fobholderwatches in 1899)

Halfway down the page we have a letter from a Canadian chap by the name of Otto Moody in 1902(though possibly earlier as he signed up two years after the previous soldier on the page and that guy was seeing action in 1900). In it he says "I wished you could manage to get me one of those small watches with a watch belt to go around your wrist like this(he draws a picture of it). Most every fellow here has one, they are very handy". The tiny doodle he sketches such as it is does not resemble a fob watch in a holder, but an actual wristwatch as we might recognise it. Given that "most every fellow" had one it seems that by 1902 anyway they were not a rare item in such a setting, they could be bought in Canada as he asks his mum go source one and that they were likely being manufactured by _someone_. The numbers made, by actual manufacturers, or privately made small runs by jewelers would be questions though.

_Personally speaking_ and it's just musing on my part, but I would bet the farm that there were small runs of these wristlets/wristwatches in the 1890's and sooner or later one or more will show up.

*as women were already doing. Consider the article written about the guys in Cuba sending home for "leather bracelet cases". Clearly these already existed and most likely they were for women.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> We know well this.
> I mentioned that the very first picture we have of a man wearing one of these wristlets was 1898, one of Theodore Roosevelts Rough Riders.
> It is the earliest picture I have of a man wearing a wristwatch. And I have searched and searched.
> This picture is so important it's on permanent display on the History of the Wristwatch display at NAWCC Museum
> 
> Did the 'wristlet' have an American or European pocket watch? I got no idea.
> 
> Will respond your other post later.
> Sincerely


The "driver's watch" article dates to 1889, nine years previously to the above.
No photograph, sorry.


----------



## Literustyfan

I personally would NOT count this as being a genuine "wrist watch".

It was a "pocket watch" that was put inside of a leather housing then strapped to the wrist.










This watch was NOT designed to be worn on the wrist when it left the manufacturer, it is simply an end user conversion as stated above.

The AMERICAN made product MUST have been marketed as a genuine "men's wrist watch" in order for it to be considered, plain and simple.


----------



## Wibbs

On American early enough wristwatches I got this Hampden years ago. In France to be exact:







(apologies for the crappy photo)

Lever set, with a Hampden Diadem movement within. The serial number depending on which reference you read comes out from 1912-1914. 







(deleted the last few digits of my particular number)

I'd figure the 1914(or slightly later) date more applicable. For a start the movement which was also in ladies fob watches could have been made years before it found a case and the serial number is _very_ near the end of the run of the movement itself. Also I did find it in France, so it would seem more likely it came over with an American military man in the Great war. Still it seems fairly early for a no doubts about its origin American watch.

I fell for it the second I saw it.  What I like about it is its design. It doesn't look like most "trench watches/wristlets", a small fobwatch with little 10/12mm lugs slapped on almost as an afterthought(this takes a 16mm strap IIRC). The crown isn't an onion/pumpkin either. For me it looks much more like a modern looking wristwatch.

(the hands and the dial are original Hampden items, but they don't belong together. It should have "cathedral" type radium lume hands. Never been able to source a set unfortunately)


----------



## Literustyfan

Wibbs,

That case design first came out in late 1916.

Two companies made that exact case design: Dueber-Hampden and Wadsworth.

It was featured in "Outing Magazine" in the December 1916 issue that listed the top "25" gifts for men for Christmas, it ranked in at #19.

It originally sold for $13.00 or for $10.00 if you did not want luminous paint on the dial and hands. 

The one shown in this list had an Elgin movement though with a shadow box military dial.


----------



## bobbee

I think you are all missing the point.
The popular belief as I have come to see it was that the strap watch or p/w in a strap case, was not worn in the US in general until the 20th.century, and we now have evidence to the contrary. There is also evidence that ladies _and_ men wore them as early as 1889, and there is evidence that jewelers were putting cases, movements and straps together to make these as early as 1890.
All in the US.
Recent posts in answer (yes Adam, you! :-D) to these finds have said that womens wrist watches, even Swiss, did not exist in the US prior to 1904, and the earliest leather pocketwatch holder to 1898.

Extract below is from Adam's post in vintagewatchforums yesterday:

"Wristwatches in 1902? I just do not think so, even Swiss.
Mens maybe 1904, womans yes 1904.

So I ask can anyone give a date provenance to these articles.

AS far as a leather pocket watch converter (wristlet), the earliest I can track is 1898, yes there is speculation they existed prior to that maybe 1885?
But I want some proof."

I provided the proof, so why the sudden change of heart? When will there be enough proof provided?

Despite the splitting of hairs, all this is new information, and interesting as well as informative.

Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.

Enjoy, please.


----------



## Emre

For the Swiss part of the story, the Swiss were just considering to put regulations in 15 Jan 1890,how to punch silver and gold hallmarks on the wrist-watch cases and bracelets.Public announcement was made that a further decision will be made and shared accordingly. This might show also the increasing demand so regulations are being placed in 1890,sorry no watch pictures:


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.
> 
> Enjoy, please.
> 
> View attachment 1505118


Yes! A ladies 'SWISS' wrist watch - 1906 and in a British Paper (I think).
As I keep saying we all know this well. * I do not need any evidence of ladies wristwatches, I already stated I have adverts as far back as 1892*

What I want to see is pictures of people wearing a 'wristwatch' prior to 1898?
I then want to see if that is by leather wristlet or a conventional wristwatch?
I also want to find an American manufacturer advertising wristwatch prior to 1912 say 1910 or 1908?

I probably have more pictures than most people of early wristwatches.
I have a few from the Boer war (1899-1902) - these are exceptionally difficult to find all wristlets's

I have a number from WW1 some wristlet some conventional. These include all countries that fought in Great War.

all these I have.
What I do not have is picture of a man or indeed woman wearing a watch prior to 1898, that said I know its very possible for Ladies.

We know well ladies wristwatches were made as early as 1810 (Breguet). We know that by mid 17th Century wealthy ladies were starting to wear a watch on the wrist. These were more pieces of jewellery than just time pieces.

We know that men (maily officers/soldiers) were wearing wristlets as early as 1888/9

We know Omega launched men's wristwatches in 1902.

These were all European manufactured.

I agree with literustyfan about all the dates he mention for American manufactured watches. I have seen thanks to Stan both the 1912 Ingersoll article and the 1913 advert. 
Indeed I found the famous wild Bill endicot 1913 advert wearing an Elgin.

I am now looking/researching for evidence that American manufacturer or indeed Europen manufacturers made wristwatches prior to these dates. 
Sadly your articles do not give me that.

Did Americans and European men wear conventional wristwatches in 1900s? Quite possible, but trying to find hard evidence is very elusive.

Adam


----------



## Wibbs

Literustyfan said:


> Wibbs,
> 
> That case design first came out in late 1916.
> 
> Two companies made that exact case design: Dueber-Hampden and Wadsworth.
> 
> It was featured in "Outing Magazine" in the December 1916 issue that listed the top "25" gifts for men for Christmas, it ranked in at #19.
> 
> It originally sold for $13.00 or for $10.00 if you did not want luminous paint on the dial and hands.
> 
> The one shown in this list had an Elgin movement though with a shadow box military dial.


That's great information Literustyfan. Thanks  It also proves one can't gauge dates by movement manufacture dates, unless like with Longines and a few others they have a journal entry for the exact delivery date(I've a 1912 Longines tonneau style that can be dated by this method). Obviously they had a supply of movements built up and these could find their way into later cases. Still, for a 1916 design it was a very forward looking one IMHO. Much less Edwardian/19th century in layout. Now to keep up my hunt for the correct hands. Three quid extra you say? 



bobbee said:


> I think you are all missing the point.
> The popular belief as I have come to see it was that the strap watch or p/w in a strap case, was not worn in the US in general until the 20th.century, and we now have evidence to the contrary.


As far as fobwatches in adapted cases are concerned I don't think anyone is suggesting these weren't around in the 19th century. There were ladies watches that were wrist/bracelet watches in the very late 19th century too. This would apply to the US and Europe(and elsewhere one supposes).



> There is also evidence that ladies _and_ men wore them as early as 1889,


Adapted fobwatches yes.


> and there is evidence that jewelers were putting cases, movements and straps together to make these as early as 1890.


Whatever about jewelers responding to a trend by supplying adaptor cases for fob watches, which I'd go along with BTW, where's the evidence for them putting together _wristwatches_.



> Recent posts in answer (yes Adam, you! :-D) to these finds have said that womens wrist watches, even Swiss, did not exist in the US prior to 1904, and the earliest leather pocketwatch holder to 1898.


Well in this thread anyway Horologist007 has stated 
*
"1892* - Earliest advert to depict a wristwatch (ladies); it is described as a 'fine gold keyless watch bracelet'
*(Note I have this advert from 1892)*
*1894* - Earliest advert I have showing a 'wristlet' (leather pocket watch converter) - This can be a mans or a womans"

Both in the 19th century.



> Despite the splitting of hairs, all this is new information, and interesting as well as informative.


I agree, it is interesting stuff and I for one am glad you tracked this down. I think the splitting of hairs comes from the definitions involved. IE pocketwatch converters while enabling a watch to be worn on the wrist aren't wristwatches, they're "aftermarket" conversions. You appear to be conflating the two. If we take that out of the equation your info is interesting and adds to that pre "true" wristwatch era. It also dispels some of that noton that watches on the wrist were considered for the "ladies" and "effeminate" for men to be seen wearing.



> Here is a 1906 advert with a picture, and the date and name of the paper at the top.
> 
> Enjoy, please.


A nice ad, but it doesn't confirm or deny anything. The earliest so far found ad for a ladies bracelet watch was 14 years previous to this(in Europe I think?) and an American ad was out in 1904.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Wibbs said:


> Interesting stuff. I think there may be some aspect of cross purposes/misunderstanding here? It seems that going by these newspaper snippets a fashion arose for men in the US to start wearing fob watches in "straps" designed to hold them. Enough of a fashion for it to be reported anyway. As the article notes the British military types had started to do this(reports and photos from the Boer war show this) and the American lads took it up. So it's entirely possible, if not a given that many of these watches carried in those wrist conversion straps were of local US manufacture.
> 
> _However,_ while they were watches carried on the wrist*, they weren't wristwatches. They weren't designed, made or sold as wristwatches by the companies involved on either side of the Atlantic at this stage. They were end user conversions. It would be akin to me buying a brand new Panerai or whatever, cutting off the strap, attaching a chain to it and calling it a pocketwatch. It might function as one, but it wouldn't be one.
> 
> For the first real Man's wristwatch the definition would surely be one designed and made from the get go for the purpose. In this case the Omega's Horologist007 referenced would be such a beast.
> 
> Now I have read in a few places that Girrard Perregaux had built a batch of wristwatches for the German navy before this time. The 1880's I think? That's the claim, but I've never seen any documentation, never mind an actual example of one to prove it. On their own website a few years back the example they had was clearly from circa 1916, not the 1880's. For pre Omega examples I'd reckon a long perusal of photos from the Boer war might turn up an actual wristlet, though making out who made it would be next to impossible. I have seen the fobwatch bracelet in pics from that time alright. I recall reading of a letter from a guy in that conflict who wrote about an engagement where his wristwatch was specifically mentioned.
> 
> From this page Anglo Boer war musuem
> (first pic on the page has a Canadian bloke sporting one of these fobholderwatches in 1899)
> 
> Halfway down the page we have a letter from a Canadian chap by the name of Otto Moody in 1902(though possibly earlier as he signed up two years after the previous soldier on the page and that guy was seeing action in 1900). In it he says "I wished you could manage to get me one of those small watches with a watch belt to go around your wrist like this(he draws a picture of it). Most every fellow here has one, they are very handy". The tiny doodle he sketches such as it is does not resemble a fob watch in a holder, but an actual wristwatch as we might recognise it. Given that "most every fellow" had one it seems that by 1902 anyway they were not a rare item in such a setting, they could be bought in Canada as he asks his mum go source one and that they were likely being manufactured by _someone_. The numbers made, by actual manufacturers, or privately made small runs by jewelers would be questions though.
> 
> _Personally speaking_ and it's just musing on my part, but I would bet the farm that there were small runs of these wristlets/wristwatches in the 1890's and sooner or later one or more will show up.
> 
> *as women were already doing. Consider the article written about the guys in Cuba sending home for "leather bracelet cases". Clearly these already existed and most likely they were for women.


Wibbs. Good post.

As I posted I have a number of original photographs and newspaper pictures of Officers in Boer war wearing a wristlet.
My earliest is dated is1900.
I also have an original photograph of Major General Baden Powell wearing one, here you go:



I have many examples of officers wearing these.

*Now Girard Perregaux*. Yes I have read that too, but no one that has researched it can find one piece of evidence that its true.
The only thing is a recent article on Girard Perregaux milestones showed an artist impression with shrapnel guard and Radium!! Which was invented in 1910 - and used in wristwatches in 1913!
Yet this picture implies Girard Perregaux had it in 1880?

Make your choice GP or Omega..

Regards
adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

dom_ said:


> I would be interested in seeing the 1906 omega advert and the 1892 advert. Very interested


Here you go

*1892 - Earliest known ladies wristwatch advert!*


*1906 Omega advert - This is known to have been published in 1904*


----------



## bobbee

Adam, all these aricles come from US newspapers. (look at the prices in the 1906 ad, they are in $.)
I still think some folks are avoiding the issue, Americans were making watches to wear on the wrist before "your" dates, and these articles have proven this.

Good luck in finding pictures of people wearing w/w's earlier than 1898.

Here is an advert from May *1888.









The advert can be accurately dated as I have found the entire newspaper on microfiche, front page dates to May 19th, 1888.
*


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Adam, all these aricles come from US newspapers. (look at the prices in the 1906 ad, they are in $.)
> I still think some folks are avoiding the issue, Americans were making watches to wear on the wrist before "your" dates, and these articles have proven this.
> 
> Good luck in finding pictures of people wearing w/w's earlier than 1898.
> 
> Here is an advert from May *1888.
> 
> View attachment 1505198
> 
> 
> The advert can be accurately dated as I have found the entire newspaper on microfiche, front page dates to May 19th, 1888.
> *


Fair comment on $.
but please, please stop posting articles for ladies wristwatches/bracelets.
we all know and agree Ladies had wristwatches back in 1810 and for certain in mid 19th century.
Any photos or pictures would be fantastic, I think my earliest ladies photo with a watch is 1914! That is how difficult it is.

For mens, I really want to find prior to 1898 some pictures and even men wearing wristwatch 1900 to 1914 are very scarce (there after I have plenty.)

Thanks your efforts
adam


----------



## Literustyfan

Bob,

Unless you can find an advertisement or article that actually gives the EXACT name of the American manufacturer who was making a men's wrist watch it is pointless.

You can't just include some generic snippets, advertisements or references in an article from an American publication to make your point that do not include the American manufacturer's name.

There are thousands of these "generic" adverts floating around out there with no specific American manufacturer's names on them.

Exact American factory names, exact dates, exact wrist watch models and pictures are needed.

Adam and I have spent thousands upon thousands of hours researching this topic and while Adam and I do not always agree you are going to come up with something better than what has been posted to change our minds.

Speculation is not good research when it comes to this topic, everybody MUST deal in FACT printed in black and white.

I type this with the utmost respect to everybody taking part in this discussion!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I fully concur with Stan.
I would also add Bob, I am impressed what you have found, the recent pieces especially, they are all most interesting, but do not disprove anything that we did not know.

in 2013 after some 100 years it was proven that Rieussec did not make the first chronograph in 1821 that honor now goes to Louis Moinet in 1816.
In 2014 after some 240 years it was proven that Perrelet was not the inventor of the first 'rotor' automatic pocket watch (the so called Leroy watch) that honor goes to Hubert Sarton in 1778.
Perrelet did invent and make the first automatic pocket watch in 1777 but it was a side weight design and not 'rotor'.

So, I know my observations and opinions on 'The Beginning of the Wristwatch' can and will be changed.

Sincerely
adam


----------



## bobbee

Well, I am posting these snippets for everyone, not just you and Adam. Calling my efforts pointless is unkind at best.
Saying that my comments are speculation is incorrect, as I am commenting on the contents of the articles I have found.

I was just looking for the earliest info about wristwatches that I could find, I posted this info, and it is the earliest I have seen that shows wristlets and bracelet watches being made, sold and worn in the US. Extreme interest was shown by several people, so I went on searching. If you have seen or posted earlier ones, then I would like to know where they are posted, as I am mainly interested in early advertising of w/w's, mostly Bulova.
Thank you for your interest.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Wibbs said:


> On American early enough wristwatches I got this Hampden years ago. In France to be exact:
> View attachment 1505079
> 
> )


Here is my Hampden - 1917.


*And a rarer picture of all three styles of 'offset crown'*


*With the 1917 Elgin on the right, one of my rarest pieces and best pieces - thanks to literustyfan!*


----------



## Literustyfan

Your efforts are certainly not pointless, what is pointless is the advertisements not giving exact names as that only leads to more speculation and not fact.


----------



## Wibbs

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Here is my Hampden - 1917.


Dammit you have the correct hands. *jealous*  Gorgeous watch and as for the others... niiice. As a matter of interest how did you date your Hampden to 1917? Is there another serial number on yours on the case as well as the movement to nail it down? Sadly mine has nada on that score and the movement date is earlier than the case design could be. I've wondered what the holes drilled in the lugs were for. A specific "shrapnel" guard or something along those lines, or a way to attach a strap? They are threaded so they must have been for _something_. The Hampden has a really solid and tight fitting case.

I really love these early wristwatches. They must have been really "out there" and futuristic at the time. It's why I love the early quartz too. I don't have any drawer queens and would wear them as dailies I've found they're pretty tough with it. Avoiding water mind you.


----------



## bobbee

"please, please stop posting articles for ladies wristwatches/bracelets."



"Here you go

*1892 - Earliest known ladies wristwatch advert!*"









Like I said this one is dated 1888, four years earlier _and in the US._


----------



## Literustyfan

Here is the Hampden model that I would LOVE to get my hands on sense you guys are posting some pics ! ! !

Round case design with nice and wide 16mm lugs.

Black military dial with an offset crown case!

I've never actually seen one with a black dial anywhere, only in this advert.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Wibbs said:


> Dammit you have the correct hands. *jealous*  Gorgeous watch and as for the others... niiice. As a matter of interest how did you date your Hampden to 1917? Is there another serial number on yours on the case as well as the movement to nail it down? Sadly mine has nada on that score and the movement date is earlier than the case design could be. I've wondered what the holes drilled in the lugs were for. A specific "shrapnel" guard or something along those lines, or a way to attach a strap? They are threaded so they must have been for _something_. The Hampden has a really solid and tight fitting case.
> 
> I really love these early wristwatches. They must have been really "out there" and futuristic at the time. It's why I love the early quartz too. I don't have any drawer queens and would wear them as dailies I've found they're pretty tough with it. Avoiding water mind you.


Mine has a serial number on the movement 3.347,648 dating it to 1917.
Its a lovely piece, but the Elgin cushion with crown at 1.30 is the rare of the rare, and a real 'head turner'
I bought it from literustyfan a few years ago its 1918, 0ne year earlier than Vacheron Constantin launched theres!

I think the holes in the lugs was an attempt to fit a leather strap by screwing onto it? Just my guess


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Well, I am posting these snippets for everyone, not just you and Adam. Calling my efforts pointless is unkind at best.
> Saying that my comments are speculation is incorrect, as I am commenting on the contents of the articles I have found.
> 
> I was just looking for the earliest info about wristwatches that I could find, I posted this info, and it is the earliest I have seen that shows wristlets and bracelet watches being made, sold and worn in the US. Extreme interest was shown by several people, so I went on searching. If you have seen or posted earlier ones, then I would like to know where they are posted, as I am mainly interested in early advertising of w/w's, mostly Bulova.
> Thank you for your interest.


The early articles were disappointing but your efforts were not "pointless".

Look when I returned my first stint as guest curator at NAWCC Museum, I was convinced that the first early American watches followed 6 years after Europe.
Putting Ladies at circa 1911 and man 1916.

Stan felt differently and over the months sent me parts of the jig-saw that showed the Ingersoll article (1912) then the advert to 1913.
I later discovered the famous Wild Bill Endcott Elgin advert of 1913.
That then got Stan further researching racing drivers and found the Indy 1911 race with the driver wearing a wristwatch. Is it an American wristwatch? I dont know.
But that's not the most important point.
The point is I had to correct my opinions from at least 1916 to 1913.
1911 I am not sure yet!

Regards
adam


----------



## bobbee

April 1913 advert.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Stan (literustyfan) already had a 1913 advert for Ingersoll.
But this is good - thanks.
Can you provenance the date?


----------



## bobbee

The evening world. (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, April 22, 1913, Night Edition, Page 14, Image 14 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress

Another from 1913.

The evening world. (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, July 01, 1913, Final Edition, Image 9 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> The evening world. (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, April 22, 1913, Night Edition, Page 14, Image 14 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
> 
> Another from 1913.
> 
> The evening world. (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, July 01, 1913, Final Edition, Image 9 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress


Thanks
So now we have a second confirmation to 1913.
Next is to get 1911 (or earlier)

Thanks
adam


----------



## bobbee

November 1912.
* 
EARLIEST AMERICAN MANUFACTURED WRIST WATCH** ADVERT!*









This Jan. 1914 poem shows general opinion of w/w's at this time in the US.


----------



## bobbee

Wartime ads from the Stars & Stripes (Paris, France) 1918-1919.

1918 Omega "Army" watch ad.









1918 ad for Military watches.









Jan. 1919 ad for LIP wrist watches.







"With a constant focus on innovation, brand LIP is the first watch brand to know a promotion through the press and the brand product in 1910 over 10,000 watches per year continues to grow.

Swiss watchmakers join LIP and they are at this time more than fifty, of which Camille Jacot comes to work for the brand that develops an unparalleled distribution network. The success is such that it will expand the plant, and if the war slows the watch business, it will start immediately with the development of wristwatches."

_Translated from the French in "L'histoire de Lip"_


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

The Ingersoll advert of 1912 is good.
We knew it existed, so now we have a copy.

The other adverts do not bring anything new.

As I say we are looking mens adverts prior to 1912 for USA
For Europe prior to 1910 (I have 1908)


----------



## bobbee

I am finding it difficult to please you for some reason.

I find an advert you "knew" of, but had never seen (?), I find more adverts that are interesting and entertaining to say the least, and all you can say is "they bring nothing new".

You post elsewhere that you do not believe that wrist watches were worn in the US as early as 1904, but ignore proof I provide going back to the 1880's that they were worn then.

Below are more of your posts, made on this thread in the last 24 hours:

"It is most interesting stuff, that may indeed change the way we perceived Horology.
The OP kindly emailed me all the documents that I intend to print and study more closely
Then comment.
*FYI the earliest date and picture I have found of American 'man' wearing a wristwatch is 1898. Significantly so important it is on permanent display at the wristwatch display NAWCC Museum.

*Also Europe was earlier than USA, I know 1904 for wristwatch"

"I did point out that we knew some early wristwatches were worn in USA circa 1912 (woman) and 1913(men)
But not 1880 or 1890?"

"Probably going to upset people with this, but I must say I was slightly disappointing in studying these articles. To me they brought nothing new to our knowledge of Horology."

And you say the information I have provided brings nothing new?

Keep on changing your goalposts, Adam.

This thread was started to bring information to the members as a whole, not just you.
You seem dissapointed in just about anything I post, so please, don't look at the thread if it does not match your expectations.

Matthew 7:6


----------



## radger

bobbee said:


> I am finding it difficult to please you for some reason.
> 
> I find an advert you "knew" of, but had never seen (?), I find more adverts that are interesting and entertaining to say the least, and all you can say is "they bring nothing new".
> 
> You post elsewhere that you do not believe that wrist watches were worn in the US as early as 1904, but ignore proof I provide going back to the 1880's that they were worn then.
> 
> Below are more of your posts, made on this thread in the last 24 hours:
> 
> "I did point out that we knew some early wristwatches were worn in USA circa 1912 (woman) and 1913(men)
> But not 1880 or 1890?"
> 
> "Probably going to upset people with this, but I must say I was slightly disappointing in studying these articles. To me they brought nothing new to our knowledge of Horology."
> 
> And you say the information I have provided brings nothing new?
> 
> Keep on changing your goalposts, Adam.
> 
> This thread was started to bring information to the members as a whole, not just you.
> You seem dissapointed in just about anything I post, so please, don't look at the thread if it does not match your expectations.
> 
> Matthew 7:6


Bobbee, these early adverts for wristwatches and wristlets that you are posting are interesting to me and I'd
bet they are also interesting to other readers of this thread which, after all, is titled 'very early wristwatch articles'.

Don't be concerned on wheather or not you please Adam, as you rightly point out this forum is not the Horologist007 show....


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Bobbee, these early adverts for wristwatches and wristlets that you are posting are interesting to me and I'd
> bet they are also interesting to other readers of this thread which, after all, is titled 'very early wristwatch articles'.
> 
> Don't be concerned on wheather or not you please Adam, as you rightly point out this forum is not the Horologist007 show....


Thank you so much radger, it's good to know that my efforts are appreciated.
Just for you, this 1918 ad from the Stars & Stripes.







Hope you like it!


----------



## Literustyfan

Bob,

Now this IS what I am talking about ! ! ! !

It has met ALL of the criteria.

WELL DONE ! ! ! !

What publication did you find this advert in ?

You have found the earliest KNOWN picture of the Ingersoll Wrist Watch!

The very earliest reference to this watch that I have ever found was September 14, 1912 in a publication called "The American Stationer".

But, it only mentioned it by name, an actual picture of the watch was never shown.

I'd say that it is pretty safe to say that this Ingersoll Wrist Watch first came to the market place in 1912 as Ingersoll called this the "new model wrist watch".

I highly doubt that it was available anytime in 1911.


----------



## bobbee

I just noticed this, the style does not seem to change much in twelve years, does it?

This advert is first shown in the July 5th, 1918 Stars & Stripes.










This one provided earlier in this thread from 1906, 12 years earlier than the above, yet looks to be almost the same watch apart from the Roman/luminous Arabic numerals.










Unusual, 12 years and no change.


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> Bob,
> 
> Now this IS what I am talking about ! ! ! !
> 
> It has met ALL of the criteria.
> 
> WELL DONE ! ! ! !
> 
> What publication did you find this advert in ?
> 
> You have found the earliest KNOWN picture of the Ingersoll Wrist Watch!
> 
> The very earliest reference to this watch that I have ever found was September 14, 1912 in a publication called "The American Stationer".
> 
> But, it only mentioned it by name, an actual picture of the watch was never shown.
> 
> I'd say that it is pretty safe to say that this Ingersoll Wrist Watch first came to the market place in 1912 as Ingersoll called this the "new model wrist watch".
> 
> I highly doubt that it was available anytime in 1911.


Stan, the ad was found in the Sydney Morning Herald, New South Wales.
Very unusual that the Antipodeans have the earliest known "picture proof" of the US-manufactured wristwatch, right? Surely there must be some proof in a US paper _somewhere,_ and I would love to find it.
Bob.


----------



## Literustyfan

Bob,

Here is the May 1913 advertisement for the Ingersoll Wrist Watch which appeared in "Our Navy", an American military publication.

This WAS the earliest known picture of the watch until you found the November 1912 version which pre-dates mine by 6 months.

What's cool about this advertisement is that is states that the watch can be purchased on a US Navy ship in the ship's canteen! (aka: PX)


----------



## Okapi001

The Ingersoll watch in the Australian newspaper does not have small seconds (at least not on the picture).


----------



## Literustyfan

I found this advertisement a couple of years ago in a US military publication called "The Army - Navy Register".

This advertisement is dated August 26, 1905.

I have spent several hours over the past couple of years looking into "The Gorham Company" but they were known as silversmiths for the most part and not watchmakers.

But, it is very possible that Gorham just might have made this watch case because they did in fact make spoons, pots, thimbles, combs, jewelry, and other small items.

Gorham had two buildings in New York. One on Broadway and one on 5th Avenue.

It is impossible to make out the name on the dial and the advert does not state what movement was being used.

If the actual copy of this magazine can be viewed you would probably be able to see what name is in fact on the dial.










Here is a blown up version of the same advert, still can't make out the name on the dial!

But it looks like the dial has possibly 4-5 letters in the name.


----------



## Sdasurrey

Hi All - just stumbled onto this thread on a low key, rainy Bank Holiday in Britain and read the whole thing - compliments to EVERYONE because you guys are obviously EXTREMELY PASSIONATE about these historical facts relating to the origins of men's wrist watches. 

So the four of you - the principal 'Threaders' - Adam, Bob, Stan and Wibbs - should be congratulated for all your hard work in trying to enlighten everyone on this very interesting, historical topic !!! 

While also realising the world is 'mostly grey' - not black and white - THANKS !! S


Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Literustyfan

The original "actual" copy of this publication & advertisement is at the Cornell University Library in Ithaca, New York if anybody just happens to live near there.

I'd LOVE to know for a fact what name is on this watch dial!


----------



## Emre

This could be a trace to investigate further for the US market wrist-watches:


----------



## bobbee

Globe, possibly?
Or Birks, in Canada.

1912 ad, Winnipeg Free Press, November 1912.







Wider screen capture, with date.


----------



## bobbee

+1.
There is nothing more frustrating than to find some extremely interesting, possibly gamechanging info, then not being able to pin it down!

Hope someone interested goes there Stan.
Bob.

Or the LoC!


----------



## Literustyfan

ELGIN has 5 letters and they were certainly using that exact dial style and exact style of hands during this period.

About 10-12 years down the road American wrist case manufacturers showed their cases with a variety of American made movements mostly from Elgin, Waltham & Illinois.

These were known as "jobber" cases.

It is possible that Gorham was making a small run of men's wrist watch cases and housing them with American made movements.

But, this is pure speculation on my part, the actual Gorham advert needs to be viewed at Cornell so the dial name can be read.


----------



## bobbee

This bit of 19th. century photo-trickery is frustratingly undated, but this type of "headless" photography was popular in the 1880's-1890's.
The gent appears twice in the photo, and we can see he is wearing a strap watch on his left wrist. And many of the articles from the 1880's and 90's I have seen mention that a man wears his wrist watch on his left wrist.


----------



## Literustyfan

Tonight at 9pm EST The History Channel is airing their 3 part special called "The World Wars".

It should be interesting to see if their "historians" get the men's wrist watches correct from the WWI scenes or if any will be seen at all.

WWI American made wrist watches (aka trench watches) are right in my wheelhouse!


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> Tonight at 9pm EST The History Channel is airing their 3 part special called "The World Wars".
> 
> It should be interesting to see if their "historians" get the men's wrist watches correct from the WWI scenes or if any will be seen at all.
> 
> WWI American made wrist watches (aka trench watches) are right in my wheelhouse!


"Oh no," says Stan's Significant Other, "He'll be shouting at the TV all night!"


----------



## Literustyfan

Now that's funny! LOL ! ! !

My wife Tiffany is pretty well versed in WWI American Trench Watches.

She comes to many of the NAWCC shows with me and she knows exactly what I will and will not buy.

She knows all of the manufacturer's cases, movements, dials and the years in which they came out, even knows how to spot the fake stuff that is out there.

So I have it pretty good!


And yes, I'm sure at some point tonight I'll be shouting at the TV! LOL!


----------



## Emre

Gentlemen, I know you want to see watches with brands, but even though I am Swissophil, you made me curious. And when I get curious, I end up creating a website
Trust you have more related sources than I have for the other side of Atlantic. Here I found a photo from May 30,1911 from Indianapolis 500 race:

These two pilots are wearing some kind of wrist things, I think the one at the left has a proper wrist -watch in definition.Maybe more evidence can be found through the names









Sorry if you had this photo already: 1911 Indianapolis 500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read also Elgin was giving away silver wrist watches to technicians and pilots during the Elgin Race in 1909/10


----------



## bobbee

That's a great picture Emre!
Thanks for contributing.

Here are a couple I just found. Sorry if you have seen them before, but I like these.

WW1 Forestry Corps, women workers.









Early 20th. century Bathing Beauties.









1901 Mappin & Webb advert.


----------



## ruzzi

Great read


----------



## Literustyfan

Those guys in the 1911 Indy 500 pictures are killing me ! ! ! !

Why do SO MANY people from this era have their arms crossed or they were always wearing long sleeve shirts ? ? ? ?

ARRGG ! ! !


I like the shot of the women in the forestry picture, that watch is HUGE.

Any chance you could blow up that pic and get a better look at the watch?


----------



## Literustyfan

The guy 2nd in from the left in the Indy 500 picture is Louis Disbrow.

Louis Disbrow and Wild Bill Endicott were the first men who were featured in the 1913 Elgin Men's Wrist Watch campaign.


----------



## Marrick

I know this doesn't add to the 'earliest known wristwatch' debate, but I found this rare colour picture from 1917 showing Algerian troops:










Its from The Heritage of the Great War / First World War 1914-1918. Graphic color photos, pictures and music which gives permission to reproduce images for non-commercial purposes.


----------



## gatorcpa

This is a very interesting thread. It seems that what we are dealing with here is a matter of semantics, really.

It is clear that in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was far more common in the US to purchase the watch movement separate from the case at a jewelery store. The jeweler would then assemble the watch, check the timing, etc. and off the customer goes. In researching my 1904 dated Longines movement, I found many, many examples where ladies "0" size movements were purchased by US jewelers from A. Wittnauer (the Longines distributor here) with custom engraved bridges/dials and placed into US made wristwatch cases or conversions.

So it would stand to reason that a man in a profession that required a wristwatch could easily have had one custom made by picking out the grade of movement and leather wristlet, Gorham silver case or converted pocketwatch case.

The ads and newspaper references Bobbee has provided are fantastic and provide great historical context. However, I see no reference to these being anything other than independently manufactured watch casings marketed to jewelers whose customers requested them for a specific use.

However, these types of conversions do not meet the criteria that Adam and Stan are researching. They are looking for the earliest evidence of the marketing of a dedicated American-made wristwatch. We seemed to be well behind the Europeans in that regard up until the 1920's.

This is not unlike the spread of modern miniature cellular telephone technology that occured first in Europe in the 1990's (Siemens, Erickson and Nokia). At that time, we here in the US were still using barely mobile bricks made by Motorola.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa


----------



## bobbee

I can't really improve on the clarity when expanding the picture Stan, the girls in the woods pic is not an original.

Here is a late(?) Gruen advert from 1919.


----------



## Charon

Don't know how well this fits with the current direction of this thread but I though I would share it anyways.
Here is a page from the 1911 _ Henry Birks and sons_ yearbook. Most if not all of the movements sold by them at this time were swiss (primarily Longines). It is noted in the add that they were supplying pocket watch movements in leather bracelets to the Canadian military as early as 1899 (if I understand correctly).









As a side note it was the Omega Marguerite earlier in this thread that made me think of the watch at the top of this add.


----------



## Kingmatic

:-dSorry pals , but you´re all wrong !!!

We, the aztecs used to wear wristwatches long before the Europeans or Americans , here´s the proof !!









Just kidding :-d:-d BTW this watch comes from the eclectic collection of G Cueto (LOS RELOJES DE GERARDO CUETO)

Honestly, I have enjoyed this long, long thread.

Bob, Adam, Stan , Emre and everyone who have participated: thanks for sharing all your knowledge, time and effort. It is for people like you that this forum is one of the best

Gracias amigos

Yours truly,

The Aztec king, KingMatic


----------



## Literustyfan

Well, the History Channel special "The World Wars" was very heavy into reenactments of the battles scenes from WWI.

But, as usual when it comes to WWI films the costume designers ALWAYS overlook the wrist watches! (just like they did in War Horse a few years ago).

They covered all 5 years of WWI tonight and I did not see ONE SINGLE wrist watch on ANY soldier or officer from either side.

Boy, did their people drop the ball on that one!

All they had to do was give me a call!

Me along with a few friends of mine could have supplied all of the correct wrist watches for each year of the Great War that they were filming, as the entire war progressed from 1914 - 1919.

Maybe a few of us should send out some resumes to those Hollywood folks and get a jobs as "watch technical advisers" for their next WWI production! 

LOL ! ! ! 

Even with the wrist watches completely missing, I still enjoyed watching the program...............I love historical programming!


----------



## Marrick

A couple more WW1 pics from the same site as before with nice, clear, wrists:


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> Well, the History Channel special "The World Wars" was very heavy into reenactments of the battles scenes from WWI.
> 
> But, as usual when it comes to WWI films the costume designers ALWAYS overlook the wrist watches! (just like they did in War Horse a few years ago).
> 
> They covered all 5 years of WWI tonight and I did not see ONE SINGLE wrist watch on ANY soldier or officer from either side.
> 
> Boy, did their people drop the ball on that one!
> 
> All they had to do was give me a call!
> 
> Me along with a few friends of mine could have supplied all of the correct wrist watches for each year of the Great War that they were filming, as the entire war progressed from 1914 - 1919.
> 
> Maybe a few of us should send out some resumes to those Hollywood folks and get a jobs as "watch technical advisers" for their next WWI production!
> 
> LOL ! ! !
> 
> Even with the wrist watches completely missing, I still enjoyed watching the program...............I love historical programming!


Hard luck Stan!
I bet your missus' ears are ringing! lol!


----------



## Okapi001

Kingmatic said:


> We, the aztecs used to wear wristwatches long before the Europeans or Americans , here´s the proof !!


Sorry, a question about the oldest wristwatch was resolved a while ago;-)
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/oldest-wristwatch-3000-years-old-976138.html


----------



## bobbee

Okapi001 said:


> Sorry, a question about the oldest wristwatch was resolved a while ago;-)
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/oldest-wristwatch-3000-years-old-976138.html


Meanwhile, is this the earliest photo of an actual Depose-style Wrist watch?
Royal Canadian Regimentals bound for South Africa aboard the "_Sardinian",_ November 1899.



















Zoom in and decide for yourself, but it certainly looks like the watch is resting on top of the strap, rather than being held within a wristlet, like the one below.


----------



## Literustyfan

I've seen that program "ancient aliens", very entertaining.

I think that the Illinois Watch Case Company and Elgin were in cahoots with the Annunaki because that same design showed up again in 1918 ! ! !

LOL ! ! ! !


----------



## Literustyfan

Bob,

A couple of your pictures are not showing up from your last post...............................


----------



## bobbee

which?


----------



## Literustyfan

If I had to pick just one men's wrist watch advertisement from the Great War as my favorite it would definitely be this one from the Elgin National Watch Company.

This advert cleared up so many mistakes and gave proper names to 3 Elgin men's wrist watches.

The common mistake is that every Black Star Dial Elgin is called a "Pershing", which could be no further from the truth.

This ad campaign started the 2nd week of February 1919 in a local Elgin newspaper then it went national shortly thereafter in The Literary Digest and The Saturday Evening Post.

I have two of these ORIGINAL advertisements framed and matted on my shop walls, they are my pride and joy! (along with 51 others that are framed).


----------



## Literustyfan

This is a REAL Elgin Pershing ! !

1918 model that is 100% correct and original.


----------



## Literustyfan

bobbee said:


> Can you tell me which pics are not showing up Stan?


Looks like you posted 3 pics in that last post, only the last one is showing up.


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> Bob,
> 
> A couple of your pictures are not showing up from your last post...............................


Can you tell me which pics are not showing up Stan?


----------



## bobbee

I've tried a screen capture of the main pic. The other is just a cut of the man with the watch, top left.









So, if it can now be seen, Depose or wristlet?
This dates to Nov. 1899, on board the SS Sardinia, which belonged to the Allen Line out of Montreal. It was built in 1874.
It was going to South Africa to join in the Boer War.

Here is another pic of Canadian fighters in the Boer War, with the prone shooter wearing what appears to be a watch on his left wrist. Circa 1900.


----------



## bobbee

Can someone tell me if the picture of the rcr men onboard a ship can now be seen?
Thanks.


----------



## Okapi001

I can see it.


----------



## bobbee

Well, they are there, but no comments?

Anyway, This one is great. Lt.Col. John McCrae, M.D. Composer of "in Flanders Field", wearing a wristwatch.
Taken some months before his death in January 1918.

1917.


----------



## bobbee

Well I have just been corrected as I referred to the watch type as the "Depose", and this actually means "filed", as in "patent filed".
The patent from 1903 actually dates to 1903 for the style of band, not the actual watch type.
The strap looks like it is similar to one of these, posted in another forum here.


----------



## bobbee

Wibbs said:


> Interesting stuff. I think there may be some aspect of cross purposes/misunderstanding here? It seems that going by these newspaper snippets a fashion arose for men in the US to start wearing fob watches in "straps" designed to hold them. Enough of a fashion for it to be reported anyway. As the article notes the British military types had started to do this(reports and photos from the Boer war show this) and the American lads took it up. So it's entirely possible, if not a given that many of these watches carried in those wrist conversion straps were of local US manufacture.
> 
> _However,_ while they were watches carried on the wrist*, they weren't wristwatches. They weren't designed, made or sold as wristwatches by the companies involved on either side of the Atlantic at this stage. They were end user conversions. It would be akin to me buying a brand new Panerai or whatever, cutting off the strap, attaching a chain to it and calling it a pocketwatch. It might function as one, but it wouldn't be one.
> 
> For the first real Man's wristwatch the definition would surely be one designed and made from the get go for the purpose. In this case the Omega's Horologist007 referenced would be such a beast.
> 
> Now I have read in a few places that Girrard Perregaux had built a batch of wristwatches for the German navy before this time. The 1880's I think? That's the claim, but I've never seen any documentation, never mind an actual example of one to prove it. On their own website a few years back the example they had was clearly from circa 1916, not the 1880's. For pre Omega examples I'd reckon a long perusal of photos from the Boer war might turn up an actual wristlet, though making out who made it would be next to impossible. I have seen the fobwatch bracelet in pics from that time alright. I recall reading of a letter from a guy in that conflict who wrote about an engagement where his wristwatch was specifically mentioned.
> 
> From this page Anglo Boer war musuem
> (first pic on the page has a Canadian bloke sporting one of these fobholderwatches in 1899)
> 
> Halfway down the page we have a letter from a Canadian chap by the name of Otto Moody in 1902(though possibly earlier as he signed up two years after the previous soldier on the page and that guy was seeing action in 1900). In it he says "I wished you could manage to get me one of those small watches with a watch belt to go around your wrist like this(he draws a picture of it). Most every fellow here has one, they are very handy". The tiny doodle he sketches such as it is does not resemble a fob watch in a holder, but an actual wristwatch as we might recognise it. Given that "most every fellow" had one it seems that by 1902 anyway they were not a rare item in such a setting, they could be bought in Canada as he asks his mum go source one and that they were likely being manufactured by _someone_. The numbers made, by actual manufacturers, or privately made small runs by jewelers would be questions though.
> 
> _Personally speaking_ and it's just musing on my part, but I would bet the farm that there were small runs of these wristlets/wristwatches in the 1890's and sooner or later one or more will show up.
> 
> *as women were already doing. Consider the article written about the guys in Cuba sending home for "leather bracelet cases". Clearly these already existed and most likely they were for women.


Wibbs, I sincerely apologise for this, but I did in fact miss this post, and I found that picture whilst looking on a "Google search" of pre-Boer war photographs.
Sorry again, but I think the watch is actually a wrist watch with wire lugs, not a wristlet, don't you?
Bob.

EDIT- I just clicked on that link again, scrolled down to look for that drawing you mentioned and Lo And Behold, the site admin has changed his pictures and added blow ups after seeing this thread! Go look!

http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer20d_techofwar_watch.ht


----------



## bobbee

He keeps updating it regularly!


----------



## bobbee

The link to the original of the picture of the guys on the ship is a website, he has already updated his pics and info to include the findings in this thread.

TITLE OF PAGE GOES HERE


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

OMG!
This thread is getting dangerous.

Sent to owners of above linked site:

Dear Sir
You are picking up info from WUS
You believe you are getting info from an "expert" sorry that is not not the case.


Your picture is not the first showing a man wearing a wristlet (leather pocket watch convertor), There is on permanent display at National Watch and Clock Museum in Columbia, Pennsylvania an picture of an American soldier wearing one in 1898!
I also have multiple pictures of British soldiers wearing wristlets (leather pocket watch convertors) from 1899 and 1900.


There are even earlier pictures I am told of 1895, but I have no evidence.


Please check your info
Adam Harris
Guest Wristwatch Curator (1912/13) NAWCC Museum

The watch in the Canadian Photograph is great and early, it is a 'wristlet' - leather converter for pocket watch and 'not' (repeat 'not' a conventional watch with lugs (termed Trench watch). See picture on original site!

*ADDED
I was asked not to post on this thread further, so I stuck away from it.
If a moderator wishes to remove this post, that is fine to me. Understood.

*


----------



## bobbee

Tart vine fruit if you ask me.

I have never said anywhere that I am an expert on wrist watches, but my eyesight is a lot better than some others.

Seems like some peoples powers of observation goes no further than their own perceived reputation.

You were not asked by me to stop posting Adam, My exact words were: "You seem disappointed in just about anything I post, so please, don't look at the thread if it doesn't match your expectations".


----------



## Wibbs

bobbee said:


> Wibbs, I sincerely apologise for this, but I did in fact miss this post,


Ah don't worry about that B. It's considered good form and even better sense to avoid my ramblings 



> Sorry again, but I think the watch is actually a wrist watch with wire lugs, not a wristlet, don't you?


The first photo of the Canadian chap? Looks like a fobwatch in a holder to me. Then again, like I said, best avoid my ramblings on such things.



bobbee said:


> The link to the original of the picture of the guys on the ship is a website, he has already updated his pics and info to include the findings in this thread.


Which is as it should be IMHO B. He read some extra stuff that may help flesh out his pretty informative site and added it. He may retract it in due course, but that's cool too as far as I'm concerned. We're all seeking more info. Sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's "Wow, GTFO, no _way_".  It's the organic nature of the interweb. It's part of its charm and danger. Yep there will be mistakes, but those mistakes will be as a general rule be pointed out, critiqued and augmented by the various viewers of it and more real information will eventually come through. As we're seeing it's already happening. For me _all_ dialogue is valuable, even the bogus at times. That way the truth is more easily approached in the end. My amateur take on things anyway.


----------



## bobbee

Thanks for being so understanding, cool, and horizontally laid back!

Where in Dublin you from? I got relatives in Cabinteely and all over Eire.
A cousin used to be on Dublin Radio, went by the name of Alan King.


----------



## Eeeb

What I get out of this thread is timepieces have been worn on wrists for a long time. Most of the early examples are 'conversions' of existing time pieces, usually by wrapping an existing pocket watch with a leather carrier (wristlet). But sometimes they seem to be by the addition of lugs to an existing case. 

What I also get is most watch making companies did not make product for wrists until the 20th century. And most of the early product they did make was for ladies. Product for men did not become generally available until just prior to WWI. It became common after WWI.

Is that a decent summary? I look forward to responses from ANY member who cares to react


----------



## bobbee

Does this not contain information that appertains to the first _definite_ known wearing of a genuine * man's* wrist watch?
A bracelet watch is widely known to be a watch fastened to a chain or band at each end, which would require some kind of lug to affix each end to, thus making it a true wrist watch.

Dated to 1900, and the full page original pdf file was sent to an "expert" who claimed "they provide no new information".


----------



## eddywatch

What follows is a translation from French of EMRE's cutting; 
this implies that hallmarks were not put on Swiss wristwatches until 1890.

"The control (assay) of bracelet watches. -
We give below the text of a circular which
has just been sent to the assay authorities for 
articles of gold and silver concerning wrist-watches:
Berne, January 10, 1890.
Gentlemen,
The question we were asked was whether and on what conditions 
wrist-watches may be subject to hallmarking; 
this question requires detailed study due to the
fact that objects of this kind are at different times 
categorized as objects of jewellery and 
as objects of watchmaking, and that these two
categories of objects are, regarding hallmarking,
subject to different requirements.
We have the matter under review; at such time as it is completed
we will let you know the decisions we have taken to address the issue.
In the meantime, we have asked the
control authorities to cease hallmarking
(this applies to both at the present time):
a. watch cases destined to be mounted
in bracelets;
b. bracelets which it would be possible to attach
to watch cases after their passage through control.
The administrators will instruct their technical staff 
to comply punctually with the preceding.
Yours Truly, gentlemen, with assurances of our full consideration.
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade Division,
Droz."

I do possess a gold wristwatch of about 1890 which lacks hallmarks while at least some fob watches seem to have them.


----------



## bobbee

Well done Eddy!
Did you find anything using the search engines I linked to?
I have an article I posted on Watchophilia (the one from 1930, the after-dinner speech byHH Taub) that talks of getting the wrist watch moved from the luxuries or "gift" class, and placed in the "necessities" class in the 1920's. Article below.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

eddywatch said:


> What follows is a translation from French of EMRE's cutting;
> this implies that hallmarks were not put on Swiss wristwatches until 1890.
> 
> "The control (assay) of bracelet watches. -
> We give below the text of a circular which
> has just been sent to the assay authorities for
> articles of gold and silver concerning wrist-watches:
> Berne, January 10, 1890.
> Gentlemen,
> The question we were asked was whether and on what conditions
> wrist-watches may be subject to hallmarking;
> this question requires detailed study due to the
> fact that objects of this kind are at different times
> categorized as objects of jewellery and
> as objects of watchmaking, and that these two
> categories of objects are, regarding hallmarking,
> subject to different requirements.
> We have the matter under review; at such time as it is completed
> we will let you know the decisions we have taken to address the issue.
> In the meantime, we have asked the
> control authorities to cease hallmarking
> (this applies to both at the present time):
> a. watch cases destined to be mounted
> in bracelets;
> b. bracelets which it would be possible to attach
> to watch cases after their passage through control.
> The administrators will instruct their technical staff
> to comply punctually with the preceding.
> Yours Truly, gentlemen, with assurances of our full consideration.
> Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade Division,
> Droz."
> 
> I do possess a gold wristwatch of about 1890 which lacks hallmarks while at least some fob watches seem to have them.


eddywatch
Thanks for taking time to translate that.
There is an excellent thread on this forum by David Boetcher that explains his advanced research into the anomalies of the UK assay import on the vagrais between watch and watch cases around 1870 to 1900
Surely worth a read
You mention you possess a gold wristwatch of about 1890. Can you post pictures?

Once again
thanks
adam


----------



## bobbee

More very early evidence of ladies wrist watches, this is from the LoC's "Chronicling America" site, dates to
August 17, 1888 in the semi-weekly South Kentuckian.
This article means it may make it harder to spot ladies' wrist watches in old Photos. I have already seen several I suspect to be watches, some as early as 1884.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> More very early evidence of ladies wrist watches, this is from the LoC's "Chronicling America" site, dates to
> August 17, 1888 in the semi-weekly South Kentuckian.
> This article means it may make it harder to spot ladies' wrist watches in old Photos. I have already seen several I suspect to be watches, some as early as 1884.
> 
> View attachment 1509630


I can easily post about 30 photographs of ladies going back to 1810.
We know Breguet made one in 1810, and Patek Philippe in 1868.
I have a number of other examples (ladies) from 1835, 1840, 1850s and 1860s.

What I do not have is a ladies wristwatch from circa 1580, nor men wearing a wristwatch in 1800s

Regards


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> I can easily post about 30 photographs of ladies going back to 1810.
> We know Breguet made one in 1810, and Patek Philippe in 1868.
> I have a number of other examples (ladies) from 1835, 1840, 1850s and 1860s.
> 
> What I do not have is a ladies wristwatch from circa 1580, nor men wearing a wristwatch in 1800s
> 
> Regards


* 
PLEASE READ THE NAME OF THE THREAD!!!*

This is an American article about American ladies wearing wrist watches _in America_, at a time you did not believe was possible only a couple of days ago.

I am searching still, and have come up with what is the earliest known advert for an _American manufacturer_ of wrist watches.

Stan has one from 1912 that mentions the Ingersoll wrist watch.

This one has no picture either, and was posted in the "Bennington Evening Banner", published November 20th, 1908.

Here is the link to the page: The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, November 20, 1908, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress









Adam, I will try my hardest to find what you _want_, but stop complaining that the articles and adverts I post are not: new or interesting enough, or that you have this already or that already.

This thread or even the forum are not the Adam Harris show.

I want to help you, but I am finding it increasingly harder to keep that up.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Bob
I have never disputed ladies all over the world were wearing watches on their wrist very early
America in 1810? Not so sure USA. George Washington was just elected as first USA president in 1789!

America was still a embryonic country at that time.
1900 for sure maybe 1870s? Not sure
But I keep on saying apart from 1580 (on vintage forum) I am open to expect 'ladies' wristwatches after 1810 - but not 1580, as you appeared to accept!

I knew of 1912/13 some three years ago, as I already stated. Found by Stan (Literustyfan), you also found one 6 months earlier, but not 60 years.
But I am impressed you found the actual 1912 advert. Well Done. Really

Your latest 1908 advert, yes mentions a "wristwatch" - "encased in seal leather" ! Sounds like a wristlet to me?
I just bought an Ingersol advert showing it!

Keep on searching, it is greatly appreciated.
But
I will correct misunderstandings if need be.

If you find that criticism - like a ladies wristwatch in 1580 - sorry. I study Horology, not myth. I am always ready to learn and be corrected.
But I will stand up if I believe inaccurate info is being implied!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

PS to above
Both Literustyfan (Stan) and I know the picture of
Two American men wearing a wristwatch in 1911.
I own the original picture
Is it an American or a European watch, I personally can not tell
So we have 1911 for men with conventional watch and 1898 for wristlet.
adam


----------



## bobbee

I would dearly love to know just what you mean by:


> _But I keep on saying apart from 1580 (on vintage forum) I am open to expect 'ladies' wristwatches after 1810 - but not 1580, as you appeared to accept!_


If you are talking about Queen Elizabeth the first (as I suspect from the date, but not the diction), I have already mentioned this on WTF.
I quote from my own post:



> The earliest use of a watch on the wrist as plastered on the internet, is Good Queen Bess, in the form of an armlet given to her by the Earl of Leicester.
> "in the closing thearof a clocke, and in the forepart of the same a faire lozengie djamond without a foyle, hanging thearat a rounde juell fully garnished with dyamondes and a perle pendaunt."
> This is clearly designed to be worn on the forearm or wrist, and s recorded to 1571.
> I propose something regarding the above description. Could it not be 'locke' instead of 'clocke'? Makes more sense of the opening statement then, as in: "in the closing thearof a locke"., in other words, it closed with a lock.
> 16th. C. misprint?


That is my personal opinion, I think the historical record _is a possible misquote.

You still seem unable to accept that w/w's were being worn and sold in the US as early as 1888 and most likely earlier, and probably never will, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

_Glad to see how underwhelmed you were by my latest Ingersoll wrist watch advert. I expected nothing more.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> I would dearly love to know just what you mean by:
> 
> If you are talking about Queen Elizabeth the first (as I suspect from the date, but not the diction), I have already mentioned this on WTF.
> I quote from my own post:
> .


Bob
There were no wristwatches in 1580!
As I explained, watches were Fusee and Verge escapement, size of a base ball!

The picture shown does not show a wristwatch but a bracelet. Post it here, ask others.

It was not possible to make a wristwatch in 1500s Fact

How do you wear this on a wrist?

This is the type of "watch" that Robert Dudley would have been able to give circa 1560. Hardly a "wristwatch". But a most impressive piece.





*Note the size of movement - hardly thin. Its a Fusee with verge escapement.*




*Note too, just one hand - hours only!*


Regards
adam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Pictures courtesy of NAWCC Museum and must not be reproduced without agreement.

Finally, please do not post to impress me, post as you wish.
As Radger pointed out "This is not "my" show


----------



## bobbee

I read your post, but found that it brought nothing new to our understanding of Horology, nor did it contain anything I did not already know.

I already have lots of pictures of old clocks and watches.

I have the oldest advert for a wristlet or wrist watch ever seen before.
I have the oldest known American wrist watch advert.
I have the oldest picture advert for an American manufacturer. (Ingersoll)
I have the oldest advert (no pictures) for an American manufacturer. (also Ingersoll)

_How do YOU like it?

_


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> I read your post, but found that it brought nothing new to our understanding of Horology, nor did it contain anything I did not already know.
> 
> I already have lots of pictures of old clocks and watches.
> 
> I have the oldest advert for a wristlet or wrist watch ever seen before.
> I have the oldest known American wrist watch advert.
> I have the oldest picture advert for an American manufacturer. (Ingersoll)
> I have the oldest advert (no pictures) for an American manufacturer. (also Ingersoll)
> 
> _How do YOU like it?
> 
> _


If its correct it is fine to me.

I am not sure if you are quoting me or your self?

You should try sticking to the facts and not personal attacks.

Was the Canadian Sailor wearing a conventional wristwatch? Nope, not a chance.

Was Queen Elizibeth I wearing a wristwatch in 1580? Nope not a chance.

Did Literustyfan prove that American manufacturer make wristwatches in 1913? Yes, was I hurt? Nope. I found for him the advert.
Did Literustyfan find pictures of American men wearing wristwatches in 1911? Yes, was I hurt? Nope.

Stop taking the fact ' I question' everything as criticism.
As I say, I study "Horology" not "myth"

So far apart from one great find of the Ingersoll advert to 1912, nothing you posted changes my understanding of Horology.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> Yes, that is a very large 16thC Verge but very small verge watches were also made at this time.
> Charles V had a watch set into a ring.
> 
> Andreas Heinlin, of Nurenberg was famous for his little watches, they were set into musk or perfume boxes.
> 
> Archbishop Parker left in his will in 1575 his cane with a watch set in the top.
> 
> There are three very small 16thC Verge watches in the Kensington Museum, one is mounted in a rock crystal form of the cross.
> There are many others, I have books which detail them.


Then I stand corrected
Thanks
adam


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Bob
> There were no wristwatches in 1580!
> As I explained, watches were Fusee and Verge escapement, size of a base ball!
> 
> The picture shown does not show a wristwatch but a bracelet. Post it here, ask others.
> 
> It was not possible to make a wristwatch in 1500s Fact
> 
> How do you wear this on a wrist?
> 
> This is the type of "watch" that Robert Dudley would have been able to give circa 1560. Hardly a "wristwatch". But a most impressive piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the size of movement - hardly thin. Its a Fusee with verge escapement.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note too, just one hand - hours only!*
> 
> 
> Regards
> adam
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Pictures courtesy of NAWCC Museum and must not be reproduced without agreement.
> 
> Finally, please do not post to impress me, post as you wish.
> As Radger pointed out "This is not "my" show


Yes, that is a very large 16thC Verge but very small verge watches were also made at this time.
Charles V had a watch set into a ring.

Andreas Heinlin, of Nurenberg was famous for his little watches, they were set into musk or perfume boxes.

Archbishop Parker left in his will in 1575 his cane with a watch set in the top.

There are three very small 16thC Verge watches in the Kensington Museum, one is mounted in a rock crystal form of the cross.
There are many others, I have books which detail them.

The watch you show and describe as a fusee, looks to me to be a going barrel.


----------



## bobbee

> So far apart from one great find of the Ingersoll advert to 1912, nothing you posted changes my understanding of Horology.


If only your understanding of us humans was as legendary.

You do not "question" you simply deny, even with the evidence sent to you.
What about the 1908 Ingersoll ad? What is that, something you "knew"?

Now please stop posting on this thread.
Moderators, help.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> Yes, that is a very large 16thC Verge but very small verge watches were also made at this time.
> Charles V had a watch set into a ring.
> 
> Andreas Heinlin, of Nurenberg was famous for his little watches, they were set into musk or perfume boxes.
> 
> Archbishop Parker left in his will in 1575 his cane with a watch set in the top.
> 
> There are three very small 16thC Verge watches in the Kensington Museum, one is mounted in a rock crystal form of the cross.
> There are many others, I have books which detail them.


Then I stand corrected. Thanks.
Small enough to be worn on a wrist (flat)?

Thanks


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Then I stand corrected. Thanks.
> Small enough to be worn on a wrist (flat)?
> 
> Thanks


Hmmm well it wouldn't be a super slim watch but I think the Elizabethan aristocracy liked their
jewelry 'chunky'. Draped in large showy diamonds and rubies, a tiny verge set in an 'armlet' isn't
impossible.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> Hmmm well it wouldn't be a super slim watch but I think the Elizabethan aristocracy liked their
> jewelry 'chunky'. Draped in large showy diamonds and rubies, a tiny verge set in an 'armlet' isn't
> impossible.


This is super thin, will post pics to-morrow.
Off to bed now.
Can you post pics of the small size ones you mentioned
Thanks
adam


----------



## bobbee

literustyfan posted:


> I'd say that it is pretty safe to say that this Ingersoll Wrist Watch first came to the market place in 1912 as Ingersoll called this the "new model wrist watch".


I was wondering if you missed this Stan, as the thread is absolutely all over the place now!
1908 advert for the Ingersoll watches.

The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, November 20, 1908, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress


----------



## gatorcpa

bobbee said:


> If only your understanding of us humans was as legendary.
> 
> You do not "question" you simply deny, even with the evidence sent to you.
> What about the 1908 Ingersoll ad? What is that, something you "knew"?
> 
> Now please stop posting on this thread.
> Moderators, help.


Frankly, I'm not pleased that reasonable people cannot except differences in opinion and that you are requesting that someone stop posting on this thread simply because you don't agree with their opinion and they don't agree with yours.

Isn't this tension how we discover new things about horology? I would recommend embracing it, rather than only hearing your own voice. Kind of like the sound of one hand clapping. Try it sometime.

After reading this post, I am somewhat confused about the point of it. I agree with Adam in that I believe that wristwatches were worn by certain wealthy elites well before the founding of the US. Do I have any facts to back this up? No. Can I point to a specific date or reference? No, and I'm not prepared to spend years in the library doing the research. I base this on just how easy it would be for a person of virtually limitless resources to have a goldsmith custom make a bracelet to hold a pocket watch around the neck or wrist (or both -- see the Hamilton convertible watches of the late 1910's). Remember that were talking about people that were wealthy beyond our wildest imagination and they could easily afford customization of anything they wanted.

I appreciate the finding of these advertisements that show that watch companies began to mass-market wristwatches. Whether the earliest 1908 ad for wristwatches is targeting men, women or both isn't clear, but the 1912 Ingersoll ad is. So now, we are pushing the bar back in time, at least with respect to men's wristwatches.

However, the mention of wristwatches in news articles is meaningless to me (note that I said, "to me" and not "to everyone"), since such articles do not mention the makers of the watch or the origins of the case. The fact that the German Kaiser wore a wristwatch in 1880 is interesting but it doesn't prove that this is the "first" wristwatch, since it would just be so easy for that Kaiser's ancestors to have commissioned and worn such a piece years earlier...without a mention in the newspaper, in English, no less.

The invention of the leather wrist encasement is far more interesting to me, since it represents a form of wristwatch that was easily convertible. Also, such a case was well within the means of the growing middle class in the late 1800's. From the advertising you've supplied, it seems that these were avaliable quite a bit earlier than I originally thought. Although it seems that they were not widely used until WWI.

What is still murky to me after all this back and forth is when the first true wristwatch was marketed to men, as women's wrist (and convertible) watches began to be advertised at least as early as the 1880's, per your advertisements.

Can you tell that I put far more stock in period advertising (particularly brand-speciifc) than in news articles?

Let's all try to get along, please?
gatorcpa


----------



## Eeeb

bobbee said:


> ...
> Now please stop posting on this thread.
> Moderators, help.


Anyone is free to post in this thread if the post is relevant.

You and Adam seem to have a personality conflict. To the rest of us the back and forth is getting repetitive and somewhat tiresome...

I suggest a truce... or, at least, a cooling off period.


----------



## Sdasurrey

Eeeb said:


> I suggest a truce... or, at least, a cooling off period.


NUFF SAID !!!!!!!!

Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Eeeb said:


> To the rest of us the back and forth is getting repetitive and somewhat tiresome...
> 
> I suggest a truce... or, at least, a cooling off period.


Fair point EEEb.
I remove myself from this thread.

I have studied and continue to research the beginning of the wristwatch.
I am content that the display exhibition I set up at NAWCC is as accurate as can be, based on relevant info known to-day.

I put that display up with full openness, showing every step, both pictures and thoughts, it has already been scrutinized by many.

Does that mean nothing new will be found? Nope, not at all.

@Gatorcpa. Thanks your correct post

Bye
Adam


----------



## Eeeb

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> ...
> Bye
> Adam


I did not mean for anyone to leave and deprive us of their views and expertise and contributions. What I meant is the 'personality' elements of the posts are not enjoyed.


----------



## bobbee

Pax.


----------



## Okapi001

Ring with watch and Crucifixion triptych with instruments of the Passion, Jakob Weiss, gold and enamel, c.1585.


----------



## Okapi001

A conservator opens the lid of a Colombian emerald watch, seen alongside a gild brass verge watch - part of the Cheapside Hoard, the world's largest collection of Elizabethan and early Stuart jewellery. (dated to c. 1650).








They made some quite small watches back then;-)


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> This is super thin, will post pics to-morrow.
> Off to bed now.
> Can you post pics of the small size ones you mentioned
> Thanks
> adam


I'm afraid I can't post pics of the watches I mentioned. Apart from the three in the Kensington
museum, I don't know if the watches exist anymore although they are well described in books.

'Curiosities of Clocks and Watches' by E.J Wood gives a good description of various small 16thC watches,
many of these will have been lost over the years and are now only mentioned in contemporary writings.

Okapis' excellent pic of the 16thC ring watch surely proves that they could make small watches at this time.
If they could wear a watch in a ring then it's not impossible that a watch could be set into an 'armlet'...

I'm sure a photo will pop up eventually on Ebay of William Shakespeare or some other prominant Elizabethan
wearing their wristwatch


----------



## Tomcat1960

Shakespeare, by all accounts, may have been prominent, but wealthy he was not. I think one has to look to Elisabethan nobility to hit upon people with the means to commission such a small watch. ;-)


Regards,
Tomcat

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## radger

Tomcat1960 said:


> Shakespeare, by all accounts, may have been prominent, but wealthy he was not. I think one has to look to Elisabethan nobility to hit upon people with the means to commission such a small watch. ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> Tomcat
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're probably right Tomcat, poor ol Shakespeare possibly had one of these....





This is wristwatch sized and could have been fitted with lugs!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> I'm afraid I can't post pics of the watches I mentioned. Apart from the three in the Kensington
> museum, I don't know if the watches exist anymore although they are well described in books.
> 
> 'Curiosities of Clocks and Watches' by E.J Wood gives a good description of various small 16thC watches,
> many of these will have been lost over the years and are now only mentioned in contemporary writings.
> 
> Okapis' excellent pic of the 16thC ring watch surely proves that they could make small watches at this time.
> If they could wear a watch in a ring then it's not impossible that a watch could be set into an 'armlet'...
> 
> I'm sure a photo will pop up eventually on Ebay of William Shakespeare or some other prominant Elizabethan
> wearing their wristwatch


Well I did my own research, ans surely the watch I posted was larger than many as it incorporated an alarm

That said, I checked many books especially "400 Hundred Years of Watchmaking" and L Horlogerie de Geneve

Watches of 1600s (say 1650) were still pretty large. Could be worn as a pendant but never on the wrist.

Examples are Octagonal Rock Crystal Watch, quite small for a pendant - never a wristwatch. Dated 1620. Pectoral Cross Watch - 1640

I found a very small Opera Glass Telescope watch - could possible fit a bulky wrist watch - Date? 1760 (not 1580)

I found Louis XVI Ring Watch - Circa 1770

First Ladies bracelet watch pictured is 1835 (We do know Breguet made one in 1810.

But surely nothing that could be worn on a wrist in 1500s or 1600s.

Sorry to respond in this thread, but post was for directly me.

I can post pictures and details of any these pieces.

@Okapi001 
Thanks your posts and pictures. Nice pieces, they confirm my points that early pieces were not ready to be worn flat on a wrist! and that is 1650, let alone 1580!

Thanks


----------



## Okapi001

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> But surely nothing that could be worn on a wrist in 1500s or 1600s.
> ...
> @Okapi001
> Thanks your posts and pictures. Nice pieces, they confirm my points that early pieces were not ready to be worn flat on a wrist! and that is 1650, let alone 1580!


What's wrong with you? Both watches - the one in the ring (1585) and the one in the emerald - are small enough to be worn on a wrist. Not like a super slim modern wristwatch, but nevertheless. And of course it doesn't mean that such small watches were actually used as a wristwatches, but they were small enough for the purpose.


----------



## Emre

I thought we can put together the years, the makers to trace it further and dig in.I don't think that all makers were into writ-watches back then,so for the sake of having all under one topic :

These are all from the 'La Federation Horlogere Suisse ' :

2 Sept 1906








2 Sept 1906








3 Nov 1907








1 Mar 1908


----------



## radger

Okapi001 said:


> What's wrong with you? Both watches - the one in the ring (1585) and the one in the emerald - are small enough to be worn on a wrist. Not like a super slim modern wristwatch, but nevertheless. And of course it doesn't mean that such small watches were actually used as a wristwatches, but they were small enough for the purpose.


Thank you Okapi,
That was exactly my point too.


----------



## bobbee

These adverts confirm your watches above, exact dates and publications shown in each one.

1903, New York.
This watch is very similar, but not identical, to the one shown above.









1907, Sydney, Australia.









1908, Brisbane, Australia.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Okapi001 said:


> What's wrong with you? Both watches - the one in the ring (1585) and the one in the emerald - are small enough to be worn on a wrist. Not like a super slim modern wristwatch, but nevertheless. And of course it doesn't mean that such small watches were actually used as a wristwatches, but they were small enough for the purpose.


OkapiOO1.
First try to be civil and polite. There is nothing wrong with me, so I add to my post "in my opinion"

Now can you please post for me a the earliest picture you can find of a bracelet wristwatch (mans or womans) prior to 1800.

That is all I am looking for, as I wonder for all these arguments and pictures of ring watches, pendant watches, why no one can post a picture of a bracelet watch?

Thanks your efforts
adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Emre said:


> I thought we can put together the years, the makers to trace it further and dig in.I don't think that all makers were into writ-watches back then,so for the sake of having all under one topic :
> 
> These are all from the 'La Federation Horlogere Suisse ' :
> 
> 2 Sept 1906
> View attachment 1511593
> 
> 
> 2 Sept 1906
> View attachment 1511594
> 
> 
> 3 Nov 1907
> View attachment 1511595
> 
> 
> 1 Mar 1908
> View attachment 1511596


Hi Emre
The 1906 advert I have.
I also have 1908 showing both mans and womans version.

I know that the first publication of this advert was 1904 ( I can not locate it yet) but do have the 1906 copy.

The earliest wristwatch (ladies) advert I have is 1892. (I already posted a picture as proof)
Can anyone get older than that?

Regards
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Hi Emre
> The 1906 advert I have.
> I also have 1908 showing both mans and womans version.
> 
> I know that the first publication of this advert was 1904 ( I can not locate it yet) but do have the 1906 copy.
> 
> The earliest wristwatch (ladies) advert I have is 1892. (I already posted a picture as proof)
> Can anyone get older than that?
> 
> Regards
> adam


Again, from May, 1888, Lincoln, Nebraska.

At the bottom of the advert is a link address to the page this ad came from.

Both a Lady's bracelet watch and a man's leather wristlet watch, as can be seen from the difference in sizes.
As can also be seen from the link address, the source is impeccable.

I hope this helps.
Bob.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Thanks Bob
I had missed that.
Yes now 1888 hold the record
Great stuff.
Thank You
adam


----------



## bobbee

An interesting article containing artists drawings of the watches. Dec. 1894.

Link to full page:St. Paul daily globe. (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, November 18, 1894, Page 11, Image 11 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress


----------



## Emre

Adam,I started thinking that British were more advanced in accepting timepieces on wrists.I've had a look to my 1904 entries and scanned also my Swiss references with no luck.It should be somewhere,but where?Maybe British chronicles could help further.


----------



## Okapi001

https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/article/origins-of-the-wristwatch-before-1900-1/


> In his _Histoire de Port Royal_, Gazier notes that *Pascal (1623-1662) wore his watch on his wrist.* In May 1927, _L'Horloger_ published a vintage engraving showing four horses drawing a chassis on wheels. One of the riders clearly has a watch attached to his sleeve. The scene recalls a wager thrown down by the Earl of March, future Marquess of Queensberry, for a four-wheeled carriage to travel 19 miles in an hour. An attempt was made on August 29th, 1750 and the distance covered in 53 minutes and 27 seconds. The 1772 _Almanach du Dauphin_ makes reference to the bracelet-watches and ring-watches of a Parisian watchmaker on Rue de Buci. An entry in the ledgers of Jacquet-Droz et Leschot in Geneva for 1790 describes "a watch that can be set into a bracelet." While both private and museum collections include numerous ring-watches from various eras, the oldest-known surviving bracelet-watches date from the very early nineteenth century,


----------



## bobbee

The design of the ladies watch is very similar to the one in your 1892 advert.

A bracelet watch identical to the one that eddywatch owns, this one from 1887, his own he believes to be circa 1890 as mentioned in another post:


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> The design of the ladies watch is very similar to the one in your 1892 advert.
> 
> A bracelet watch identical to the one that eddywatch owns, this one from 1887, his own he believes to be circa 1890 as mentioned in another post:


Hi
This is a pocket watch, set in an expandable bangle. I own 2 or 3 of these

Here is one example of mine: Fantastic piece!









Now based on this, I can probably demonstrate a ladies wristwatch from 1800, maybe earlier?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Okapi001 said:


> https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/article/origins-of-the-wristwatch-before-1900-1/


Yep, it could have been his pocket watch, we just do not know.
What we do know, and what I am trying to explain is "_While both private and museum collections include numerous ring-watches from various eras, the oldest-known surviving bracelet-watches _date_ from the very early nineteenth century,"

_So I agree to journal.hautehorlogerie


----------



## Okapi001

> Rare late 18th century pearl set gold * bracelet watch* with visible balance. Row of paste borders the white enamel dial with Arabic numerals and blue steel hands.
> 
> *Circa 1790 *











The original webpage: http://www.antique-watch.com/idxa/wrist.html
is no longer available

Found on:
Wrist watches, Cowboy photos etc - TheShootists.co.uk

I have no idea if the dating is correct, nor do I have any other info on that watch.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Okapi001 said:


> View attachment 1511755
> 
> 
> The original webpage: http://www.antique-watch.com/idxa/wrist.html
> is no longer awailable
> 
> Found on:
> Wrist watches, Cowboy photos etc - TheShootists.co.uk
> 
> I have no idea if the dating is correct, nor do I have any other info on that watch.


That is cool
So we now have a possible 1790 for a wristwatch (ladies)
Thanks. That is 20 years earlier than I have
Adam


----------



## Okapi001

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> So I agree to journal.hautehorlogerie


So you agree that they exist, but they were rare and not one survived to this date. Or perhaps, if the one I've just posted is indeed from 1790, at least one did survive;-)


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Okapi001 said:


> So you agree that they exist, but they were rare and not one survived to this date. Or perhaps, if the one I've just posted is indeed from 1790, at least one did survive;-)


I am not sure if they existed, I study Horology not clairvoyance.
What I feel is if they did exist it was not earlier than 1700.

I am very curious to know why:
1) None at all survive to-day
2) Breguet is clearly mentioned as making the first ladies wristwatch for Queen of Naples in 1810.

That said, I am sure ultra wealthy 'Queens' and 'Nobility' had the possibility to commission a piece of watch jewelry for their wrist.


----------



## Eeeb

bobbee said:


> The design of the ladies watch is very similar to the one in your 1892 advert.
> 
> A bracelet watch identical to the one that eddywatch owns, this one from 1887, his own he believes to be circa 1890 as mentioned in another post:


Not all forums are open like WUS. Some require you to join before you can see their posts. This picture will not display for those of us who are not logged in members of the forum from which you linked it. So the vast majority of us can not see it.

(I think this is just one more reason WUS is vastly more popular than any other watch forum |> ... Thanks Ernie!)


----------



## Eeeb

Okapi001 said:


> What's wrong with you?...


This is what I would call a personal attacking response. It has no place on WUS. Please be more careful in your future postings.

As I have said before, we will not always agree. But we have no reason to be disagreeable. Being disagreeable shifts the focus from discussing, commenting, researching, and coming to consensus (if that is possible). It creates a corrosive atmosphere.

I realize it is common on Internet forums but WUS (and especially the Vintage Forum) tries to be different.

Your cooperation is appreciated.


----------



## bobbee

Early Gruen w/w advert for a military watch. July 1916.

Link to the source: El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, July 29, 1916, HOME EDITION, Page 4, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress


----------



## bobbee

The watch has two crowns and bows, just like the one in your 1892 ad, and the 1888 brcelet watch in the ad.
One crown/bow will be a dummy, added to affix to the bracelets, as shown.
Bob.


----------



## Monocrom

Very interesting collection of articles.


----------



## Hartmut Richter

I must say that I feel an urgent need to step up and give my co-moderator some verbal support here. I have been monitoring this thread to the greatest possible extent (currently slightly limited by lack of time) and am glad that Eeeb has handled it so far. If it had been me, my thumb would have been itching on the closure button several times up to now! I am surprised that Eeeb has been so patient so far and would remind everyone (particularly the more irascible members) that forum etiquette requires a certain level of civility, even if one isn't of the same opinion as other parties. This is a topic that may well not have a single truth to it anyway (a lot depends on how exactly you define a wrist watch) so if a concensus can't be reached, it may well be time to simply agree to differ.

On the whole, closure would be a pity since there is a lot of valuable information being collected here. Please remember that through your posts and actions, you all also have indirect control over how long the thread is allowed to continue.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> The watch has two crowns and bows, just like the one in your 1892 ad, and the 1888 brcelet watch in the ad.
> One crown/bow will be a dummy, added to affix to the bracelets, as shown.
> Bob.


Bob
What has?

Two crowns and two bows and two bows usually means a pocket watch with a dummy crown at '6' to balance up the pocket watch


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Bob
> What has?
> 
> Two crowns and two bows and two bows usually means a pocket watch with a dummy crown at '6' to balance up the pocket watch


As I have already said in my post you quote from.

As to "what has", your 1892 advert has:










The 1888 advert I found has:










All exactly the same fitting as the watch below, two crowns.

In fact, the example below is almost an exact match to the bracelet watcch in the 1892 advert above, albeit with one replacement crown.










And totally different to the one you posted in reply to the above watch that I posted. Yours is a simple bracelet clasp designed to hold an ordinary pocket watch and so similar in design to a "wristlet", whereas the above are pocket or pendant watches that have been altered to have a "lug" at either end so as to fix it to a bracelet, making them into a true wrist watch, the same as any early 1900's wrist watch.

Here is the one you posted in reply tro my original post:










I
hope this clears up any confusion you are having.
With respect,

Bob.


----------



## Emre

That's the earliest I can find 9 Aug 1896, just mentioning, no photos:









The 'Hermetic' case is bonus

Schild Freres wrist-watch case patent with lugs, CH 29976, 20 Jan 1904: Espacenet - Original document


----------



## bobbee

Excellent find Emre!
I wonder at the odd lugs in the Schild patent document? Why two different ones, when symmetry was more the fashion.


----------



## Emre

Good question Bob. In the original patent, the letter 'c' is marked with the explanation of a pin used between the lugs and the case to attach them each other.


----------



## bobbee

In reply to both you and Ernie, I think some of the frustration that arises is caused by the non-linear set up of the way the threads are.
If the latest post was the last shown, and the one before that, and the one before ad infinitum, it would clear things up a little.
as it is, one has to keep track in the window at the top of the thread, and some comments and posts can easily be missed.
Maybe it can be gotten used to in time, but personally I think the linear thread is simpler, easier to follow, and keeps things in a "temporal" flow. At the moment, the constant off shoots are extremely hard to follow, and make for missed posts all the time, as Adam has missed one of my earliest contributions on page 4, and until I re-posted it ten or so pages later, he did not know of it. This made me think I was possibly being snubbed, and raised my teperature a little, but since realising he had missed it, I think the air has cleared a little, at least it has for me.

The "Family Tree" nature of the thread has made for many missed posts I think. It should be possible to "quote" a post and it appear on the last page, instead of either clicking on "last poster" on the right on the main forum page, and having only that post show up, or hunting through the whole thread, so as to follow the last few posts. Very time consuming and frustrating if you ask me.
But maybe I'm wrong, and I am doing something incorrectly?
Bob.

EDIT- I think you will know what I mean when you see that this is posted on page 16, when an ad I posted three hours ago is on page 17! 
There has been several posts since that ad was posted, yet it appears the last in line.???

We ought to keep it linear, like time itself. After all, this whole site is about timekeepers! :-D


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

bobbee said:


> In reply to both you and Ernie, I think some of the frustration that arises is caused by the non-linear set up of the way the threads are.
> If the latest post was the last shown, and the one before that, and the one before ad infinitum, it would clear things up a little.
> as it is, one has to keep track in the window at the top of the thread, and some comments and posts can easily be missed.
> Maybe it can be gotten used to in time, but personally I think the linear thread is simpler, easier to follow, and keeps things in a "temporal" flow. At the moment, the constant off shoots are extremely hard to follow, and make for missed posts all the time, as Adam has missed one of my earliest contributions on page 4, and until I re-posted it ten or so pages later, he did not know of it. This made me think I was possibly being snubbed, and raised my teperature a little, but since realising he had missed it, I think the air has cleared a little, at least it has for me.
> 
> The "Family Tree" nature of the thread has made for many missed posts I think. It should be possible to "quote" a post and it appear on the last page, instead of either clicking on "last poster" on the right on the main forum page, and having only that post show up, or hunting through the whole thread, so as to follow the last few posts. Very time consuming and frustrating if you ask me.
> But maybe I'm wrong, and I am doing something incorrectly?
> Bob.
> 
> EDIT- I think you will know what I mean when you see that this is posted on page 16, when an ad I posted three hours ago is on page 17!
> There has been several posts since that ad was posted, yet it appears the last in line.???
> 
> We ought to keep it linear, like time itself. After all, this whole site is about timekeepers! :-D


The forum software allows a couple of different display options that can be changed to suit your taste. I use "linear" mode, which orders the posts as you describe.

Here's how to change it


----------



## Eeeb

The forum software allows one to read posts linearly (in chronological order of posting) or in threaded mode (ala TRN if you know Unix). It is your option. The default in linear but I rarely use it.

In threaded mode (I use the hybrid form - not sure what the difference is) a thread first starts with a tree showing what post is in response to what post. It also highlights which posts have not been read (by you).

You can then browse down the discussion tree and right click on the beginning of a branch you have not read. You can then display it in a new tab. Or you can just scroll down the discussions which are now arranged in order of the threading (with responses to a post displayed directly after that post).

I find threaded mode the only way to truly understand complex threads where there are a number of simultaneous sub topics being discussed. If a person does not quote the post they are commenting upon, you can not understand what is happening sometimes without this tool. 

I started using it when I moderated in High Accuracy Quartz where the scientists there can produce threads that make this one look simple :-d

Anyone can try out this display mode by going to "Settings" in the upper right of every forum page then looking for "Thread Display Mode"... as I said, I use Hybrid.

EDIT: Ben's post shows how to change the display mode for a single thread! Maybe better for most.


----------



## bobbee

thnx, me got sor hed fulla rox.

DOH! What a dum-dum.

I should explore the site more, no?


----------



## Eeeb

bobbee said:


> thnx, me got sor hed fulla rox.
> 
> DOH! What a dum-dum.
> 
> I should explore the site more, no?


Don't feel bad. Even other moderators have not known about it!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> As I have already said in my post you quote from.
> 
> As to "what has", your 1892 advert has:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1888 advert I found has:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All exactly the same fitting as the watch below, two crowns.
> 
> In fact, the example below is almost an exact match to the bracelet watcch in the 1892 advert above, albeit with one replacement crown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And totally different to the one you posted in reply to the above watch that I posted. Yours is a simple bracelet clasp designed to hold an ordinary pocket watch and so similar in design to a "wristlet", whereas the above are pocket or pendant watches that have been altered to have a "lug" at either end so as to fix it to a bracelet, making them into a true wrist watch, the same as any early 1900's wrist watch.
> 
> Here is the one you posted in reply tro my original post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> hope this clears up any confusion you are having.
> With respect,
> 
> Bob.


Gotcha now.
You know, I never even noticed my advert was a 'two' crown watch. Too interested in the date!

The second crown at '6' is just cosmetic to balance up the watch.

The clip I displayed could easily hold a 'two' crown watch as yours does.
Both the bracelet you show (gold) color and the one I display (silver) are doing the same purpose that is holding a small ladies pocket or indeed pendant watch to then wear on wrist.
You can see on your (gold) bracelet clips on the side of the watch to hold a standard pocket watch.

The actual pocket watch (being interchangeable) can not date the bracelet wristwatch in any way.

Thanks for explaining.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Emre said:


> That's the earliest I can find 9 Aug 1896, just mentioning, no photos:
> 
> View attachment 1512235
> 
> 
> The 'Hermetic' case is bonus
> 
> Schild Freres wrist-watch case patent with lugs, CH 29976, 20 Jan 1904: Espacenet - Original document
> 
> View attachment 1512237


Good find. I had hoped the 1896 picture would have a patent number.

I think I have a 1902 patent for a conventional wristwatch - searching!
Thanks
UPDATE
No I had that 1904 one.


----------



## bobbee

Found this snippet in two French pubs. "Gil Blas" and "le "Figaro", same date.

From the list of gifts for the Bride and Groom, Wedding of Ernest 10th. Prince of Ligne, to Diane de Bressac.

January 1887.









1913, Le Modes, Paris.









Close-up of above.









Same year, same publication as above.









close-up.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Cool pictures.
1912 and 1913 are spot on for these style converted pendant watches, we can find even earlier.
I have three on display at NAWCC Museum, I can not remember the earliest converted pendant I show?

But I like the pictures a lot!

The advert, yes we know well after 1810 it started, maybe even 1790!.
Adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Cool pictures.
> 1912 and 1913 are spot on for these style converted pendant watches, we can find even earlier.
> I have three on display at NAWCC Museum, I can not remember the earliest converted pendant I show?
> 
> But I like the pictures a lot!
> 
> The advert, yes we know well after 1810 it started, maybe even 1790!.
> Adam


I will look for photos!


----------



## bobbee

1912advert from La Femina magazine.









1913 advert.









1915 advert. Very unusual picture cover.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

The last one is a range of watches made by Racine, that had the pictures of the Generals from each coutry (Britain, France, USA and Germany)
I posted pictures of the watch and advert some where here before

Here you go
1915


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Still my favourite advert - 1914. Its just fantastic.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Here you go, from NAWCC display.
I have 5 early ladies wristwatches (all different) based on pendants.
*Earliest 1902!!
*

*The whole first display 1900 to 1920 - You can see a rare WALTHAM 'Pershing' dial wristwatch at far end!*


----------



## bobbee

1914 Waltham Military wrist watch advert.









Date on screen grab.









Does anyone have one earlier? Just thinking of posting on a milwatch site.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I have June 1914

And I have this super one


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I have Ladies Waltham 1912


----------



## bobbee

Here are some adverts found in copies of the "Journal des internes Francais", dating to different weekly editions during 1917, more to come when found.

































Here are a couple from 1912 editions of "Femina" magazine.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

cool
Thanks for posting these


----------



## Literustyfan

The early Waltham Military Wrist Watch adverts are sort of hard to come by.

I might have one from 1913 that I found in Canada a few years ago, some kind of advertising publication that did nothing but discuss advertising campaigns.

I can't remember the name of the publication at this moment but I've got the advert in a box in my shop storage closet, I'll see if I can't dig it out later.

Waltham did very little advertising in the United States in pre-1913 - 1914, the very early ones were mostly found in the UK and in Canada.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

My favourite Waltham advert.
Its on display at NAWCC wristwatch display.


----------



## Literustyfan

Adam,

Have you noticed that many of the very early Waltham Military Watches had what some would consider (me included) a "civilian" type dial rather than a "military" type dial?

This is especially true in advertising found in the UK.

Just about everything had a Roman or Arabic fonts, especially very early on say 1914-1916.

Waltham used a lot of exact the same dials for almost 20 years for their size 3/0s and 0s watches from 1914 - 1934.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Literustyfan said:


> Adam,
> 
> Have you noticed that many of the very early Waltham Military Watches had what some would consider (me included) a "civilian" type dial rather than a "military" type dial?
> 
> This is especially true in advertising found in the UK.
> 
> Just about everything had a Roman or Arabic fonts, especially very early on say 1914-1916.
> 
> Waltham used a lot of exact the same dials for almost 20 years for their size 3/0s and 0s watches from 1914 - 1934.


Interesting.
To be honest I never thought about it.
I wonder if its because Britain, had no specification in 1914 - 1919 for military watches (timepieces)
So the Swiss and Americans just offered standard dials.
USA had an ORD specification, and hence that became the 'military' standard with Radium, boxed dial fonts?

Just a guess?


----------



## bobbee

Some more early photographs from Le Modes (Paris) magazines.

1919 Cartier wristwatch.









This one from a 1913 edition of Le Modes shows that w/w's were being purpose-made quite early, not just converted chatelaine and pocket watches.









These are really early photos of models and fashionable young ladies wearing wrist watches.

All are from 1911.









Close-up of above.

















close-up of above.


----------



## bobbee

1911 Omega advert, with mans and ladies wrist watches.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Cool.
I just bought the 1908 mans and ladies version and the 1906 with ladies only.
Waiting their arrival.
Although I already posted the 1906 version, its not mine, I only have a copy.
Now I have my own 1908!! (mans and womans)


----------



## bobbee

Another 1912 Ingersoll wrist watch advert, NY Times. YAY!









Blow-up.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Thats a very interesting advert. Great find.
Notice the watch is worn on the right hand side wrist?
Right hand side crown now points out.
Very interesting
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Thats a very interesting advert. Great find.
> Notice the watch is worn on the right hand side wrist?
> Right hand side crown now points out.
> Very interesting
> adam


Thanks Adam.
I wonder if the picture could be a reversed one of the original, which would put it on the left wrist with the crown on the right of the case?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

No. I do not think so for a number of reasons I a can explain. 
Advert is correct and what I would have expected. 
Watches started off on inside of right hand wrist. 
Adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

OK
I know Omega launched their mans wristwatch in 1902 (I have one dated 1908)

I know Omega made first wristwatch advert 1904.
I have copies of it from 1906.

Here are original adverts

*A 1906 advert Showing only the ladies model. Crown on Left Hand Side.*


*Here now is the 1908 advert showing Mans and Ladies. Left hand crown - same as mine.*


So I know an advert exists for 1904 (never found it yet), I had a copy of 1906 advert. Now I have my own master 1906 and 1908 wristwatch adverts.
To-date these are the earliest known wristwatch adverts with pictures of 'conventional' style (as we know to-day) wristwatches!!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

and the 1908 actual watch.
Authenticate by Omega as a genuine left hand crown.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I really wonder if we are ever going to 'beat':
1912 for a USA mans wristwatch advert (picture)
and
1906 for a European mans.

I was proven wrong on USA, originally claiming 1916/15. Then by Literustyfan 1913. Now we have 1912 {just (december 29th!)} But 1912 exist.

Can we find 1904 for Europe and 1910 for American manufacturers. I hope so!

Just for your info, when I entered Horology only some 10 years ago, my great Swiss mentor Mme Cinette Robert told me "Adam we do not even know who made and when the first wristwatches were worn"
That became my goal.
Omega was first in Europe, and Ingersoll in USA although i feel Elgin was first in acceptance

Sincerely
Adam


----------



## bobbee

Some watch ads from Germany, 1914 onwards.

April 1914, Die Muskete, I think it is a trench pamphlet.
Ladies Eterna.









Dec. 1914, Neues 8 uhr Blatt.
Graziosa.









June 1915, Die Muskete.
Eterna mens trench watch.









Nov. 1915, Die Muskete.
Officers reading "Die Muskete". one wearing a watch.









Dec. 1915, Die Muskete.
Ladies Longines.









Aug. 1916.
Eterna but with "Dante" on dial.









Aug. 1916
unknown model.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

That is very neat, I would like to own that
Thanks for finding. Great picture
Adam


----------



## bobbee

July 1918 Eterna ad.


----------



## bobbee

Here is a link to the actual edition Adam.

http://data.onb.ac.at/ANNO/mus19151104?query="armbanduhr"&provider=P02&ref=anno-search


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Here is a link to the actual edition Adam.
> 
> http://data.onb.ac.at/ANNO/mus19151104?query=%22armbanduhr%22&provider=P02&ref=anno-search


Thanks will study to-morrow
Thanks
A


----------



## gatorcpa

bobbee said:


> Some watch ads from Germany, 1914 onwards.
> 
> April 1914, Die Muskete, I think it is a trench pamphlet.


Checked your link. The literal translation of the subtitle is "Humorous Journal". I think this was a satirical magazine directed to Austro-Hungarian (not German) troops. Addresses are mostly in Vienna (Wien) and prices listed are in old A-H Kronen.

That's why all the trench watches.
gatorcpa


----------



## bobbee

Circa 1897, 9th. Bengal Lancers. Front left.

British Empire: Armed Forces: Units: Indian Cavalry: 9th Bengal Lancers: Hodson's Horse









Found here too: http://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/wristwatches.html


----------



## bobbee

A group of colonials photographed with a pet cheetah at Secunderabad, near Hyderabad, during the days of the British Raj, circa late 19th.C.
The guy behind the Cheetah, pretty hard to miss!









Not sure of date, says late 1800's at source. I would put it as later, possibly WW1. Lots of wrist watches if you look.


----------



## bobbee

*
Staff of the 1st Brigade of the Hazara Field Force, commanded by Colonel Sym of 5th Gurkhas.

circa 1888. Courtesy of BritishBattles.com









The Medal









*


----------



## bobbee

_*Not one watch, but THREE!*_


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Outstanding find
1888 is the earliest.
Kudos to you
A


----------



## bobbee

*Officers of the Northumberland Fusiliers, 3rd Sikhs Frontier Force, 5th Gurkhas and 4th Hazara Mountain Battery, during the Black Mountain operations in 1888.

Bottom centre. Courtesy of BritishBattles.com.









closeup









*


----------



## James A

Hi bobbee,

Great thread and think I will use it as reference material going forward.
Here's on from Sydney 1913. Fairfax & Roberts Jewellery House.



Regards,


----------



## bobbee

1913 Ingersoll ad.









1914 Ingersoll ad.









1916 Omega ad.









A very interesting ad from 1916 (Feb) for a watch holder wrist case. It says it has front and back covers, and can be worn without a watch crystal.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> That is cool
> So we now have a possible 1790 for a wristwatch (ladies)
> Thanks. That is 20 years earlier than I have
> Adam


Thanks to dom_, and his visit to the Worshipful Company of clockmakers Museum, we now have an example from even earlier.

1780(c) wrist watch. Excellent picture by dom_.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Bobbee
just to clarify. We always knew Ladies wristwatches existed from 1810 (Breguet) then 1869 (Patek)
my post was related to adverts. 
My earliest advert for a ladies wristwatch was 1892.

not a picture of a ladies watch.
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Bobbee
> just to clarify. We always knew Ladies wristwatches existed from 1810 (Breguet) then 1869 (Patek)
> my post was related to adverts.
> My earliest advert for a ladies wristwatch was 1892.
> 
> not a picture of a ladies watch.
> adam


 Just to clarify even more, you are wrong.

Your post above that I quote from is actually related to a picture of a 1790 ladies wrist watch posted by Okapi001, not adverts.
Also, you seem to have forgotten again that I have found and posted several times, an American advert from 1888 that shows both a ladies bracelet watch, and a man's wristlet watch.
Just to clarify.
Bob.


----------



## dom_

I was hoping someone would pick up on that, I just left it in the thread to see if someone would notice 


bobbee said:


> Thanks to dom_, and his visit to the Worshipful Company of clockmakers Museum, we now have an example from even earlier.
> 
> 1780(c) wrist watch. Excellent picture by dom_.
> 
> View attachment 1574342


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Just to clarify even more, you are wrong.
> 
> Your post above that I quote from is actually related to a picture of a 1790 ladies wrist watch posted by Okapi001, not adverts.
> Also, you seem to have forgotten again that I have found and posted several times, an American advert from 1888 that shows both a ladies bracelet watch, and a man's wristlet watch.
> Just to clarify.
> Bob.


Bobbee
I can not clarify your thoughts, but I can surely clarify mine.

That post related to my earliest and known Ladies advert of that time 1892:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-4.html#post7863334

you found (or someone did) an earlier one, and I acknowledged that.I also from the outset of this thread laid out clearly my understanding at that time, of the chronology of both men and ladies wristwatches:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-2.html#post7861902

since then
You have found pictures of men (officers) wearing a wristwatch in 1888, some 10 years prior to my previous understanding.
To that I think I have acknowledged you some 20+ times.


adam


----------



## bobbee

dom_ said:


> I was hoping someone would pick up on that, I just left it in the thread to see if someone would notice


Once again dom_, thanks for your posting those wonderful pics.
It is astounding how quickly the boundaries have been pushed back recently regarding wrist watches, both mens and womens.
It is thanks to people like you and all the fine people on WUS f11 that this happens, thanks all!

Warmest Regards,
Bob.


----------



## bobbee

> Bobbee
> I can not clarify your thoughts, but I can surely clarify mine.
> 
> That post related to my earliest and known Ladies advert of that time 1892:
> Very early wristwatch articles
> 
> you found (or someone did) an earlier one, and I acknowledged that.I also from the outset of this thread laid out clearly my understanding at that time, of the chronology of both men and ladies wristwatches:
> Very early wristwatch articles
> 
> since then
> You have found pictures of men (officers) wearing a wristwatch in 1888, some 10 years prior to my previous understanding.
> To that I think I have acknowledged you some 20+ times.
> 
> 
> adam


Adam what is the problem here?
You seem to have got the wrong post. This is the original post by Okapi001: https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-16.html#post7889320

Here is your reply: https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-16.html#post7889331

My first post today here:https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-22.html#post8138025
quotes your linked post above, in which there is no mention of adverts, the post is about a 1790 ladies wrist watch.

If you read the actual post, this is what it says: 
"That is cool
So we now have a possible 1790 for a wristwatch (ladies)
Thanks. That is 20 years earlier than I have
Adam".
It mentions the date 1790, as opposed to the one in the above photo by dom_, 1780 (circa).
Just trying to clear up your misunderstandings.

Bob.

Really, do keep up!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I have no intention of entering into a 'contest' with you.
I think people should read the whole thread.
That (alleged) 1790 'watch' was 20 years prior to the Breguet known and acknowledged first ladies 1810 wristwatch.

I also posted:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-16.html#post7889372

Finally the watch posted by dom_ is circa 1780.
How they decided that, we do not currently know, it could be 1750 or 1825.
If it is 1780 then it is 30 years prior to Breguet??

anyway, people can read the thread and decide.
and PS: Please try to stay civil and polite.
Adam


----------



## bobbee

I am merely correcting your mistakes, I have been civil and polite, I am not in a contest, and I believe that we have to occasionally take the word of horological experts, like those who run the museum the 1780 watch resides in.
There is no need to read the entire thread to come to the simple conclusion that you were wrong, so sorry.


----------



## Eeeb

bobbee said:


> I am merely correcting your mistakes, I have been civil and polite, I am not in a contest, and I believe that we have to occasionally take the word of horological experts, like those who run the museum the 1780 watch resides in.
> There is no need to read the entire thread to come to the simple conclusion that you were wrong, so sorry.


The only people who are never wrong are the lurkers who post nothing! :-d


----------



## bobbee

Eeeb said:


> The only people who are never wrong are the lurkers who post nothing! :-d


I agree Eeeb, I do not mind being corrected when wrong. In fact I would much rather be corrected than drift along thinking I am right in some matter, in ignorant bliss!

Besides, who wants to be right ALL the time? I just happened to be right _this time!_


----------



## Okapi001

I have no idea how accurate are datings of those two supposedly oldest ladies wristwatches (c. 1790 and c. 1780) but it's very interesting that both are of a very similar design - open escapement above the small dial and with pearls around the oval case. I would say two independant datings of watches so similar in design is a sign that they are probably really from the end of the 18th century and indeed older than the famous Breguet.


----------



## bobbee

Okapi001 said:


> I have no idea how accurate are datings of those two supposedly oldest ladies wristwatches (c. 1790 and c. 1780) but it's very interesting that both are of a very similar design - open escapement above the small dial and with pearls around the oval case. I would say two independant datings of watches so similar in design is a sign that they are probably really from the end of the 18th century and indeed older than the famous Breguet.


My sentiment exactly! Similarity in design is a good way of dating anything, and these look contemporary to each other.
Thank you for putting flesh on the bones, , Okapi001!


----------



## bobbee

WW1 pics.


----------



## bobbee

Not sure of the date, late teens, early twenties? Rare Hamilton aviation ad.


----------



## Eeeb

I don't know how many folks noticed this post in the NAWCC forum: https://www.watchuseek.com/f508/new-nawcc-webinar-ephemeral-art-1070884.html I suspect a lot of the artwork will be from early adverts like the example in the post. It's a webinar so we ALL can show up!


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Gotcha now.
> You know, I never even noticed my advert was a 'two' crown watch. Too interested in the date!
> 
> The second crown at '6' is just cosmetic to balance up the watch.
> 
> The clip I displayed could easily hold a 'two' crown watch as yours does.
> Both the bracelet you show (gold) color and the one I display (silver) are doing the same purpose that is holding a small ladies pocket or indeed pendant watch to then wear on wrist.
> You can see on your (gold) bracelet clips on the side of the watch to hold a standard pocket watch.
> 
> The actual pocket watch (being interchangeable) can not date the bracelet wristwatch in any way.
> 
> Thanks for explaining.


Just read this again, I missed the fact that you thought it could not be reliably dated, as the watch was a simple holder and the watch could be changed.

I think that the fact that the watch matches the one in your 1892 advert exactly, and even the bracelet share some similarities in design, even down to the supporting braces along the length of the narrowest part, would be a pretty reliable pointer to the date of production, and a date of +/- 5 years within the adverts production would not be far off.
Thus making the claimed date of 1887 quite believable.

Your statement about the gold bracelet having clips to hold a regular pocket watch are also a little "out", as there are further clips on the bracelet to hold another crown bow, and having one of these at either end means that the bracelet was designed to hold a "twin crown" (one real, one dummy) watch, such as the one it holds in place. Further proof of the bracelet/watch's originality and veracity.


----------



## radger

Good point bobbee.

Once again I am impressed by your attention to detail, accuracy of information and ability to weedle out these
old adverts in support of same.

Nice one.


----------



## watchstudent101

Hello i am a new watch student in lititz pa and i am i need of watches to practice on, if any watchmaker could spare anything i would be so appriciative and willing to pay shipping cost thank you


----------



## Eeeb

eBay sells old movements by the lot... if no one steps up this is a great source for practice movements.


----------



## bobbee

Here are a few articles I have found concerning the rise in popularity, and also the revulsion, of the man's wrist watch.

January 1919.









February 1921.









July 1921.









continued from the above July 1921 article.








These articles make fascinating reading, and give up much information on the mentality of the time, as well as small vignettes of the lifestyles.
I found many such articles from the late teens and early twenties in newspapers, along with poems and "readers letters".


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> Americans were certainly wearing wrist watches during that time.
> 
> BUT, they were Swiss made watches, not American made wrist watches as absolutely no evidence exists to that fact.
> 
> In order for it to be proven without ANY doubt any article, snippet or advertising MUST state the name of the AMERICAN company that manufactured the wrist watch and it MUST say "WRIST WATCH" with a date to back it all up.
> 
> Heck, back in June of 1904 The New England Watch Company who later became "Timex" put out an advertisement that "suggested" that their "Golf Watch" was to be "worn".
> 
> This can be found in the June 1904 issue of "The Philistine" magazine.
> 
> The advertisement does NOT come right out and say it but it certainly "suggests" that this watch was worn on the wrist.
> 
> No picture was included in the advert and it did not state "wrist watch" so this "golf watch" cannot be considered the "first" American Wrist Watch.
> 
> I personally would not be surprised to see hard core evidence come out down the road that states the Americans were in fact manufacturing men's wrist watches in the early 1900's.
> 
> But, all of the criteria MUST be met for it to be bona fide.


Does this not follow your criteria Stan?
The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, November 20, 1908, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress

1908 advert for Ingersoll watches, with a wrist watch "encased in seal leather".
American made, worn on the wrist, ad pre-1910.
It amazes me that it has received no comments, as this is the earliest for a US manufacturer by some four years.


----------



## Literustyfan

This would be an "encased" wrist watch.

So, it's really not a wrist watch, simply a pocket watch with a leather strap that would "encase" the watch.

It had no lugs.


----------



## bobbee

Right, but in another post you did not know of any US manufacturers who actually used these, and mentioned being a ""Hard Liner" along with Adam, in that you wanted proof and now we have it.
First ad for a US manufacturer, I would have thought it would get some reaction but never mind.


----------



## Marrick

Fantastic and very interesting research. Thank you.


----------



## bobbee

Here is a very early advert that shows the first shock absorber for the balance staff. 
Depollier's shock absorber, December 1923 about ten years before incabloc, which some people think was the first.









May 1917 advert.


----------



## bobbee

Genuine colour (not a tint) photograph of Sikh soldiers on the Western Front, 1916.









Scottish Regiment troops building a bridge during the Boer War, circa 1900.


----------



## bobbee

Literustyfan said:


> If I had to pick just one men's wrist watch advertisement from the Great War as my favorite it would definitely be this one from the Elgin National Watch Company.
> 
> This advert cleared up so many mistakes and gave proper names to 3 Elgin men's wrist watches.
> 
> The common mistake is that every Black Star Dial Elgin is called a "Pershing", which could be no further from the truth.
> 
> This ad campaign started the 2nd week of February 1919 in a local Elgin newspaper then it went national shortly thereafter in The Literary Digest and The Saturday Evening Post.
> 
> I have two of these ORIGINAL advertisements framed and matted on my shop walls, they are my pride and joy! (along with 51 others that are framed).


Great advert, super manly watches.
I like the legend; "Released by the Armistice, the three most popular styles are now available for civilian use", proving that the Elgin "Star dial" watch was indeed used during WW1, although this ad was not exactly "from the Great War".
Cool.


----------



## bobbee

Some interesting (to me) early Waltham adverts.

Boston Globe, Jan. 15th. 1918.
This shows seven different Waltham models, and one Elgin. Slight fault with crown missing on two watches and the one with crown between 1 & 2 should have the dial rotated to the same position.









Boston Times, December 18th. 1917.









Jan. 1917. This watch, and the one below seem to be of the same watch, that employs a "half hunter" style case front.









Winnipeg Free Press, May 16th. 1916.









This is a very early Elgin military watch advert. This watch also employs (like the two above) a "demi-hunter" case.
Winnipeg Free Press, May 19th. 1916.


----------



## bobbee

Another early Waltham wrist watch ad.
August 1914.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

That is a good find, and pretty early.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> That is a good find, and pretty early.


Thank you Adam.
I found approx. 7/8 from around this time, some with same/similar wording.
Here is one from 1916, similar to the others with a half-hunter bezel.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Thats an interesting advert. Nurses Sweep seconds.
Has to use a 1907, 367ss 3/0, 7 jewel caliber Waltham movement:

Here is 1915 - so not so interesting.


----------



## bobbee

It's a good one.
Here are a couple of rare ones, 1916 Elgin and Gruen.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

1916 is not so tough.
1914 is extremely few
1915 I find a few, but more to end of year, by 1916 (january) I find a lot.Here 
*is 1915, same Elgin as you posted:*


----------



## bobbee

I think in the US it is extremely rarer than Europe/Antipodes!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Absolutely
European manufacturers go back to 1904 for mens.
I have 1906, 1908 (Omega) and 1910 (Longines) mens wristwatch adverts.


----------



## bobbee

Yet another pre-1910 Ingersoll wristlet watch advert.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Yet another pre-1910 Ingersoll wristlet watch advert.
> 
> View attachment 1795522


sadly based on evidence I have found, I believe this is using a leather pocket watch convertor.
but of course without pictures we can not tell.
A


----------



## bobbee

It probably is, but this is only the second one found for a US-manufactured men's wristlet watch.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> It probably is, but this is only the second one found for a US-manufactured men's wristlet watch.


OK, understand.
I just wish they had put a picture 1909 is very early, and it would be great to really know.

I am pretty sure now that the earliest Ingersoll advert for a wristwatch will be 1912. I intend (hopefully) to show why in my Webinar this Sunday.

Now planning a second webinar for Sunday 16th November!


----------



## Emre

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Now planning a second webinar for Sunday 16th November!


European time-zone friendly session?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Emre said:


> European time-zone friendly session?


No, I think it will be at same time.
But if you register, you can watch the webinar any time and indeed download it


----------



## Emre

Yep I am already in


----------



## trim

bobbee said:


> It's a good one.
> Here are a couple of rare ones, 1916 Elgin and Gruen.


Well Cool.

I have that Elgin. Serial number indicates 1916. Stewart Dawson's also have had a shop here in Wellington since 1901. This watch was bought locally.

Looks like I need moon hands...


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Breguet style hands:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-25.html#post8979562


----------



## radger

trim said:


> Well Cool.
> 
> I have that Elgin. Serial number indicates 1916. Stewart Dawson's also have had a shop here in Wellington since 1901. This watch was bought locally.
> 
> Looks like I need moon hands...


The hands on your watch are perfectly sized and period to the watch Trim, perhaps they
offered hand variations at the retailers.

These old adverts are a great resource, proves that the crown on your watch is 100% correct.


----------



## trim

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Breguet style hands:
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/very-early-wristwatch-articles-1034112-25.html#post8979562


Yes I saw your add too Adam. US seems to also call these moon hands. I have no idea of any distinction between the two names in the actual style of the hand.



radger said:


> The hands on your watch are perfectly sized and period to the watch Trim, perhaps they
> offered hand variations at the retailers.
> 
> These old adverts are a great resource, proves that the crown on your watch is 100% correct.


Unfortunately, they are perfectly sized (and period) because _I _fitted them using some NOS ones I had. IRCC it came with a moon/Breguet hour hand and an odd minute hand. I assumed the Breguet/moon hand was the incorrect one. It was the only work the watch needed as otherwise it was in very good condition. The good news is, I never throw stuff like that away, so the hour hand at least will be in my odd hands drawer.

Will fix it now I know better.

I wonder how they lumed it (as per add). The holes in the hands and dots to the hour marks?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Trim
I agree, that the watch was made with Breguet hands (really that is correct name) as Breguet invented that style, which have some important features he especially emphasized on.

A


----------



## radger

trim said:


> Will fix it now I know better.
> 
> I wonder how they lumed it (as per add). The holes in the hands and dots to the hour marks?


Ah, that explains why the hands looked correct, I know you take care in such things.

Holes in hands and dots to the hour marks sounds good, maybe the hands were painted lume.
Do you still have the original hr hand? maybe a clue there.


----------



## Chascomm

Interesting stretch bracelet in this ad:


HOROLOGIST007 said:


> ...Here is 1915 - so not so interesting.


----------



## bobbee

Yes, quite a few similar designs out for stretch bands, even this early. If you look through this thread, many are shown in vintage ads, posted by many members.
It has been a very gratifying experience overall, and I hope this thread will be regularly "re-vivified" with more input and articles found!
Bob.


----------



## bobbee

Captain Sidney Belfield, stationed in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, 1896.
Wearing what looks like an actual wrist watch with lugs.


----------



## bobbee

I found this one extremely testing, but after long contemplation I am fairly certain this is a wristlet worn by the chap in the dark coat, seated centrally. It is not a handkerchief, as it was thought effeminate to keep one up your sleeve at this time.

British and Indian officers, 5th. Infantry reg. Punjab Frontier forces, circa *1880*.
This Regiment was deployed in the Punjab 1878-1880.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

You should give acknowledgements for these and the picture is circa 1880 i.e. 1880(c).
So they really have no idea to an exact date could be 1889
See here
British and Indian officers of the 5th Regiment of Infantry, Punjab Frontier Force, 1880 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London

Acknowledgements:
National Army Museum. British and Indian officers of the 5th Regiment of Infantry, Punjab Frontier Force, 1880 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London


----------



## bobbee

> the picture is circa 1880 i.e. 1880(c).
> So they really have no idea to an exact date could be 1889


Please do not take this wrong, but did you not read the description I wrote?



> circa *1880*.


Circa usually means within a couple of years, according to your own past postings.


----------



## bobbee

Horlogit007 wrote:


> the picture is circa 1880 i.e. 1880(c).
> So they really have no idea to an exact date could be 1889





> The 5th Regiment of Infantry (later known as Vaughan's Rifles) were based on the North West Frontier of India in the years before the 2nd Afghan War (*1878-1880*)


So it is possibly earlier, but not later than *1880*.

Warmest regards, Bob.


----------



## Toothbras

I have nothing constructive to add, just really enjoying this thread and the pics!


----------



## bobbee

Toothbras said:


> I have nothing constructive to add, just really enjoying this thread and the pics!


Thanks, so just for you then is this photo of the celebrated author Jack London with his wife, 1913.


----------



## bobbee

A rare and unusual advert from 1907.
This shows a watch with the crown on the left side of the watch case, not often seen.


----------



## bobbee

The earliest known (so far) Waltham wrist watch advert from *1913.*


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> A rare and unusual advert from 1907.
> This shows a watch with the crown on the left side of the watch case, not often seen.
> 
> View attachment 1823594


Its probably an Omega. We know that is the watch they manufactured in 1902 and advertised 1904

*1908 MENS and Womans - Note Men's - Roman Numerals versus Ladies - Arabic*


*1906 - womans Only*


----------



## bobbee

I doubt it.
The dials on the Omega ladies watches are all Arabic numerals, only the mens have Roman, as you have said in red.
The Australian ads I have seen from around 1910-14 all showed the Omega logo and named as such.
This watch has no logo.

This Watch Is A Ladies Watch.


----------



## bobbee

This is the earliest known American manufactured watch advert yet!!!

July 1912 Elgin.


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

trim said:


> Yes I saw your add too Adam. US seems to also call these moon hands. I have no idea of any distinction between the two names in the actual style of the hand.


I tend to think of "moon" hands as being any generic hand with an open circle toward the end of the hands.

I associate the term "Breguet" hands with a very specific style of moon hands.

These probably aren't the best examples, but here's a set of Moon hands










And these are what I would call Breguet hands(incidentally, these are not the correct hands for this watch).


----------



## bobbee

I thought the original Breguet hands were also called "Breguet Apples" because of the large size of the rings?


----------



## Hartmut Richter

To me, Breguet hands are moon hands with a slightly off centre hole. So I would say that Ben is right.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hartmut Richter said:


> To me, Breguet hands are moon hands with a slightly off centre hole. So I would say that Ben is right.
> 
> Hartmut Richter


I agree that Breguet hands have off center end hole.


----------



## Monocrom

bobbee said:


> Captain Sidney Belfield, stationed in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, 1896.
> Wearing what looks like an actual wrist watch with lugs.
> 
> View attachment 1822442


Is that a wrist watch or simply a band that is part of his uniform?


----------



## bobbee

Monocrom said:


> Is that a wrist watch or simply a band that is part of his uniform?


That is definitely possible when you look again.
Searching through several thousand pics, maybe sometimes you come a cropper!


----------



## Marrick

That's a great emoticon.


----------



## bobbee

Marrick said:


> That's a great emoticon.
> View attachment 1829690


Thanks, and very apt. I like yours too, that's going in the gifbank.
Cheers, Bob.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> The earliest known (so far) Waltham wrist watch advert from *1913.*
> 
> View attachment 1823618


We have many american adverts for ladies watches, here is just one of Waltham 1912

*July 1st 1912*


----------



## bobbee

"We" being the NAWCC?
Nice find though. Kudos to you.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> "We" being the NAWCC?
> Nice find though. Kudos to you.


Well "we" means me and a few others - lol
I have about 6 going as early as 1912.

Too late to add for to-night. sorry
Now a mans USA manufacturers advert prior to 1912?


----------



## bobbee

That Waltham looks huge, and the crown too, it dwarfs that girl's wrist!
We need more sources for man's pre-1912 if there is any.


----------



## Rdenney

bobbee said:


> That Waltham looks huge, and the crown too, it dwarfs that girl's wrist!
> We need more sources for man's pre-1912 if there is any.


No man would have worn a decorative bracelet like that.

I've an opportunity to buy a Hampden that is almost identical to the Waltham pictured in the ad. The watch is about an 25-30 mm in diameter--could be a 00 to 4/0-size (no measurements handy and my eyeball isn't calibrated to those sizes). Serial number dates from 1918. I've resisted because my wife doesn't much like it and it doesn't fit my collection (and what a joke that is!). But it is clearly a ladies watch and not too large.

Rick "not really into random vintage ladies watches" Denney


----------



## bobbee

> No man would have worn a decorative bracelet like that.


Oh yeah?;-)
1914.











> *July 1st 1912*


Close, very close!

Elgin, July 2, 1912.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> That Waltham looks huge, and the crown too, it dwarfs that girl's wrist!
> We need more sources for man's pre-1912 if there is any.


I think to-night I might show evidence that makes that possibility slim?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Rdenney said:


> No man would have worn a decorative bracelet like that.
> 
> Denney


In general no, but never say never in Horology.
An offices or a sportsman wore what was needed to get the job done.
No one called these people "weak"

to-day, I was thinking maybe this was the beginning of "transvestite" and we should term these watches ":trasvestite".
We alrady hace Franken, Marriage and Homage - why not "transvestite"

Off to my webinar now!


----------



## Rdenney

Well, I need to go buy that Hampden, then.

Rick "that was a sign of a full retreat" Denney


----------



## bobbee

November 1912 "wristlet watch" advert.









June 1912 Gruen wrist watch advert.









May 1912 Gruen wristlet watch, with photo of lady wearing one.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

OK - I have been very active researching and found a lot of amazing photos, I will use some in Webinar.
BUT
Here is a cool picture.
Dated 1890
But is the gentleman kneeling wearing a "wrist" watch on his thigh? That was known to be done by people on horses or indeed early airplane pilots, looks like a watch


Thoughts
PS: I know its not a "woman" bit still an early photo
Adam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
fb.com/lahore.gardens


----------



## bobbee

It is an object that Anthony Hopkins dressed as a Jesuit priest is holding. Part can be seen resting in his lap, the end with the thong round it is projecting from under his left arm.
The Robin Williams/Patch Adams look alike in the middle also appears to be a priest, and the guy with the rifle played the Cha Wallah in "It Ain't Half Hot Mum".

A really cool pic though!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> It is an object that Anthony Hopkins dressed as a Jesuit priest is holding. Part can be seen resting in his lap, the end with the thong round it is projecting from under his left arm.
> The Robin Williams/Patch Adams look alike in the middle also appears to be a priest, and the guy with the rifle played the Cha Wallah in "It Ain't Half Hot Mum".
> 
> A really cool pic though!


Sorry
You lost me.
Are you saying the photo is a modern fake.

Please explain in simple English
Thanks
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Sorry
> You lost me.
> Are you saying the photo is a modern fake.
> 
> Please explain in simple English
> 
> Thanks
> adam


*Sigh*
Forget it, I won't explain humour as it spoils it for the rest who got it!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> *Sigh*
> Forget it, I won't explain humour as it spoils it for the rest who got it!


well maybe "all" who got it can explain.


----------



## Marrick

The salient point is that bobbee is suggesting that the part that looks like the middle chap's thigh is, in fact, the other end of a satchel or something that the priest is holding. It could well be I suppose.


----------



## bobbee

Correct, just not as funny as my explanation.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Marrick said:


> The salient point is that bobbee is suggesting that the part that looks like the middle chap's thigh is, in fact, the other end of a satchel or something that the priest is holding. It could well be I suppose.
> 
> View attachment 1951794


thanks Marrick, yes that's a fair and reasonable explanation.


----------



## bobbee

Dodge City Times, October 1890.
First mention I could find for a automatic wrist watch. I think it would be different to a pocket watch, as it defines "worn in a bracelet" as opposed to "wristlet", a phrase used at this time.










Link to the full page, can be found above the "Prickly Ash Bitters".

https://www.elephind.com/?a=p&p=red...ccn/sn84029838/1890-10-31/ed-1/seq-4//;words=


----------



## bobbee

Another, separate and different self-winding design, also from 1890. Syracuse Daily Standard. article next to it mentions the death of John F. Parker, who died in June 1890.










Link to page.

http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newpap...=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Fulton_New_form.html&.pdf


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Dodge City Times, October 1890.
> First mention I could find for a automatic wrist watch. I think it would be different to a pocket watch, as it defines "worn in a bracelet" as opposed to "wristlet", a phrase used at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the full page, can be found above the "Prickly Ash Bitters".
> 
> https://www.elephind.com/?a=p&p=redirect&vhttp=http%3a%2f%2fchroniclingamerica.loc.gov%2flccn%2fsn84029838%2f1890-10-31%2fed-1%2fseq-4%2f/;words=


Well what we know at present, is there was no conventional wristwatch till 1902.

Even the earliest photos I found of 1879 is a leather pocket watch convertor, the photo you found of 1888 again leather pocket watch convertor, and another I have of 1894 again leather pocket watch convertor.

Could some one have used a chain i.e bracelet onto a pocket watch, yes for sure, but its still a pocket watch worn on the wrist.
I have a number of metal pocket watch convertors that would surely be described as a bracelet.

and we know that self winding pocket watches existed as early as 1777 (Perrrelet), but no conventional wristwatch self winding till 1922 (Leroy)

So my personal take is a pocket watch with a metal adapter.

Still an interesting piece

Adam


----------



## bobbee

I wonder if both of the above articles concerning self winding wrist watches are about the same one? Same year. Even if they are not, it shows that more than one person was making automatic watches to be worn on the wrist in this same year of 1890.
Nevertheless, the bottom one at least is about a watch that has been purpose made to be worn on the wrist, and the bracelet, probably a kind of solid bangle, which winds the watch by the closing and opening of it, has an invisible fastening according to the article. All the descriptions of this watch in the article point to it being made solely as a wrist watch.
Even if it is a converted self winding pocket watch, aren't the ones we/you yourself understand to be the "first" wrist watches also converted pocket/chatelaine watches? By your own definition this watch is a wrist watch, and the last sentence of the article tells us that many were made.
"In many cases the watch is set in a circlet of diamonds".
So not just a one-off, and this will be the first-ever wrist watch, as well as the first automatic/self winding one.

Here is another article concerning these (this) watch(es), from four months after the above article. I originally posted this in May of this year on P.2 of this thread.










By scrutiny and correct interpretation of the articles, we should come to some accord in this matter.



HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Well what we know at present, is there was no conventional wristwatch till 1902.
> 
> Even the earliest photos I found of 1879 is a leather pocket watch convertor, the photo you found of 1888 again leather pocket watch convertor, and another I have of 1894 again leather pocket watch convertor.
> 
> Could some one have used a chain i.e bracelet onto a pocket watch, yes for sure, but its still a pocket watch worn on the wrist.
> I have a number of metal pocket watch convertors that would surely be described as a bracelet.
> 
> and we know that self winding pocket watches existed as early as 1777 (Perrrelet), but no conventional wristwatch self winding till 1922 (Leroy)
> 
> So my personal take is a pocket watch with a metal adapter.
> 
> Still an interesting piece
> 
> Adam


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hi bobbee
Can you point this bit out, maybe I am missing something:
which winds the watch by the closing and opening of it, has an invisible fastening according to the article.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Hi bobbee
> Can you point this bit out, maybe I am missing something:
> which winds the watch by the closing and opening of it, has an invisible fastening according to the article.


Both articles mention an invisible clasp, both mention the winding by closing and opening. All clumsily highlighted by my wobbly hand.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Thanks
As we are also discussing this on another forum, I will not repeat my thoughts.
Only to say, I have no confidence or evidence that unclipping a 'secret' clip could make enough movement to wind any form of mechanism for 30 minutes never thirty hours.

All self-winding pieces of the past and of to-day need physical movement on a wrist or arm. The Autorist hinged lugs - contraction of the wrist, as is the Wyler with false back.
ATO ROLLS needs movement of the arm.

I can not see, after owning, studying and researching every known self-winding wristwatch, how unclipping it can make enough mechanical movement to wind the watch.

Would it have a Rotor, or a side weight or a center weight?

Thanks the adverts
adam


----------



## bobbee

I don't think it had any of the above.
As I have written elsewhere, I think by customising an existing self winding watch, by removing the rotor/weight and fitting a mechanism that fits onto the back of the watch almost like a key onto the central axis, this could then be wound using a kind of ratchet system and corresponding cogs all hidden within a covering case back that is pierced by the arm(s) of the bracelet. Think of a "pincer" movement that is offset, with teeth in the "jaws" that connect with a cog fitted onto the central winding axis.
As we have no pictures/examples (pray,pray!), I have to use my imagination to come up with the idea of how it is done. Just think what someone who knows what they are doing with a watch could imagine, and then make.
As they obviously did!

Cheers, Bob.

Edit- the article also mentions that the watch could not be overwound, which also makes me think this used an existing self winding system possibly?


----------



## Okapi001

bobbee said:


> Even if it is a converted self winding pocket watch,


I don't think it's converted pocket watch. From the description it appears to be a ladies watch, so I would guess much smaller than pocket watch. As for the winding mechanism, I have no idea;-)
And technicaly speaking, it's not self-winding. You have to intentionaly manipulate the clasp. It's just another, perhaps more convenient way of winding the watch.


----------



## bobbee

Okapi001 said:


> I don't think it's converted pocket watch. From the description it appears to be a ladies watch, so I would guess much smaller than pocket watch. As for the winding mechanism, I have no idea;-)
> And technicaly speaking, it's not self-winding. You have to intentionaly manipulate the clasp. It's just another, perhaps more conveniet way of winding the watch.


I agree with it being smaller than normal P/W, but maybe the winding mech was somehow wound in the manner I described, but used a back key-wound movement? There are many explanations/permutations I suppose, but we still come back to this being a watch dedicated to being worn on the wrist, and not one placed in a holder like the wristlets of yore.
Thanks for taking the time to post, and long time no see on this thread, Okapi001! Welcome back buddy.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Okapi001 said:


> I don't think it's converted pocket watch. From the description it appears to be a ladies watch, so I would guess much smaller than pocket watch. As for the winding mechanism, I have no idea;-)
> And technicaly speaking, it's not self-winding. You have to intentionaly manipulate the clasp. It's just another, perhaps more convenient way of winding the watch.


OK
A converted pendant watch, and we know bracelets were available for them.

And yes, if you have to 'technically manipulate' the clasp maybe its not self-winding, but that is what the article claims.

But with just that sentence versus what I know, I can not accept a conventional wristwatch.
A

Regards


----------



## bobbee

> And yes,if you have to 'technically manipulate' maybe it's not self winding, but that is what the article claims.
> 
> But with just that sentence versus what I know, I cannot accept a conventional wrist watch.


I think you are confusing something that was just posted in this thread with what was actually written in 1890 in the article(s) Adam.

This watch, an actuality, not an imagined piece, was a watch made to be worn on the wrist as the articles claim. and follow the same or similar lines as the wire lugged pocket watch principle. If this watch is not a wrist watch, then by definition neither are they and the whole premise of the origins of the first wrist watches comes crashing down around our ears.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> I think you are confusing something that was just posted in this thread with what was actually written in 1890 in the article(s) Adam.
> 
> This watch, an actuality, not an imagined piece, was a watch made to be worn on the wrist as the articles claim. and follow the same or similar lines as the wire lugged pocket watch principle. If this watch is not a wrist watch, then by definition neither are they and the whole premise of the origins of the first wrist watches comes crashing down around our ears.


Bobbee

Wristlets (leather pocket watch convertors) we accept as the beginninig of the wristwatch but they are pocket watches attached to a wrist. Pocket watches with lugs soldered on, are also still converted pocket watches but we accept them as the beginning of the wristwatch, as they are worn on the wrist.
Any other contraption that allows a pocket watch to be attached to a wrist is still a pocket watch.

In these articles, we can not confirm it either way, but in my current knowledge, they have to be pocket or pendant watches with a bracelet added.
We know of know wristwatch in our conventional terms prior to 1902.
Nor do we know any self-winding wristwatch prior to 1922.
Nor do we have any patents, diagrams or even claims by a manufacturer.

So missing all those facts, I can not (yet) accept you have discovered a wristwatch, self-winding dated 1890.

That is my personal take on it, you can believe what you wish.

The articles are most interesting, but raise more questions than they answer, so further research is needed before accepting what you want us (me) too.

Adam


----------



## bobbee

Adam, check your mail.


----------



## dom_

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Bobbee
> 
> Wristlets (leather pocket watch convertors) we accept as the beginninig of the wristwatch but they are pocket watches attached to a wrist. Pocket watches with lugs soldered on, are also still converted pocket watches but we accept them as the beginning of the wristwatch, as they are worn on the wrist.
> Any other contraption that allows a pocket watch to be attached to a wrist is still a pocket watch.
> 
> In these articles, we can not confirm it either way, but in my current knowledge, they have to be pocket or pendant watches with a bracelet added.
> We know of know wristwatch in our conventional terms prior to 1902.
> Nor do we know any self-winding wristwatch prior to 1922.
> Nor do we have any patents, diagrams or even claims by a manufacturer.
> 
> So missing all those facts, I can not (yet) accept you have discovered a wristwatch, self-winding dated 1890.
> 
> That is my personal take on it, you can believe what you wish.
> 
> The articles are most interesting, but raise more questions than they answer, so further research is needed before accepting what you want us (me) too.
> 
> Adam


By that definition then this watch would fit. It was not made as a pocket watch, but made to be worn on the wrist.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

dom_ said:


> By that definition then this watch would fit. It was not made as a pocket watch, but made to be worn on the wrist.


yes, es, I agree this is a wrist watch.
made for a lady to be worn on the wrist.

adam


----------



## bobbee

Absolutely correct dom, the earliest yet known along with the other one from circa 1790.
The automatic one in the article under discussion is an American one (possibly), and I should have made that distinction, sorry.


----------



## Paleotime

Winding due to securing the clasp is not the same as a self-winding movement of the sort Adam is taking about. If you wore the watch described for more than 30ish hours without working the clasp the mechanism would stop.

If I were to build something with the described mechanics...I would make the clasp end of the bracelet fit into the case - teeth on the outside of the clasp section could engage a set of gears which in turn wound the mainspring. Get the gear ratios right and the act of sliding the 'tongue' into the case could put several revolutions on the barrel. This would also serve to make the clasp invisible. Making it wind both being put on and taken off is a complication -but relatively easy to solve.


----------



## bobbee

Paleotime said:


> Winding due to securing the clasp is not the same as a self-winding movement of the sort Adam is taking about. If you wore the watch described for more than 30ish hours without working the clasp the mechanism would stop.
> 
> If I were to build something with the described mechanics...I would make the clasp end of the bracelet fit into the case - teeth on the outside of the clasp section could engage a set of gears which in turn wound the mainspring. Get the gear ratios right and the act of sliding the 'tongue' into the case could put several revolutions on the barrel. This would also serve to make the clasp invisible. Making it wind both being put on and taken off is a complication -but relatively easy to solve.


Please, make me one! ;-)


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Paleotime said:


> Winding due to securing the clasp is not the same as a self-winding movement of the sort Adam is taking about. If you wore the watch described for more than 30ish hours without working the clasp the mechanism would stop.
> 
> If I were to build something with the described mechanics...I would make the clasp end of the bracelet fit into the case - teeth on the outside of the clasp section could engage a set of gears which in turn wound the mainspring. Get the gear ratios right and the act of sliding the 'tongue' into the case could put several revolutions on the barrel. This would also serve to make the clasp invisible. Making it wind both being put on and taken off is a complication -but relatively easy to solve.


What you describe is similar to the famous Movado Ermeto - Hermetic purse watch.
Pulling case open and shut wound the watch.

It was most unique ans still spectacular today. I have a basic write-up how it works I could post.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...e=UTF-8#q=movado+ermeto+watch&revid=618293225


----------



## Paleotime

> Please, make me one! ;-)


Haha...In my spare time! I could draw it but I doubt my machining skills are up to the task of building.



> What you describe is similar to the famous Movado Ermeto - Hermetic purse watch.
> Pulling case open and shut wound the watch.


Interesting...I guess the idea was generally practical then.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Paleotime said:


> Haha...In my spare time! I could draw it but I doubt my machining skills are up to the task of building.
> 
> Interesting...I guess the idea was generally practical then.


Yes, but not 1890.
That said, I suspect your idea fits.

Strand none exist?
A


----------



## James A

This is an intriguing idea.

So I will play with an assumption that perhaps the bracelet is connected to a ratchet not dissimilar to the Pierce.

http://www.ranfft.de/bidfun/katb/2uswk/Pierce_861_AUT.jpg

This would only resolve the issue of winding but would not make it automatic.

Interesting puzzle. :-s Wonder if it actually existed.

Regards,


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

James A said:


> This is an intriguing idea.
> 
> So I will play with an assumption that perhaps the bracelet is connected to a ratchet not dissimilar to the Pierce.
> 
> http://www.ranfft.de/bidfun/katb/2uswk/Pierce_861_AUT.jpg
> 
> This would only resolve the issue of winding but would not make it automatic.
> 
> Interesting puzzle. :-s Wonder if it actually existed.
> 
> Regards,


I do not think that is what you described.
Yours would need to some how oscillate that movement up and down with a simple clockwise (key) turn??


----------



## dom_

Sorry guys, yes thought I was being simple. Didn't realise this was about american watches.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

dom_ said:


> Sorry guys, yes thought I was being simple. Didn't realise this was about american watches.


How do we know it is?
being in American magazine does not make it American?


----------



## dom_

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> How do we know it is?
> being in American magazine does not make it American?


No, I was referring to my earlier post not about the posts above.


----------



## James A

Hi,

Harwood as you all know had the Autorist watch. This watch used the motion of the hinged watch lug attached to a strap to automatically wind. Wonder where Harwood got this idea from?

Wrist Watch - Fortis 'Autorist' Switzerland, circa 1933 - Museum Victoria

100% pure speculation and naturally you cant believe everything you read in the papers.

Regards,


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

James A said:


> Hi,
> 
> Harwood as you all know had the Autorist watch. This watch used the motion of the hinged watch lug attached to a strap to automatically wind. Wonder where Harwood got this idea from?
> 
> Wrist Watch - Fortis 'Autorist' Switzerland, circa 1933 - Museum Victoria
> 
> 100% pure speculation and naturally you cant believe everything you read in the papers.
> 
> Regards,


Harwood surely invented this tequnique himself.
I have a personal written article from John Harwood, where he states (stupidly) he never even researched any previous self-winding mechanism prior to designing the bumper (centre weight) self winding mechanism.

and this article posted by Bobbee does not mention lugs, it sounds more that the clasp was actually a crown.
Did it wind on the wrist- we think not
Regards


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> and this article does not mention lugs, it sounds more that the clasp was actually a crown.
> Did it wind on the wrist- we think not
> Regards


If you are still talking about the 'Autorist', then it definately has hinged lugs as James A says.
It is also designed to wind on the wrist.

The 'clasp' is not a crown, the crown can clearly be seen on the side of the watch.

A picture clearly showing the hinged lugs of the Autorist can be seen here....

A Visionary's Tale - The 'HARWOOD' Jig-Saw comes to-gether. | TimeKeeperForum.com

Wait a minute, the watch on that site is your own Autorist, perhaps you can supply a picture of the movement,
it is an interesting watch.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> If you are still talking about the 'Autorist', then it definately has hinged lugs as James A says.
> It is also designed to wind on the wrist.
> 
> The 'clasp' is not a crown, the crown can clearly be seen on the side of the watch.
> 
> A picture clearly showing the hinged lugs of the Autorist can be seen here....
> 
> A Visionary's Tale - The 'HARWOOD' Jig-Saw comes to-gether. | TimeKeeperForum.com
> 
> Wait a minute, the watch on that site is your own Autorist, perhaps you can supply a picture of the movement,
> it is an interesting watch.


Radger
I am not sure what you are talking about.
I own the autorist, I have the patents and ephemera on it.
I just gave a (free) webinar on that and other 'beginning of the self-winding watch' it even included a summary of first pocket watches. I know exactly how it operates.
Indeed I even showed an Omega exact same prototype

The article Bobbee discovered, shows no photo, does not mention lugs, or crown, only a clasp.

Am I missing something?
A


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

PS
You can download and see the webinars here:
You will see pictures and descriptions of ALL early self-winding movements:
watchnews home | nawcc/watchnews

registration link
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/2167023431692562690

This webinar and the previous one are both free.

Adam


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Radger
> I am not sure what you are talking about.
> I own the autorist, I have the patents and ephemera on it.
> I just gave a (free) webinar on that and other 'beginning of the self-winding watch' it even included a summary of first pocket watches. I know exactly how it operates.
> Indeed I even showed an Omega exact same prototype
> 
> The article Bobbee discovered, shows no photo, does not mention lugs, or crown, only a clasp.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> A


Adam,

Oh, I thought you were replying to James A and his referenced link to the autorist, my apologies for any confusion.

Is the Autorist system efficient?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> Adam,
> 
> Oh, I thought you were replying to James A and his referenced link to the autorist, my apologies for any confusion.
> 
> Is the Autorist system efficient?


No worries.
Actually its quite miraculous.
Flicking the lug only about 7 times and watch runs.
I never wore mine for a long time.
But claims of the Autorist or Bumper running for 30 hours is a dream.
Lucky to get 8 hours on a full wind.
But they are truly genius designs especially the Autorist.
I opened mine, when it arrived, it took me over 4 hours to get it back in the case - never again.
The webinar has photos of the movement, I can post them here too.
Webinar covers pocket watch developement too, but I do not own any of those
A


----------



## bobbee

Two articles from 1915, followed by a 1909 article and an 1889 article.


----------



## James A

Bobbee, the first article is wonderfully odd. "Warriors wrist' ! :-s :-d










Regards,


----------



## anzac1957

Found a few on Papers Past in New Zealand..

Papers Past - Thames Star - 10 May 1918 - TRICKS OF THE WRIST WATCH

Papers Past - Bay of Plenty Beacon - 24 November 1941 - WRIST WATCHES GET FLU

Papers Past - New Zealand Herald - 19 December 1930 - WATCH INSIDE SHARK.

Papers Past - Auckland Star - 25 November 1926 - THE KING'S WRIST WATCH.

Cheers


----------



## busmatt

So, now we know what's up with our watches when they start to act up, they've got Flu

Brought to you by HYPNOTOAD


----------



## bobbee

Here is a nice, early US patent for a watch to be worn on the sleeve.
1904 applied for.

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US...X&ei=c59AVZaRLsPHuASt_IDYBQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgo

Here are the diagrams, the patent explains this is for all people who need the use of both hands, including- "electric vehicle motormen, street and railway car conductors, automobilists or chauffers, bicyclists, truckdrivers, yachtsmen &c."


----------



## bobbee

Here is a 1912 applied for patent for a watch holder, not seen this one before?

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US...a=X&ei=w6lAVeCrLIHeaOf-gNAN&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBjgy

Patent diagram.


----------



## simpletreasures

bobbee said:


> Here is a nice, early US patent for a watch to be worn on the sleeve.
> 1904 applied for.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US...X&ei=c59AVZaRLsPHuASt_IDYBQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgo
> 
> Here are the diagrams, the patent explains this is for all people who need the use of both hands, including- "electric vehicle motormen, street and railway car conductors, automobilists or chauffers, bicyclists, truckdrivers, yachtsmen &c."
> 
> View attachment 3809450
> View attachment 3809458


That is so cool. I wonder how many they sold or if they ever made it to market?

More great research Bob!


----------



## bobbee

Another Ingersoll wrist watch ad. No picture, but this one is from the "Berliner Tageblatt", August 11, 1912.
German for wrist watch is "armbanduhr".


----------



## bobbee

A US wrist watch advert from 1903.


----------



## bobbee

These two are not "very" early, but I think rare and of sufficient interest to post here.

1927 photo of Commander P. Weems who Lindbergh collaborated with on the "Hour Angle" watch. Notice his giant wrist watch!









...and here is the Hour Angle in use, 1933 article.


----------



## Apollonaught

bobbee said:


> A US wrist watch advert from 1903.
> 
> View attachment 3932722


That`s a very similar look to the Hebdomas 8 jours design with visible balance,well worth 10 bucks,and typically swiss?


----------



## bobbee

You would think Swiss, but the price is very low. We are told that Swiss would be more expensive than US movements, and Ladies models even more so due to the difficulties of smaller size manufacture, yet the prices are low so probably US movements if this is true.

Do you notice the "gun metal case with mirror finish"? This seems unusual as gunmetal typically has a dark finish.


----------



## Apollonaught

bobbee said:


> You would think Swiss, but the price is very low. We are told that Swiss would be more expensive than US movements, and Ladies models even more so due to the difficulties of smaller size manufacture, yet the prices are low so probably US movements if this is true.
> 
> Do you notice the "gun metal case with mirror finish"? This seems unusual as gunmetal typically has a dark finish.


I read it as 9.98 for the p.w as seen in the ad,and 6.98 for the gunmetal cased version which shares the same movement,so where they state "as above" they are referring to the movement.Regardless,gunmetal and mirror finish in the same sentence sounds odd.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Apollonaught said:


> That`s a very similar look to the Hebdomas 8 jours design with visible balance,well worth 10 bucks,and typically swiss?


Exactly, looks HEBDOMAS (SWISS) to me.
Now I wonder if any USA manufacturers were making pocket watches of that stylr, open balance wheel and coloured telephone dial?


----------



## bobbee

Apollonaught, the watch with the open balance has similarities to the Hebdomas, but it is obviously a copy.
The Hebdomaseight day watches employed a smaller dial area, and the bottom third of the enamelled dial is completely missing on them.
The example in the advert I posted is completely different in those respects, having a full dial with just a small(ish!) hole for the balance to show.
I took this into consideration when considering the possibility of these watches in the ad being of American manufacture.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Apollonaught, the watch with the open balance has similarities to the Hebdomas, but it is obviously a copy.
> The Hebdomaseight day watches employed a smaller dial area, and the bottom third of the enamelled dial is completely missing on them.
> The example in the advert I posted is completely different in those respects, having a full dial with just a small(ish!) hole for the balance to show.
> I took this into consideration when considering the possibility of these watches in the ad being of American manufacture.


That is a very good and valid point
It looks more like this I think


Still Swiss:
*This is a very interesting watch with a very unusual dial. It is most probably Swiss-made and dates to the late 1800's or early 1900's. The name on the dial is "BONHEUR". The gunmetal case measures approximately 50mm in diameter and has gold accents on the crown and the bow, which nicely match the gold Louis XIV hands. The watch is stem wind and pendant set, and it has 7 jewels. the movement is marked "Breveté SGDG" [the Swiss patent office], "7 Rubis" [7 jewels], "22280 Brevet 16598" [the serial and patent numbers], "Ancre" [lever escapement], "Levees Visibles" [visible escapement pallets] and "Double Plateau" [perhaps indicating that it has both an upper and a lower plate?]*


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

actually more like tis:
Bonheur Fancy Dial Exposed Balance Pocket watch


still Swiss.
I am looking for an american model.


----------



## bobbee

I would say "a match".


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> I would say "a match".


And Swiss!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> A US wrist watch advert from 1903.
> 
> View attachment 3932722


I think that we now know its a Swiss watch advert, albeit an early one, indeed one of earliest i have seen for a conventional type looking wristwatch as opposed to a jeweled bracelet.
But Swiss and wristwatch is a ladies.
Adam


----------



## bobbee

The advert is in the US for a US jeweler, we only "know" the watches were sold in America, and only the pocket watch can with some accuracy be defined as Swiss. But even that is not a definite as it could be an American copy. US manufacturers were copying Swiss watches from the 19th.C on.

I say this only for accuracy, not to be argumentative.


----------



## bobbee

...and the image of the p/w in the advert has batons for minute markers not dots, and they are closer to the edge of the bezel. It could be the artist's mistake (see what I did there?), or a different model.
We don't know either way.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> The advert is in the US for a US jeweler, we only "know" the watches were sold in America, and only the pocket watch can with some accuracy be defined as Swiss. But even that is not a definite as it could be an American copy. US manufacturers were copying Swiss watches from the 19th.C on.
> 
> I say this only for accuracy, not to be argumentative.


I think that, in any serious way point it to a US pocket watch, we should at least post some "matches" that were made by US manufacturers, like the two SWISS ones I found.

The wristwatch, I think we all agree is a ladies, and we have many earlier examples of ladies wristwatch adverts.

Regards
adam


----------



## bobbee

Unsure of the exact date, but it is pre-WW1, possibly Edwardian circa 1905.
It was being sold as Boer war era.


----------



## bobbee

Some new Waltham adverts I found.
The first is 1917, the last is 1919, and the rest are 1918.


----------



## bobbee

Some more early ads. The first one mentions that an oxidised hunter cover can be retro-fitted to these screw cased watches.
The next three are from 1914, 1915 and 1916 respectively.
The last is the earliest I have ever seen of these type of radium hands being used, 1915. I like that it has the luminous dots too, very early for this type of dial and possibly the earliest for a wrist watch.
EDIT- just noticed the first Wilson and Gill advert from 1914 actually has lume dots on the dial too, so this is the earliest.


----------



## Marrick

Wonderful stuff. I'd like to stumble upon a 'No Fuss' strap one day!


----------



## Mirius

I like the highlight on narrow straps. All to often someone will post a watch here and people will suggest that it has to be put on a Kitchener or bund style strap.


----------



## bobbee

I've read in some threads and on other sites that only officers wore wrist watches during WW1, but the first two ads here, both from 1915, tell a different tale.
The Waltham ad says that: "Thousands are being worn by officers _and men_ at the front", while the Army watch protector ad says: " Every officer _and private_ needs a wrist watch".


----------



## Monocrom

bobbee said:


> I've read in some threads and on other sites that only officers wore wrist watches during WW1, but the first two ads here, both from 1915, tell a different tale.
> The Waltham ad says that: "Thousands are being worn by officers _and men_ at the front", while the Army watch protector ad says: " Every officer _and private_ needs a wrist watch".


Many smaller pocket-watches were converted to wrist watches for non-officers. I doubt the conversion was expensive. Especially since some conversions simply included adding lugs. With crowns still at the 12 o'clock position and the dial left alone.


----------



## bobbee

Here are a couple from 1917, all Omega
Courtesy of tire-comedon.














Here is possibly the earliest Omega w/w yet found.

This is a Canadian post-Boer war catalogue excerpt, along with the review mentioning "the war in Africa"
Courtesy of tire-comedon.


----------



## bobbee

A few interesting ones.
A rare 1915 Mappin and Webb advert for the "Campaign" and "Aviator" models. Great!
A good Vickery's ad for a double-sunk dial w/w, that also mentions that "every soldier and sailor needs a good luminous wrist watch"!
A cool Frodsham photo-advert for their luminous and non-luminous wrist watches.
A great JW Benson's ad for a demi-hunter and plain case w/w.
Did you notice Mirius, ALL narrow straps! ;-).


----------



## busmatt

The narrow straps are surprisingly comfortable to wear. 

Matt 


Brought to you by HYPNOTOAD


----------



## bobbee

1916 "Seeland" by Invicta, and 1915 "Military" and "Service" models by Goldsmiths & Silversmiths.

Notice that the Service and Military are fitted in the Borgel case, where the movement screws into the case.


----------



## bobbee

Another WW1 Omega advert, and some newspaper articles.


----------



## bobbee

An interesting article relating to a watch lost in a river for several days during the Boer war. On display and still working, although so rusty it could not be opened!
Followed by an article dated 1915, and a little "off topic". This one is especially for radger, the forum compass lover!


----------



## Mirius

When I was younger I often felt the desire to have a prismatic compass but they were at the time out of my reach price wise, and if truth whilst a great sighting compass aren't so great at reading bearings off a map.


----------



## radger

Thanks for that Bobbee.

I hadn't seen this article describing the use of the WW1 Verners pattern compass before.

These are practical and accurate compasses for sighting a bearing and quite useable for reading bearings from maps also.
As Mirius says, prismatic compasses are generally not so great for this, but these particular compasses can be opened out
quite flat and laid accurately to bearing or grid lines on a map, unlike many other prismatics.

The Verners pattern with mother of pearl dial/card is my favourite prismatic compass design, it went through at least ten marks/types
from Boer war to WW2 iirc.

Still being made and used in WW2, but by this time the Verners patterns were in the main superceded by the liquid filled prismatic
marching compasses, the Verners compasses were dry cards.

Cheers


----------



## bobbee

Here we have the earliest patent I could find in the US for a "genuine" wrist watch.
Applied for in November 1911, granted April 1912. 
For Wittnauer, no less, and quite different than most of the common round designs of the time. 
In fact, it looks like this design for Macey's store in NY.
May 1913 advert.









https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US...bC5K-We7gb_0IKgAQ&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA


----------



## bobbee

Earliest article concerning wrist watches yet, from 1887.


----------



## Hartmut Richter

A driving watch? In 1887?? The car had only been invented a year previously.....

Hartmut Richter


----------



## bobbee

Hartmut Richter said:


> A driving watch? In 1887?? The car had only been invented a year previously.....
> 
> Hartmut Richter


I keep saying, those Yanks caught on _quick!_

All the talk of them "lagging behind" with European fads, crazes and fashions is so wrong. They were totally "with it".


----------



## Mirius

To be fair you also drive a carriage.


----------



## bobbee

Mirius said:


> To be fair you also drive a carriage.


We need to get out more! 

Perhaps go for a pony and trap ride!


----------



## Chascomm

I presume "driving" refers to driving a horse buggy. This is perhaps a particularly American thing (compared to UK or Europe) whereby somebody who can afford a watch is also driving their own carriage.


----------



## bobbee

This interesting article concerns American football and baseball player/coach Percy Houghton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Haughton

The article concerns ridicule against him for his wearing a wrist watch in 1916.


----------



## Chascomm

It blows my mind the way this seems to have been such an 'issue' for Americans in those days. I hate to imagine what they would have done to somebody wearing a kilt. On the other hand, it might not have been such a real-world issue, but just something that journalists latched onto as a popular 'story' that went down well with their readers.


----------



## bobbee

Chascomm said:


> It blows my mind the way this seems to have been such an 'issue' for Americans in those days. I hate to imagine what they would have done to somebody wearing a kilt. On the other hand, it might not have been such a real-world issue, but just something that journalists latched onto as a popular 'story' that went down well with their readers.


I'll see if I can find again another article I read in a US paper of this time that reviled some public figure about their wearing a wrist watch, daring to bring his masculinity under fire.
There are far more (at least as far as I can find) in the US than in England of this kind of article.
I wonder if it's just good manners, or the well known "British Reserve"?


----------



## Chascomm

bobbee said:


> I'll see if I can find again another article I read in a US paper of this time that reviled some public figure about their wearing a wrist watch, daring to bring his masculinity under fire.
> There are far more (at least as far as I can find) in the US than in England of this kind of article.
> I wonder if it's just good manners, or the well known "British Reserve"?


I think that it is more a matter of the origins of wristwatch wearing in each nation. Based on what we have seen on this forum, the wristwatch entered British society through cavalry officers bringing their watch-wearing habits to the gentry, and then the lower ranks in the Boer War following suit and bringing wristwatches back to the working classes. A similar story in Australia perhaps (remember that David Jones ad?). So wearing a watch is either a mark of manliness or of belonging to the ruling classes. Positive either way. In the US it was probably more a mark of being the kind of dandy who seeks to emulate the habits of the British gentry ...which wouldn't have gone over awfully well with many people, I imagine.

Against that point of view are the many American advertisements for wristwatches from that era. I feel like we are inching closer to a coherent social history of the wristwatch, but we're not there yet.


----------



## bobbee

Great remarks Chascomm, I agree. We really need to keep an open mind regarding early watches and how they came to be, as preconceived ideas have recently been smashed, largely in part due to findings on _*this very thread!*_

Here are a couple of great early patents by Depollier, applied for in December 1915 for multi-use watches that can be worn on the wrist, the lapel and as a pocket watch/chatelaine watch.
If we look at the diagram of the first one, we also see that it utilises not just pivoting PROPER lugs, but SPRINGBARS!
Is this first use of these? I haven't done more than a cursory search to find anything earlier regarding springbars, but these seem to be the first.

Fascinating to me, don't know about you guys!

https://www.google.com/patents/US11...X&ei=4geJVZeSNIL-7AbYrIDYCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDge

https://www.google.com/patents/US11...X&ei=4geJVZeSNIL-7AbYrIDYCA&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTge

Here is the diagram of the first patent.


----------



## Chascomm

That is by far the oldest evidence of springbars that I have ever seen.


----------



## bobbee

Chascomm said:


> That is by far the oldest evidence of springbars that I have ever seen.


Thanks for verification Chascomm.

Here is another from Depollier applied in 1916 granted October 1917, this one has some variation of springbars that swings out and lock in place.

https://www.google.com/patents/US12...a=X&ei=CheJVYfXOeLT7Qa7koAw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgo

Diagram of above patent.


----------



## bobbee

All adverts from 1914.


----------



## bobbee

This great photo shows one of America's greatest warriors, General J.F. Bell, 1917.
Just look at that watch, unusual to see non-military watches on men this early.


----------



## bobbee

1915, Cadet cavalryman training as telegraph operator, Washington U, and sailors aboard the USS Maine, circa 1898.


----------



## bobbee

Early airmen Al Welsh and G Beatty at Long Island, 1911.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Early airmen Al Welsh and G Beatty at Long Island, 1911.
> 
> View attachment 4462306


Pretty sure that is an altimeter and not a watch.
I showed a number of photos on both WUS and webinar, where both were worn, and the difference is very noticeable. 
You can also see both have chains in their jacket top pockets, that will be their pocket watch, a sure give away, no wristwatch being worn.
Adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Pretty sure that is an altimeter and not a watch.
> I showed a number of photos on both WUS and webinar, where both were worn, and the difference is very noticeable.
> You can also see both have chains in their jacket top pockets, that will be their pocket watch, a sure give away, no wristwatch being worn.
> Adam


Possession of a p/w in this instance does not rule out a wrist watch. 
A p/w is something the pilot will be unable to look at, both hands are needed for operating the controls of this flying machine, whereas a simple glance is all that is needed with a w/w. He is in fact instructing Mr. Beatty in piloting an aircraft.
He is still wearing "street" clothes, so will still have his normal possessions about his person.
They are flying an aircraft at low levels, so an altimeter is not needed.

The size is large because a larger size was used for visibility, you yourself own one.

This is of a similar size, and is not an altimeter.










It is also considerably smaller than the altimeters seen at this time.










It has a convex crystal, unlike altimeters of this time.









Definitely a watch worn on the wrist.


----------



## bobbee

1917 Omega advert.
So many to choose from!


----------



## Hartmut Richter

I'll take the one on the left!!!

(Always a sucker for chronographs.....)

Hartmut Richter


----------



## bobbee

Officers of the Black Watch, 1914.









Magazine cover, 1918.


----------



## bobbee

Is that a wrist watch he's wearing?
1908.


----------



## simpletreasures

Naw, that was the new "Apple watch" back then.

Now we know where Joe Bulova got the idea for his "naked lady" advertising campaign. I have to say I much prefer Bulova's.


----------



## laikrodukas

bobbee said:


> 1917 Omega advert.
> So many to choose from!
> 
> View attachment 4465954


WOW

The chrono one. Is that a chrono pusher at bottom? The crown does look like it has one


----------



## Hartmut Richter

I'd say that the crown looks like it does*n't* have one. I am near certain that the pusher is at the bottom.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hartmut Richter said:


> I'd say that the crown looks like it does*n't* have one. I am near certain that the pusher is at the bottom.
> 
> Hartmut Richter


+1
for certain
a


----------



## bobbee

Anyone seen a monopoussoir that has the pusher at 6 and records just 15 minutes?


----------



## Chascomm

The poor blighter had to sell all his clothes to afford one of those watches.


----------



## bobbee

1912 Paris fashion.









German POW camp, 1916.


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Definitely! An identical watch is shown in the (German) "Chronos" special on Omega (publishers are the same as for "Watch Time") published in 2008 (page 109). The caption reads:

"_Zeitnehmer von 1915: Das 18linige Kaliber SOPB CHRO treibt einen Chronographen mit 15-Minuten-Zähler an_"

("Time measurer [_sic_] from 1915: the 18 ligne calibre SOPB CHRO runs a chronograph with 15 minute counter")

...and the pusher is at 6:00. It is probably a movement originally intended for a _savonette _pocket watch (in which the pusher in the crown is used to open the lid, so it can't be used for the chronograph). 

Hartmut Richter


----------



## bobbee

Thanks Hartmut, found a few of the 30 minute models, then got lucky with this one.

Montre Omega. Ref. 568.18. Large early Aviator's Single Button... | Argus des Montres


----------



## bobbee

This has much better description, mentioning that the Lawrence of Arabia watch is very similar.

Geneva November 2012


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Sorry, that link does nothing for me (I just get a medium grey main screen).....:-(

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Emre

I've found and posted in another thread some more photos of Lawrence in my books wearing something similar to that bottom button chrono ( bottom button lol ):

https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/maybe-all-glistens-not-1061662-2.html


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hartmut Richter said:


> Sorry, that link does nothing for me (I just get a medium grey main screen).....:-(
> 
> Hartmut Richter


This should help
The watch is in Omegas private Museum in Switerland
I saw it, great museum
Famous Watches: Lawrence of Arabia's Omega Chronograph

Worth a full read:
_Consequently three corresponding riddles remain unsolved:

1. When, how and why this chronograph wristwatch supplied to France or one of its colonies reached the hands of a British army agent?

2. When, how and why was the original caseback replaced by one of another model?

3. When, how and why was it engraved not with the symbols of the Royal Air Force at that time (Initials AM for Air Ministry with a crown on top) but with those of the Royal Flying Corps established on April 13, 1912 and replaced by the RAF on April 1, 1918?

Thanks for your confidence in our products and best regards.

Jean-Luc Miranda

OMEGA Museum (Vintage Information)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Courtesy Museum de Omega

More info here:
_http://www.omegawatches.com/press/press-release-detail/1322


----------



## bobbee

Hartmut Richter said:


> Sorry, that link does nothing for me (I just get a medium grey main screen).....:-(
> 
> Hartmut Richter


Sorry, I can still see it.
A in depth description of the first linked watch is all.


----------



## Monocrom

simpletreasures said:


> Naw, that was the new "Apple watch" back then.
> 
> Now we know where Joe Bulova got the idea for his "naked lady" advertising campaign. I have to say I much prefer Bulova's.


If you go to the old Bulova Corporate Center in Astoria NY, you'll find two large mosaics by the North enterance.... Nothing but naked men.


----------



## bobbee

I think that was done in the 1980's during remodelling, Monocrom.


----------



## simpletreasures

bobbee said:


> I think that was done in the 1980's during remodelling, Monocrom.


Wasn't that also during the time period that was when they had been bought out by "Lowes Corporation"?

Figures.


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Might be just my browser then..... :think:

Hartmut Richter


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hartmut Richter said:


> Might be just my browser then..... :think:
> 
> Hartmut Richter


Sadly not, its the same for me, hence I tried to cover it in my post 412
Regards
a


----------



## bobbee

Does this work?
It needs adobe, but I thought most would have this.
It is from Antiquorum's archives.

Geneva November 2012


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Sorry, no - still get only a grey screen.....:-( And I do have Adobe.:think:

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Ben_hutcherson

I'll call this a fair use screen shot, since so many folks are having issues seeing it.


----------



## bobbee

Thanks Ben, will post the full description as this is the main part I think.


----------



## bobbee

Emre said:


> I've found and posted in another thread some more photos of Lawrence in my books wearing something similar to that bottom button chrono ( bottom button lol ):
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/maybe-all-glistens-not-1061662-2.html


Personally I don't think I have seen any actual photos of Lawrence wearing the Omega chrono described/claimed as being his.
T.E. Lawrence was a very slightly built man of just 5 feet five inches, this has been ascribed to his having had mumps as a child.
At 46mm, the chrono is quite a large watch, and Lawrence looks to have very slim wrists.

The only pic I thought might possibly be the chrono shows that the watch has it's crown at nine (below), and the chrono under discussion had it's crown at 3.

Photo by Emre Kiris.


----------



## bobbee

bobbee said:


> A US wrist watch advert from 1903.
> 
> View attachment 3932722


Here is a 1908 advert, showing that the watch in the above advert was definitely made in the US. The bracelet is exactly the same, and has the same name.


----------



## bobbee

*This has to be the rarest picture of all!

Officers of the 29th. Punjabi's, on patrol in 1915.

The officer on the left is wearing TWO wrist watches, one on each wrist! We can only speculate on the reason for this, and all ideas are welcome. Send your entry written on the back of a £20 note to...:-d







*


----------



## simpletreasures

Nice touch on the watermark's Bob ;-)

Should stop piracy.


----------



## bobbee

1917 Illinois watch cases for men and women.
Not seen this one before.









Another ad for military watches from 1917.
This one is a very clear photographic image of the Sentinel Night Watch.


----------



## bobbee

A similar advert has been seen before, that had a picture set in the case, not a compass.
I'll bet Adam likes this advert, as he owns a similar watch.

1918, with blowup showing the name as "ChroneM".


----------



## bobbee

A company converting existing stock to military watches, 1917.









The "Daynite" and "Leonard" military watches.
Note the ability to buy them with compasses on the strap for a little extra.









Great article from the London Horological Journal, explaining the origins of the wrist watch, and the development of the "Service" watch.

1917


----------



## bobbee

Fahys armoured watch cases, 1917.









KHAKI strap, presumably before Waltham patented the name.
1917









Beautifully set up shop display, wrist watches can be seen around the main "watch" display, and on the shelf just above the name plate.

1908


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> KHAKI strap, presumably before Waltham patented the name.
> 1917
> 
> View attachment 4605714


The patent was owned by Depollier, not Waltham, Depollier only used Waltham movements, patents for hermetic cases, Khaki and Double Clinch Bezel were all in Depollier name.

Depollier was granted the KHAKI patent (registered name) on July 25th 1916.

Others copied it, but original KHAKI (strap ) name was Depollier, and in later adverts they made that both clear, and they would litigate anyone using the 'KHAKI' registered (patented) name

Regards
Adam


----------



## Mirius

Interesting. I'm still looking for who made my Borgel cased ladies pocket watch where the movement is marked Khaki.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> The patent was owned by Depollier, not Waltham, Depollier only used Waltham movements, patents for hermetic cases, Khaki and Double Clinch Bezel were all in Depollier name.
> 
> Depollier was garanted the KHAKI patent (registered name) on July 25th 1916.
> 
> Others copied it, but original KHAKI (strap ) name was Depollier, and in later adverts they made that both clear, and they would litigate anyone using the 'KHAKI' registered (patented) name
> 
> Regards
> Adam


I knew this, and I just _knew_ someone would respond to it!








Shame you didn't remember the correct date for the patent though! 










The date of the "Khaki" strap advert was, I think, July or August 1917, as was the Fahys advert with the Khaki strap.

Cheers.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

bobbee said:


> Shame you didn't remember the correct date for the patent though!
> 
> Cheers.


Oh! I did, I took it directly of an advert of theirs, where they clearly state the registration and the date.
That was the date they registered the name KHAKI.

Also, I doubt Depollier would have taken out multiple full page "ANNOUNCEMENTS" defending 'their' registration with litigation, if they were not sure they 'had' the registration to that name.
While no Fahys advert makes mention of a registered name

And surely not Waltham -

Bye 
adam


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Oh! I did, I took it directly of an advert of theirs, where they clearly state the registration and the date.
> That was the date they registered the name KHAKI.


I am wondering if you cannot see this Depollier advert posted in my last?
Where they clearly state the date of registration of the patent as October 16, 1917?

Maybe you could post the advert that you took the date directly from, because one of them is wrong, surely?









Thanks, Bob.


----------



## radger

Great info as usual from our two stalwart researchers.

I think the 'dating' anomaly arises because the date of registration is different from the date the certificate of registration was
duly issued sa'll.

Edit

The Punjabi pic where the officer appears to be wearing two wristwatches, one is most likely a wrist compass methinks.


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Great info as usual from our two stalwart researchers.
> 
> I think the 'dating' anomaly arises because the date of registration is different from the date the certificate of registration was
> duly issued sa'll.
> 
> Edit
> 
> The Punjabi pic where the officer appears to be wearing two wristwatches, one is most likely a wrist compass methinks.


I thought of that possibility, but the size and thickness didn't look quite like a compass to me. Still, it is possible.;-)

Don't know about when it was applied for (the patent), but we were told by Adam that:



> Depollier was granted the KHAKI patent (registered name) on July 25th 1916.


which is incorrect. It was granted on October 16, 1917. 
Even the above July 25th 1916 date can't be right, as in the above advert Depollier say that they "adopted and began using" the word KHAKI as a trademark around March 23rd 1917, eight months later than the one we have been told of.

I do not mind being corrected, as long as there is supporting evidence of any corrections, and the "correction" is in fact "correct"! ;-)


----------



## radger

bobbee said:


> I thought of that possibility, but the size and thickness didn't look quite like a compass to me. Still, it is possible.;-)


Hard to say and we could never be sure but the instrument on the left wrist looks too thin to be a converted pocket watch or even a wrist watch



bobbee said:


> Don't know about when it was applied for (the patent), but we were told by Adam that:
> 
> "Depollier was granted the KHAKI patent (registered name) on July 25th 1916."
> 
> which is incorrect. It was granted on October 16, 1917.
> Even the above July 25th 1916 date can't be right, as in the above advert Depollier say that they "adopted and began using" the word KHAKI as a trademark around March 23rd 1917, eight months later than the one we have been told of.
> 
> I do not mind being corrected, as long as there is supporting evidence of any corrections, and the "correction" is in fact "correct"! ;-)


OK, my mistake, in that case H007 is clearly incorrect and certainly should not be 'correcting' you with dubious info.


----------



## Rdenney

Patents and trademarks are not the same thing. Trademarks cannot be registered until they have been in use, and the notice provides the date of claimed first use (March, 1917) and issuance of the certificate of registration (October, 1917). Unlike a patent, a trademark registration remains in force as long as the trade exists, and only in the area where it exists. It's one reason Zenith has struggled to sell watches in the U.S.

Patents apply to inventions (including aesthetic designs of products). 

Rick "noting that it would take longer than 7 months these days to turn a 'TM' into a '(R)'" Denney


----------



## bobbee

Thanks for the clarification Rick "never runs out of catchphrases" Denney!:-!

Still had to apply at the US Patents Office for the TM though, I noticed.


----------



## bobbee

Interesting reading about the manufacture of watch crystals in the teens in America.

1917 article.


----------



## bobbee

1917 Longines advert.









Wadsworth military watch cases, 1918.









Star Watch Case co. Military case, 1918.









Simplex military strap, 1918, on a Waltham.


----------



## bobbee

1912 Movado advert.









1911 Longines.


----------



## bobbee

Here are some nice WW1 photos, all from a great guy by the name of Christopher Trevelyan of King-Emperor.com.
Thanks Sir.

8 watches on this 1915 one.









1919, look at that watch, it appears to be rectangular or tonneau shaped.









1914.









7 watches in this 1918 one.


----------



## simpletreasures

Boy, I really enjoy your research on these Bob!!!
I'm equally glad that you weren't sabotaged along the way.

Finding these old pictures and posting them so we might *all* enjoy, is a selfless act indeed. Keep up the good work!!!


----------



## bobbee

simpletreasures said:


> Boy, I really enjoy your research on these Bob!!!
> I'm equally glad that you weren't sabotaged along the way.
> 
> Finding these old pictures and posting them so we might *all* enjoy, is a selfless act indeed. Keep up the good work!!!


Thanks st, it takes more than some git emailing the site owner to stop me finding nice photos and posting them.

Glad he told me who emailed him, I can watch my back now...


----------



## bobbee

Not exactly on topic, but I thought you antique mech nerds would like this very engrossing article from 1917.


----------



## radger

simpletreasures said:


> Boy, I really enjoy your research on these Bob!!!
> I'm equally glad that you weren't sabotaged along the way.
> 
> Finding these old pictures and posting them so we might *all* enjoy, is a selfless act indeed. Keep up the good work!!!


Fully agree with you simpletrerasures.
There are a few 'major' threads on this site which are 'powered' by Bobbees relentless and selfless research.

These threads have massive content of old and obscure articles, pics and adverts.
They are a trully substantial repository, full of great info.

Nice one Bobbee


----------



## Sdasurrey

radger said:


> Fully agree with you simpletrerasures.
> There are a few 'major' threads on this site which are 'powered' by Bobbees relentless and selfless research.
> 
> These threads have massive content of old and obscure articles, pics and adverts.
> They are a trully substantial repository, full of great info.
> 
> Nice one Bobbee


Well done for sure by our friend Mr 'B' ! SDA

Sent from SDA's iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobbee

Some more from King-Emperor.com.


----------



## Boycey89

HELP!! Newbie here, I have a early ww2 omega with a rather unusual dial, I have dated the watch to 1939-1944 using the serial numbers on the case, I'd love to know who the watch was made for. I have searched the net to no avail! My gut says maybe RAF. All replies greatly appreciated.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hi and welcome
Can you give me the case - model number from inside back case, that may help to find out the exact model and what the dial should really look like
Regards


----------



## Boycey89

Hi, thanks for your swift reply, the number inside the case read 199.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Boycey89 said:


> Hi, thanks for your swift reply, the number inside the case read 199.


Mmm
I think more than just 199, that gives hundreds of results.
Please post a photo of inside back case AND can you tell me the caliber number of movement.
I can then try to eliminate models that are not that caliber.

I am suspecting you have some re-dial watch, and possible a marriage.
Regards
Regars


----------



## Boycey89

Indeed it is just 199 crazy huh? Yeah I think you may be right. The calibre number is covered by the balance wheel and extremely difficult to see, can make out 
"4 2orS C" I don't know if that's the full amount of the cal number. Sorry to be a pain!


----------



## bobbee

Here is your movement.

bidfun-db Archive: Watch Movements: Omega 23.4SC


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

OK, thanks to Bobbee good work we can find it
Dial is not original sorry.

Here is a link to that watch but also many redials - but ALL closer to original than yours
https://www.google.com/search?q=OME...ved=0CAgQ_AUoA2oVChMIu7n9ndX-xgIVR5aICh1Wbgnm

PS SC is centre sweep seconds


----------



## Boycey89

Yes indeed! Is keeping great time still too!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

And based on my post above
Here is Omegas list of watches using that caliber, you can see only used till 1941

Yours may be this
OMEGA Watches: Vintage Watches Database

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Bobbee - caliber identification
A


----------



## bobbee

This movement was used in the 1940-1941 Omega Weems pilots watch during WW2.
Collectors of these models pay well for such a rare movement.

If you can give us the correct serial number stamped on the movement, we can find the age.

Read this.

British Air Ministry (AM) Specification 6B/159 1940


----------



## Boycey89

Great work chaps! I'm curious as to why a redial? There are a few when you search the cal eeriely similar. I don't think it's the medicus purely because we have waterproof stamped on the back?


----------



## Boycey89

Bob the movement is stamped 9286508.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Boycey89 said:


> Great work chaps! I'm curious as to why a redial? There are a few when you search the cal eeriely similar. I don't think it's the medicus purely because we have waterproof stamped on the back?


Well I think OMEGA would have put their name on the dial.
That and fact dial is not OMEGA original quality.


----------



## bobbee

Thanks Boycey, I think that dates to 1941 at the very latest.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Well OP watch was never a WEEMS, more like this
OMEGA Watches: Vintage Watches Database


----------



## bobbee

Just noticed the bezel is gold capped, so not the MEDICUS.

I don't think I said that it was a Weems, only that the movement was used in the 1939-1941 model VII.

Collectors of these will pay a premium for an excellent condition pre-1942 example of the 23.4SC.


----------



## Boycey89

I must thank you both for your excellent help and knowledge. 

The watch movement itself is in great condition, where can I go from here?


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Boycey89 said:


> I must thank you both for your excellent help and knowledge.
> 
> The watch movement itself is in great condition, where can I go from here?


Where do you want to go
You now know the date
You know dial is reworked
You know it was probably never a military (WWII) watch.

So just wear it and enjoy!
A


----------



## laikrodukas

I do not know why others think it is not medicus 

Here's how a truly correct one looks like: https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/*****vintage-wruw-may-2015*****-1856594-47.html#post16543738


----------



## bobbee

laikrodukas said:


> I do not know why others think it is not medicus
> 
> Here's how a truly correct one looks like: https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/*****vintage-wruw-may-2015*****-1856594-47.html#post16543738


Your Medicus watch looks nothing like the watch under discussion.
Your watch has different lugs, dial, hands, and does not have a gold-capped bezel.
The watch under discussion does not look like any Medicus model I have been shown so far, unless anyone knows different?


----------



## laikrodukas

There were medicuses with such hands  Dial is out of question because it's redialed
They came in many different case styles

Here is one with a case just like Boycey's


----------



## bobbee

laikrodukas said:


> There were medicuses with such hands  Dial is out of question because it's redialed
> They came in many different case styles
> 
> Here is one with a case just like Boycey's


Very similar, but no gold cap, different dial, different hands.
Hands on Boycey's watch are possibly original, making this a more military styled watch as opposed to medical in my humble opinion.

Not saying it is not one, but neither am I saying it is. Assumptions only.

"Medicuses"-"Medici"? ;-)

EDIT_ Do you have any proof that either of those models are a Medicus, Laikrodukas?


----------



## laikrodukas

Proof - no  Just trying to find out


----------



## bobbee

Putting the thread back on track.

Here is a great patent from Bulova for a watch/golf scorer.
Wonder if they ever made one, as new ads are still turning up showing new models never seen before.

Patent US1775066 - Watch and golf score - Google Patents


----------



## Apollonaught

Id say it would be worn on a belt,otherwise you may end up with a score of 2374523 shots.


----------



## bobbee

Apollonaught said:


> Id say it would be worn on a belt,otherwise you may end up with a score of 2374523 shots.


That's my average.


----------



## Apollonaught

Here`s one for you B,the original Patent for my Astro Time Lunar Lander watch........


----------



## bobbee

Another interesting watch-nerd article, this time "watch repair" in 1918.


----------



## bobbee

Several 1917-18 adverts for Radium paints.


----------



## bobbee

Another "LUMA" advert, 1918.


----------



## bobbee

This 1918 article refers to the US gov. tax exemption for certain types of wrist watches.
Probably to do with wartime supply of these for soldiers, in the main.









This 1912 photo has been posted before, but none have included the names of all the subjects in the frame.


----------



## Literustyfan

Here is an article that was published in the May 25, 1913 edition of The Inter Ocean, a Chicago newspaper.

It was published just a few days before the 3rd running of the Indianapolis 500 that was run on May 30, 1913.

The article gets good near the bottom 1/3 where it talks about the Case Drivers and Disbrow.

At least two of the Case team drivers went on to to be featured in full page Elgin Wrist Watch advertisements in late 1913, "Wild Bill" Endicott and Louis Disbrow.

This proves beyond any doubt that Elgin had a Men's wrist watch available in early Spring of 1913.

Months of planning would have gone into this so Elgin probably had their first Men's wrist watch prototypes in late 1912.

These men were the trailblazers!

It is STILL very popular 102 years later for race car drivers to be sponsored by or endorse wrist watch companies.

View attachment The_Inter_Ocean_Sun__May_25__1913_.jpg


----------



## bobbee

BIG watch! 1917 Italian Commission: L. to R. S.C. Porsarelli, Senatorio Marconi, Prince Undina, Saverio Nitti, Signor Curfilli[?], Signor Arlotta.


----------



## radger

What an amazing photo of the vip's.
They are all secondary as the prince has managed to make his watch the focus of this pic...


----------



## Apollonaught

Not an article as such,but a very early photo of Indian watchmakers during the 1870`s,making watches for Royalty and whomever could afford their work,







..note the wise old fella on the left giving tuition to the apprentice.


----------



## bobbee

1918 Fahys milwatch cases.









Stronghold advert, 1918.









1917 military wristlet advert.









Watch protector adverts.
















1914 Elgin, courtesy of Jeff Hess.









A different copy of the 1898 Roosevelt Roughriders, this one has the actual location written in, Montauk Point, Long Island NY.

More than 20,000 of the Army's Fifth Corps (along with Roosevelt and his men) were quarantined at Camp Wikoff on Long Island between mid-August and late-October 1898 (when this photograph must have been taken), in order to recover from wounds and diseases like Yellow Fever, malaria and typhoid after fighting in Cuba.

The Montauk camp was named in honor of Col. Charles A. Wikoff, commander of the 22d United States Infantry, who was the first officer killed in the Cuban campaign.

(Infosource-New York Times.)


----------



## bobbee

1918 article on Depollier's first Waterproof model.


----------



## radger

Interesting article on the Depollier Bobbee.

'Washers saturated in water repellants with reservoirs to hold the excess saturants and feed the
washers to keep them saturated', you couldn't make it up.

Wonder what the 'water repellant' saturant was.


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Interesting article on the Depollier Bobbee.
> 
> 'Washers saturated in water repellants with reservoirs to hold the excess saturants and feed the
> washers to keep them saturated', you couldn't make it up.
> 
> Wonder what the 'water repellant' saturant was.


How do you _Yarkshirem'n _say it?

"*ILE, PROB'LY.". *;-)


----------



## radger

bobbee said:


> How do you _Yarkshirem'n _say it?
> 
> "*ILE, PROB'LY.". *;-)


Yorkshireman?
am Northumbrian me


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Yorkshireman?
> am Northumbrian me


My apologies.
How is Hogwarts this time of year? :-d:-d


----------



## bobbee

Just remembered these adverts from March 1917.

Looks like Harrods beat Depollier/Waltham to a fully waterproof and dustproof wristwatch. 
The adverts claim that each watch is tested in both hot and cold water, and by leaving underwater for two weeks before being put up for sale. Every watch is then guaranteed for three years.

I think July 1917 is the earliest I have seen for a Waltham "Khaki" advert, though no mention of water resistance is made in that advert for the "DD Khaki" watch, later ads claim it was waterproof.















The 1917 July Depollier advert.


----------



## bobbee

1911 photo of Cal Rogers, phoning after his historic first Transcontinental flight, Sept. 17-Nov. 5.
He died in a flying exhibition only 5 months later in California, the first ever pilot fatality due to a bird strike.


----------



## simpletreasures

Thought this was interesting.................


----------



## bobbee

1922 article on the cleaning of wristwatches I personally find amazing, as they used sawdust to dry the washed cases, thus the movements required cleaning after cleaning! :-d


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Yes, and its still done to-day. Here at the museum the curator (previous) used that method and all the apparatus is still here.

Not sure about the "benzine" bit, but sawdust yes.


----------



## bobbee

Cool.
Reading the article again after your reply, it actually does make sense to use sawdust to dry prior to pegging/brushing then oiling.
Although modern health and safety would require the use of dust/vapour extraction machinery and dust mask PPE wear using just about everything in that article!


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Interesting article on the Depollier Bobbee.
> 
> 'Washers saturated in water repellants with reservoirs to hold the excess saturants and feed the
> washers to keep them saturated', you couldn't make it up.
> 
> Wonder what the 'water repellant' saturant was.


Here is an explanation for the water repellant liquid, and the packing material used in the August 1918 (applied and granted) patent.









...and in the 1918 June 11 (granted) patent snippet:









So, leather gasket and oil saturant. Hope this explanation clears up previous speculation!

Cheers, Bob.


----------



## radger

bobbee said:


> Here is an explanation for the water repellant liquid, and the packing material used in the August 1918 (applied and granted) patent.


Thanks for that Bobbee, leather washers with their own oil reservoirs to keep them saturated eh.
A novel idea which didn't take off, at least I've never seen a watch which used that idea.

Have any of these early leather washer/reservoir patent Depolliers ever surfaced? do you or anyone know?


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Thanks for that Bobbee, leather washers with their own oil reservoirs to keep them saturated eh.
> A novel idea which didn't take off, at least I've never seen a watch which used that idea.
> 
> Have any of these early leather washer/reservoir patent Depolliers ever surfaced? do you or anyone know?


I don't know, as I have never seen one, nor I think has anyone. And those pictures of the black dial case I have seen never show any washers.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

radger said:


> Thanks for that Bobbee, leather washers with their own oil reservoirs to keep them saturated eh.
> A novel idea which didn't take off, at least I've never seen a watch which used that idea.
> 
> Have any of these early leather washer/reservoir patent Depolliers ever surfaced? do you or anyone know?


The "reservoirs" are in the case style 2 and 3 that we have been discussing, they are built into the case recesses on the front (bezel) and back case.

They are clearly marked in patent 1,268,821 for example Fig 2 a1, a2 and a4, at a4 in fig 3,5, 6 and 8 at b4, c4 in Fig 4.
These are tiny areas where basically the "excess" oil sits

See here:




a


----------



## radger

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> The "reservoirs" are in the case style 2 and 3 that we have been discussing, they are built into the case recesses on the front (bezel) and back case.
> 
> They are clearly marked in patent 1,268,821 for example Fig 2 a1, a2 and a4, at a4 in fig 3,5, 6 and 8 at b4, c4 in Fig 4.
> These are tiny areas where basically the "excess" oil sits
> 
> See here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a


Thanks for that.
Interesting to see this leatherwasher/reservoir design applied to a pocketwatch case too.


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Thanks for that.
> Interesting to see this leatherwasher/reservoir design applied to a pocketwatch case too.


The same method as found in the article concerning the never seen mk.1, as well as the mk.2 & mk.3, as in your original question radger.

Here is the paragraph describing the method in the aforementioned article:









Looks like exactly the same method.

How come none of the ads for this mk.1 never show a price?

I think it possible that for one reason or another, this watch never left the factory. The second ad says delivery expected "on or about August 15th." The third advert from July states "first advert in a series of ten." Can't find any more than those shown, and the early 1919 article is the last I see, but no mention of where they can be acquired, or how much for. I find it very strange indeed that this article, which is an advertisement basically, still gives no information as to price or availability.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

*No price on MkIII ads either*


*
Or here:*


*NOR their Khaki Cushion*


*Nor Khaki Round*



*
But they all existed*


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST))& wrote:


> OR here


----------



## bobbee

What about this?









Or this?









Or this?









Funny how only the models never seen in real life don't have any ads with a price on them...


----------



## frankdonald

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## radger

$45.00 for the commonly seen Depollier Waterproof, that was a tidy sum back then.

I've trawlled the internet for hrs looking for more information on the case one design wristwatch.
It's so strange that none appear to have surfaced and this watch is only really known
by its patents and advertising (or pre-advertising).

I'm wondering if this watch was even released and sold, the fact that no actual selling price has
has ever been found in the contemporary literature is strange indeed.
I can find no reference of their actual use or existence anywhere.

Perhaps the design was superceded before the watch even came to production!

This MK1 Depollier waterproof has to be the absolute Holy Grail for the early American wristwatch collector,
check your junk boxes and attics.


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> $45.00 for the commonly seen Depollier Waterproof, that was a tidy sum back then.
> 
> I've trawlled the internet for hrs looking for more information on the case one design wristwatch.
> It's so strange that none appear to have surfaced and this watch is only really known
> by its patents and advertising (or pre-advertising).
> 
> I'm wondering if this watch was even released and sold, the fact that no actual selling price has
> has ever been found in the contemporary literature is strange indeed.
> I can find no reference of their actual use or existence anywhere.
> 
> Perhaps the design was superceded before the watch even came to production!
> 
> This MK1 Depollier waterproof has to be the absolute Holy Grail for the early American wristwatch collector,
> check your junk boxes and attics.


$45, and the earlier Harrods "Aquatic" came in at only £2.10, or $11.75 at the 1915-1919 exchange rate, for the nickel cased model.
About a quarter of the Depollier price.

Talking of Depollier, here is a 1918 advert for the "Miladi Militaire", a military watch for the girls.

Courtesy of Jerry Treiman.


----------



## bobbee

Cool four-page article from 1917 concerning the Depollier/Waltham "marriage of convenience"!


----------



## bobbee

A 1918 snippet that remarks on the non-availability to civilians for the D D Field & Marine watch, from the July-September issue of "Printers Ink" magazine.


----------



## Literustyfan

Actually, proof does exist that these watches were in fact made and that they were being sold in August of 1918.

My vast research on the subject has been published in "Waltham Trench Watches of the Great War".


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

I am interested to know, if everyone (anyone) can define what the three different cases were. I know Literustyfan can, as he told me.

Anyone else want to harbor a guess?


----------



## bobbee

Here is a great Omega advert, nice photo image.


----------



## Monocrom

bobbee said:


> What about this?
> 
> View attachment 5769690
> 
> 
> Funny how only the models never seen in real life don't have any ads with a price on them...


Just a damn shame that Waltham became a cheap Made in China Hollow Shell of its former self.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Monocrom said:


> Just a damn shame that Waltham became a cheap Made in China Hollow Shell of its former self.


China? Really? I dont think so, after going bankrupt in 1957, they set up a Swiss division manufacturing in Switzerland.
Waltham still continues to manufacture in Switzerland and sell to Asia markets.

I know no link to China.

Regards
adam


----------



## Monocrom

CVS pharmacies. Not even a separate display rack or shelf. Just one tiny corner. About 5 designs. Mostly No Date models. "Made in China" clear on the tiny cardboard boxes. First saw them a year ago in the main CVS on the East side of Manhattan near 57th street. (Most of Manhattan is literally littered with Duane Reade pharmacies on nearly every corner. A CVS is very rare.)


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Monocrom said:


> CVS pharmacies. Not even a separate display rack or shelf. Just one tiny corner. About 5 designs. Mostly No Date models. "Made in China" clear on the tiny cardboard boxes. First saw them a year ago in the main CVS on the East side of Manhattan near 57th street. (Most of Manhattan is literally littered with Duane Reade pharmacies on nearly every corner. A CVS is very rare.)


Well may be they were fake/counterfeits.
I could find no link to present or past Waltham to China.
a


----------



## Rdenney

Monocrom said:


> CVS pharmacies. Not even a separate display rack or shelf. Just one tiny corner. About 5 designs. Mostly No Date models. "Made in China" clear on the tiny cardboard boxes. First saw them a year ago in the main CVS on the East side of Manhattan near 57th street. (Most of Manhattan is literally littered with Duane Reade pharmacies on nearly every corner. A CVS is very rare.)


Yup. Retail price: $9.95.

Rick "and not worth it" Denney


----------



## Chascomm

Monocrom said:


> Just a damn shame that Waltham became a cheap Made in China Hollow Shell of its former self.


Let's not forget that it first became a mid-priced Swiss-owned made in Switzerland hollow shell of its former self, and simultaneously a cheap American-owned made in France, Switzerland and Japan hollow shell of its former self. Not to mention later a higher-tier Japanese owned, made in Switzerland hollow shell of its former self, and finally a higher-tier American-owned, made in Switzerland hollow shell of its former self.

My guess is that the cheap made in China hollow shell of its former self Waltham watches are probably a continuation of the cheap American-owned made in France, Switzerland and Japan hollow shell of its former self Walthams, because otherwise it would mean that the higher-tier American-owned, made in Switzerland hollow shell of its former self Waltham is cannibalizing its own brand image to sell dime-store watches.


----------



## Monocrom

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Well may be they were fake/counterfeits.
> I could find no link to present or past Waltham to China.


Businesses like CVS aren't going to jeopardize getting sued by selling blatant fakes of any product. It's also a reputation issue. If they sell fake watches, pretty soon.... folks are going to start wondering if the medicines they sell are fake too.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Monocrom said:


> Businesses like CVS aren't going to jeopardize getting sued by selling blatant fakes of any product. It's also a reputation issue. If they sell fake watches, pretty soon.... folks are going to start wondering if the medicines they sell are fake too.


and they may be doing that too albeit without their knowledge.
But I take your point.

Best
Adam


----------



## Chascomm

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> China? Really? I dont think so, after going bankrupt in 1957, they set up a Swiss division manufacturing in Switzerland.
> Waltham still continues to manufacture in Switzerland and sell to Asia markets.
> 
> I know no link to China.
> 
> Regards
> adam


Adam, have you seen this thread?
https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/nos-70s-waltham-wristwatch-2517050.html

AbsolomRob offers a fine summary of the latter-day Walthams:

_"I have Waltham's with Swiss, French, German, and Japanese movements (oh, and some American too). Although I'm not sure if they're all from the same "Waltham"; Waltham of Chicago sold the rights to use the name to Tektron in the 70's, then sold it entirely to M.Z.Berger in the 80's. Nowadays, it's owned by "Rosenthal and Rosenthal" in New York. But there's another Waltham (Waltham International SA) that sells into Japan; the Waltham.ch sites notes that Waltham International SA was purchased by Heiwado & Co in 1981. I've never been clear on if they sold watches prior to that or not. They're pretty bullish on appropriating the Waltham Watch Co. history as their own, which has always bugged me."_

i.e. the dime store watch being discussed here is a Rosenthal & Rosenthal Waltham, _not_ a Heiwado & Co. (Waltham International) Waltham.


----------



## bobbee

Chascomm said:


> Adam, have you seen this thread?
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f11/nos-70s-waltham-wristwatch-2517050.html
> 
> AbsolomRob offers a fine summary of the latter-day Walthams:
> 
> _"I have Waltham's with Swiss, French, German, and Japanese movements (oh, and some American too). Although I'm not sure if they're all from the same "Waltham"; Waltham of Chicago sold the rights to use the name to Tektron in the 70's, then sold it entirely to M.Z.Berger in the 80's. Nowadays, it's owned by "Rosenthal and Rosenthal" in New York. But there's another Waltham (Waltham International SA) that sells into Japan; the Waltham.ch sites notes that Waltham International SA was purchased by Heiwado & Co in 1981. I've never been clear on if they sold watches prior to that or not. They're pretty bullish on appropriating the Waltham Watch Co. history as their own, which has always bugged me."_
> 
> i.e. the dime store watch being discussed here is a Rosenthal & Rosenthal Waltham, _not_ a Heiwado & Co. (Waltham International) Waltham.


Well spotted Chascomm!


----------



## Monocrom

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> and they may be doing that too albeit without their knowledge.
> But I take your point.
> 
> Best
> Adam


Sorry Adam, but let's be realistic. Giant corporations like CVS don't get duped by pathetic con-men the way individuals do. I can tell you from experience that they buy items in bulk from established sources. Not the best sources, sometimes. But certainly established ones they've done business with for decades. Forget years. They're not getting conned in that sort of way. Whoever owns the legal rights to the "Waltham" name, decided to completely abase the company's legacy.

One thing we agree on, we both wish it didn't happen.

~ Dave.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Monocrom said:


> Sorry Adam, but let's be realistic. Giant corporations like CVS don't get duped by pathetic con-men the way individuals do. I can tell you from experience that they buy items in bulk from established sources. Not the best sources, sometimes. But certainly established ones they've done business with for decades. Forget years. They're not getting conned in that sort of way. Whoever owns the legal rights to the "Waltham" name, decided to completely abase the company's legacy.
> 
> One thing we agree on, we both wish it didn't happen.
> 
> ~ Dave.


Agreed


----------



## bobbee

1917 photo of three US colonels.









1911 photo, with watch over left sleeve at wrist.









1914 Vickery's advert.









1915 Waltham UK advert.









Another from 1915.









1915 photo.









1917 photo, showing a medic treating a soldier.


----------



## bobbee

1917, General White wearing a half-hunter cased w/w.









1918, aerial mailmen, mostly wearing w/w's.


----------



## bobbee

I thought I would post this here, as it is topical.

Adam found a great photo dating to circa 1878-1880, seen below the earliest known.









Today, whilst searching I found out who the mystery watch wearer is.

In the picture below, we see him appearing again, still wearing his black armband, but this time in dress uniform. This pic is circa 1878-1880 too.









Now, in this 1878 photograph (third from the right) he appears _without_ the armband.









We can see from the names he is none other than Captain F. Battye, brother of Wigram Battye (far left).

Wigram was killed in 1879 at Futtehabad. Lieutenant Hamilton (far right) won a V.C. at the same battle, trying to rescue Wigram Battye. (He later died at Kabul)

Info on the above photo.









This explains why we see Captain Battye wearing a black armband in the two pictures above. It is a mark of respect for his own brother's death.

Sadly, Captain (later Lieutenant-Colonel) F. Battye died in battle in 1895, more below.

The Battye family are well-known warriors, here is more info.

The Fighting Battyes - FIBIwiki

More on Captain F. Battye, who died in 1895 fighting for Queen and Country.

Frontier and overseas expeditions from India

India

Cheers, Bob.

All photos courtesy of NAM.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Excellent research
Thanks for sharing
Adam


----------



## bobbee

1914, Battle of Marne.









1915.

View attachment 1915 qvr.jpg


1916 (c) aerial photographer.









1918, filming from the trenches.


----------



## bobbee

1889 article.









1899 article.









1916 article.









1917 article.









1950 article.









1913 advert, showing use of both swing lugs, and the E.J. Pearson designed SIMPLEX watch strap, seen here: http://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/strapdetailpics/RD529337.jpg









Thanks for looking, Bob.


----------



## bobbee

Several early w/w adverts, all for the "Fx & R" wristlet watch by Fairfax & Roberts of Sydney, NSW.

The first from January 1900 is rather sparse on detail.









This one from February 1900 goes into much more detail, but still no picture.
Advertised as "For Military Purposes".
Note the quality of the movement, Breguet overcoil, 10 rubies, compensated and adjusted balance. Note also the quality "screw together" case, making it a Borgel.









March 1900, now we have a diagram of the watch, showing it has Roman numerals.
Advertise as for the "Bush Contingent".









Finally April 1900, and a view of the case back. Showing also as now available in "Oxidised Metal Cases (25/-6d), and Solid Silver Cases (42/-)".









Cheers, Bob.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

"Screw together case "does not necessarily mean Borgel, could be a Dennison case.

"10 jewels" probably/possible a cylinder escapement


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> "Screw together case "does not necessarily mean Borgel, could be a Dennison case.
> 
> "10 jewels" probably/possible a cylinder escapement


Correct, it could be a Dennison too.
Movement is lever escapement, so is the detached type and not a cylinder.


----------



## bobbee

1889 article, Washington DC.









1890 Montana advert mentioning leather watch holders.









1902 advert, Sydney NSW.









1903, Brisbane Queenslander.


----------



## bobbee

Off topic, thought I would show you the WW1 Mp3 player...

1916 advert.


----------



## bobbee

Here is a very interesting article, excerpts of a diary written by a Sgt. Major Frank Weir, during his time in the South African Boer War in 1900.
This short excerpt dated November 26th. mentions the effect of sweat on his leather watch AND his _*leather compass!*_
To me, this is proof of a leather wristlet being worn for both watches and compasses.

1901 Independent, NSW.


----------



## bobbee

1914, Aussie loafers! ;-)









Two nurses in 1917, deemed too ugly to be barefaced by the photographer.
Either that or they are wearing gas masks. 
Yeah, must be gas masks. ;-)


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Very nice, but with the increased frequency of photographs here recently, I am beginning to think you have started to mistake this thread for the "Earliest pictures of men/women wearing a wrist watch" threads..... ;-)

Hartmut Richter


----------



## simpletreasures

You know the old saying Hartmut............"A picture is worth a thousand words" 

At least he's not trying to use the forum to sell "books", thank goodness.


----------



## Literustyfan

And thank goodness for simple people who like to kick a man for writing educational horological books ! ! ! !

Way to go! 

Great job!


----------



## simpletreasures

Thanks Stan, I thought so.

Maybe, if you weren't using all these watch forums to sell your book, most of us wouldn't feel this way!

Just as a afterthought, since you, or your book wasn't mentioned, how did you know I was referring to you? You know, there are other "authors" on this forum!


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Well there appears to be different rules for different people.
We have seen others promoting their activities, like books and auctions.

I personally see no issue with Stan or anyone promoting a vintage Horological book here, and neither did anyone else for Stans first book.

Anyway, it was moved, and that puts an end to it.

A


----------



## Literustyfan

simpletreasures said:


> Thanks Stan, I thought so.
> 
> Maybe, if you weren't using all these watch forums to sell your book, most of us wouldn't feel this way!
> 
> Just as a afterthought, since you, or your book wasn't mentioned, how did you know I was referring to you? You know, there are other "authors" on this forum!


Just an afterthought..........please tell us about your VAST contributions to the horological community, museums and libraries, I'm sure all of us authors will be very interested to read your long list of achievements!

Most of us are dying to know!


----------



## Hartmut Richter

It seems to be time again to ask everyone to calm down a little! For the record:

1. those of us who don't just collect watches but want to learn a little more about them (history, how they work, etc.) are glad to be able to buy decent books on the subject

2. those writing such books are quite free to approach WUS to request permission to advertise them in the appropriate fora

3. if permission is granted, noone else should complain about "too much commercial activity on the site" or something like that - it's not their forum!

...and if permission isn't granted and advertising without prior permission is kicked swiftly into touch, those trying to sneak their stuff past the censors shouldn't complain either.

Cheer up, chaps - Christmas is coming and it's the season to be jolly and show goodwill to everyone! (Well, supposedly, anyway.....:roll

Hartmut Richter


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Hartmut Richter said:


> season to be jolly and show goodwill to everyone! (Well, supposedly, anyway.....:roll
> 
> Hartmut Richter


+1


----------



## bobbee

Three adverts from October, November and December 1915.
Not seen them on this site before myself.

Notice how hard Elgin are pushing that it is manly to wear a wrist watch?





















WW1, Churchill and friends!


----------



## bobbee

Very rare photo of the Waltham D-D "Khaki" watch. 
Never seen a photo of the actual "Khaki" watch from the 1910's before!

1917, December article.

















Blow up of watch.


----------



## radger

bobbee said:


> Early WW1 photos.
> 
> View attachment 6324906


This lad from the Leicestershire Regt lied about his age I'll bet.


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> This lad from the Leicestershire Regt lied about his age I'll bet.


No I didn't!


----------



## bobbee

This has to be one of the rarest US adverts ever!

A June 1919 advert depicting an off-set case Hampden wrist watch. It even has the rare black dial.
Only one other off-set watch seen in adverts was a casemakers advert.









Blow up of w/w's.


----------



## bobbee

Another rare advert from 1918, the "KHAKI" with a black dial.


----------



## bobbee

Another rare "Thermo Watch" advert from 1919, one of only three (so far) that I could find.


----------



## laikrodukas

Wonder if any of these bad boys exist in the wild today :|


----------



## bobbee

An absolutely fantastic D-D "Utility" ad from 1916. Such great detail.


----------



## bobbee

Great advert from Hallmark dated November 1918.
Shows a man's military watch bottom right, but also we see bottom left _*a Ladies Military Watch!*_
We have been told only one watch in the US was ever made/marketed for the military female, and that was the "Miladi Militaire" by Depollier/Waltham. Here is proof of another, in the Saturday Evening Post no less!


----------



## bobbee

...and another 1918 Hallmark ladies' military watch advert from volume 67 of "Good Housekeeping" no less!


----------



## bobbee

_*Never, ever saw an advert with both the "KHAKI" and MK1. "Field & Marine Waterproof and Dustproof" watches in it before!

*_Wonder if we'll ever see another?

1919.


----------



## JOSE G

I always wonder, how would such a glass on the double clinch bezel be replace?


bobbee said:


> _*Never, ever saw an advert with both the "KHAKI" and MK1. "Field & Marine Waterproof and Dustproof" watches in it before!
> 
> *_Wonder if we'll ever see another?
> 
> 1919.
> 
> View attachment 6387793


----------



## bobbee

@ JoseG,
I think a tiny soldier with a big hammer, like in the ads... ;-)

Here is a cool photo advert for soldierly gifts from 1917.









...and a 1917 Elgin ad.









...and a 1918 ad for Gruen military watches.









...and a 1918 ad for Hamilton military watches.


----------



## JOSE G

I have an Elgin same case as the advert.
It's a nickel Wadsworth case.


----------



## bobbee

Ooh look, everyone got a watch in the US aviation section!



























...and the Naval Academy issued recruits with Ingersoll wrist watches in 1923!


----------



## bobbee

Early advert for a wristlet watch, 1893. Specially for the cyclist.
Along with an early chronograph p/w too!


----------



## JOSE G

That cyclist watch looks like a nike watch I had.


----------



## bobbee

Three early Ingersoll adverts, first is 1913, the next two 1914. The last shows a very early photograph of the "crown at 12" model on a 1908 patented Pearson strap.


----------



## bobbee

bobbee said:


> Three adverts from October, November and December 1915.
> Not seen them on this site before myself.
> 
> Notice how hard Elgin are pushing that it is manly to wear a wrist watch?
> 
> View attachment 6302314
> View attachment 6302330
> View attachment 6302338
> 
> 
> WW1, Churchill and friends!
> 
> View attachment 6302394


Another three new adverts in the early series of Elgin wrist watch adverts from 1915, these are from June, July and September 1915, bringing the total to six!
Fantastic graphics, showing how manly it was to wear a wrist watch.


----------



## busmatt

Remember to ask your ELGINEER

Matt

Brought to you by HYPNOTOAD


----------



## laikrodukas

I wonder what did americans use Sun symbol (on canoe) for in 1915


----------



## busmatt

That symbol is way older than a lot of people think and has many meanings in many different parts of the world, most , if not all of them are peaceful.

It just happened to be adopted by a certain group in the early to mid 20th century who had different ideas to most, they could have picked any symbol but they chose that one

How different the world would be if they chose one of these



















Or even this 









Matt

Brought to you by HYPNOTOAD


----------



## laikrodukas

busmatt it is a Sun symbol in all cultures


----------



## bobbee

Here is a great May 1917 Waltham Khaki ad, showing that the clasp can be used to engrave an I.D. on it.









Not a wrist watch ad, but an officer about to go "over the top", using a p/w in the trench? Why, some would think it impossible, what with a revolver in one hand, and a whistle in the other...wait a minute, you don't NEED a hand to hold a whistle!







You can hold one between your teeth!


----------



## JOSE G

Bobbee if I could only find that strap.
It would be awesome.


----------



## bobbee

HERE WE HAVE THE EARLIEST EVER ADVERT FOR AN AMERICAN NAMED MANUFACTURED WRIST WATCH!!

(Or any named manufacturer in the WORLD, for that matter.)

1897 Waterbury "Elfina" w/w with bracelet, and the "Golf" watch.









1901 Mappin & Webb advert.


----------



## Giotime

Always excited to see articles related to Waterbury or Timex....my hometown!


----------



## bobbee

Thanks to PaulH of the NAWCC for posting these two excerpts of the ELFINA from "The Waterbury" booklets of autumn 1896.
Even earlier!

















So, even earlier!


----------



## bobbee

1910 British Field Service Manual, the bottom of the field kit list page below shows that British Officers were required to wear a wrist watch.















1903 photo of Major Francis Younghusband, leader of the 1903 Tibetan Expeditionary Force,

The watch appears to be a "true" wrist watch, with wire lugs as opposed to a leather p/w holder. If so, this could be the earliest such photograph of a w/w with lugs.
Sorry for poor resolution, it's a photo of my TV screen.


----------



## bobbee

1922 USMC uniform regulations.
Note on the bottom of page 7, that a wrist watch is to be worn by "all officers". There is also reference to a "par. 540", and below is the paragraph noted (arrowed in red).

Please note, there is no mention in the 1917 regulations of having a wrist watch, only a _"watch".

P.S.
_For anyone interested, the 1922 regs have a 1925 addendum of several dozen pages of photographs of all uniforms, medals, markings, braid, buttons, etc. etc. This is extremely complete, any martial buffs would find this very interesting. 
PM me for details and links.

Bob.





















P.P.S.

This excerpt from the 1917 US Army regs shows the three types of whistles used by officers and non-coms, the "Siren" the "Kinglet" and the "Thunderer"!
Fascinating to me...


----------



## bobbee

Another clipping from "The Waterbury" concerning the "Elfina" wrist watch, this time what could be the earliest illustration of someone wearing a w/w.
Dated February 1897.

Thanks to PatH yet again.

Note: The lady on the left can be seen raising her arm to look at her Elfina.


----------



## bobbee

Here is yet another find in "The Waterbury".
This depicts a watch holder to be worn on the wrist, and is the earliest illustration of such by a known watch company, Le Roy Et Fils, and dates to 1891. This was from a London reporter for The Waterbury pamphlet/magazine, So I am assuming it was from a London Emporium holding these, possibly a Le Roy outlet.









Other examples are this one from a book I own printed in the 1980's, and the example dates to 1892, one year later than the above...









...and this one from 1888. 
The one below actually depicts a watch with lugs attached and the crown at 9 o'clock, making it a "proper" wrist watch and not a watch holder!
Earliest illustration of a "real" w/w and a watch holder.









Thanks again PatH!


----------



## bobbee

Here is the earliest mention I can find of a watch worn on the arm, an "armlet watch".
It is from a 1852 publication called "The New Monthly Magazine And Humorist" printed in London.

It catalogues the "spoils of war" (so to say) of a known "man-eater" of the upper class, a Miss Blunt.
The item mentioned is a "never-going armlet watch", from which we can see this is a watch worn on the arm.

The excerpt actually dates to 1851, from volume 93 of the magazine.









Pretty damn early!


----------



## bobbee

This excerpt from the "Field Service" military manual of 1907 shows "Articles Carried On The Person", (a) _required by uniform regulations._
It shows that as early as 1907 it was required of U.S. officers to wear a wrist watch.


----------



## bobbee

I may have spoken too soon regarding the earliest mention of a watch.

Here is an excerpt from a 1897 book called "Horse Racing in England" by Robert Black. In it is the record of a Mr. W. Hutchinson, a horse dealer and his race from Canterbury to London Bridge.
On this ride he wore his watch fastened to his left sleeve. 
The race occurred in 1819!


----------



## bobbee

1913, "The Rasp".


----------



## bobbee

1909, "The HOWITZER" magazine for the U.S. Military Academy.


----------



## bobbee

A couple of early photographs.

1912.









1910 British lawn tennis team, touring South Africa. Very early non-military pic of a w/w with lugs.


----------



## simpletreasures

Glad to see you finally got over your "hangover" after that jaunt with busmatt!!!


----------



## bobbee

Several watches worn by these Australians, two leather pocket watch holders with covers, and a lugged watch.
Great photo, 1915.










An Australian watch advert, 1914.










...and another for the leather wristlet with cover, probably the same one as in the photo! 1915.










Here is a cartoon from 1918 showing "Uncle Sam" giving the "Kaiser" a decent left cross.
But, if we look in the background, we see the Kaiser's second with the sponge is wearing a wrist watch!

















PUT THAT *** OUT, YOU 'ORRIBLE LITTLE MAN!!!

1914.









Boer War trophies from Cronje's Laager, 1900.









The Mr. Shepard who collected the items above.


----------



## bobbee

This is the foreword in a book published in 1919 by Doubleday, paid for by Robert H. Ingersoll.
Included is an excerpt from later in the book, and an illustration.



























Excerpt.









Illustration.


----------



## bobbee

A very early (1887) article that mentions bracelet watches, wristlet watches and a walking stick with a watch in the handle.









A photograph from circa 1890-1900, showing a beautiful Indian princess wearing a p/w in a holder. 
It is quite sizeable!









This is a very early advert (earliest British maker's?) for Dent's from a book published in 1905, advertising both bracelet and wristlet watches. The word "wristlet meant both normal (lugged) wrist watches and p/w holder types in England at this time.
Wish there was a picture!









Another early advert from 1907 for a wrist watch that employs a case design patented in 1904 by A. Schild. We have seen this patent before, posted by Emre Kiris. Hope you are well Emre, you are missed.









Patent: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19041031&DB=&locale=en_EP

Here are the earliest adverts I could find for the Ingersoll wrist watch, from May 8th. and 9th. 1912.
As can be seen, the price in both is 12 shillings, matching the price in the later November 1912 advert (bottom).
























A 1912 catalogue excerpt for the Waltham ladies bracelet watch.


----------



## bobbee

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Bobbee
> 
> Wristlets (leather pocket watch convertors) we accept as the beginninig of the wristwatch but they are pocket watches attached to a wrist. Pocket watches with lugs soldered on, are also still converted pocket watches but we accept them as the beginning of the wristwatch, as they are worn on the wrist.
> Any other contraption that allows a pocket watch to be attached to a wrist is still a pocket watch.
> 
> In these articles, we can not confirm it either way, but in my current knowledge, they have to be pocket or pendant watches with a bracelet added.
> We know of know wristwatch in our conventional terms prior to 1902.
> Nor do we know any self-winding wristwatch prior to 1922.
> Nor do we have any patents, diagrams or even claims by a manufacturer.
> 
> So missing all those facts, I can not (yet) accept you have discovered a wristwatch, self-winding dated 1890.
> 
> That is my personal take on it, you can believe what you wish.
> 
> The articles are most interesting, but raise more questions than they answer, so further research is needed before accepting what you want us (me) too.
> 
> Adam


remember this little contretemps?

Here are the articles concerning this watch that I found, and you can see them on page #31 of this thread.

























Well, I found the patent with the design illustration!

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...T=D&ND=3&date=18901209&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

Here is the illustration, with date.









So not a pocket watch in a holder, a converted pocket watch or any prior design (I have found several such designs that use different methods to "self-wind" the watches!) thought of here or at the NAWCC. It is a wrist watch, designed to be worn on the wrist, and conforms to any "conventional" terms for such. And self-winding in it's own way.
This is an important discovery I think.

Totally chuffed that I have vindication on this one.

Cheers, Bob.


----------



## Mirius

Good research there Bob. Very interesting!


----------



## simpletreasures

Stellar Bob, just stellar!


----------



## radger

Very well found and very interesting indeed.

Amazing the knowledge you have added to the keen horologists repertoir Bob.

Nice one


----------



## bobbee

radger said:


> Very well found and very interesting indeed.
> 
> Amazing the knowledge you have added to the keen horologists repertoir Bob.
> 
> Nice one


Thanks radger.
I am amazed at how close the watch matches my thoughts and posts describing how it may have worked too!

Bob.


----------



## bobbee

1918 Sears & Roebuck catalogue.
So many styles, who said the Yanks were years behind Europe?

"The universal acceptance of the wrist watch by the boys in khaki is convincing evidence of their value as a practical and convenient addition to a man's attire.
Soldiers, Sailors, Policemen, Bankers, Clerks, Railroadmen-all find the wrist watch a handy-and after once worn-a necessary possession."


----------



## JOSE G

bobbee said:


> 1918 Sears & Roebuck catalogue.
> So many styles, who said the Yanks were years behind Europe?
> 
> "The universal acceptance of the wrist watch by the boys in khaki is convincing evidence of their value as a practical and convenient addition to a man's attire.
> Soldiers, Sailors, Policemen, Bankers, Clerks, Railroadmen-all find the wrist watch a handy-and after once worn-a necessary possession."
> 
> View attachment 9189274


Bob this one is awesome.
I can relate to this one, I have a few of these.
Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## bobbee

JOSE G said:


> Bob this one is awesome.
> I can relate to this one, I have a few of these.
> Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Glad you liked it Jose.

Here is one from 1918 showing a display for the DUO crystal protectors, with several sizes, different finishes and different styles.


----------



## simpletreasures

A very educational thread Robert!!!


----------



## bobbee

A couple of rarities here. Both are from a catalogue made in 1914, published for the coming 1915 season.

This one I have never seen before, an Omega military wrist watch with the numerals inside squares.









The testimonials on the next page for this watch and the wristlet too. The lower is seen in another excerpt posted on this thread.









Here is a great rarity, a Waltham nurses watch! Note the "Large, distinct, seconds dial and hand.", and the cross below 12 o'clock.
Unusual how it has names for "better" models of the first watch, but just numbers for the demi-hunter models.









Jose, I bet you want one! ;-)


----------



## JOSE G

bobbee said:


> A couple of rarities here. Both are from a catalogue made in 1914, published for the coming 1915 season.
> 
> This one I have never seen before, an Omega military wrist watch with the numerals inside squares.
> 
> View attachment 9404290
> 
> 
> The testimonials on the next page for this watch and the wristlet too. The lower is seen in another excerpt posted on this thread.
> 
> View attachment 9404298
> 
> 
> Here is a great rarity, a Waltham nurses watch! Note the "Large, distinct, seconds dial and hand.", and the cross below 12 o'clock.
> Unusual how it has names for "better" models of the first watch, but just numbers for the demi-hunter models.
> 
> View attachment 9404314
> 
> 
> Jose, I bet you want one! ;-)


Bob you read my mind.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## bobbee

Here is a special photograph. It shows a young man in his WW1 uniform, wearing an unusual square watch, circa 1918.
The soldier is a young Irving Berlin, the musical genius!









This beautiful young woman wearing a wrist watch, Circa 1915.









A young nurse from Burton on Trent, circa 1910.









A brother and sister circa 1910, Skegness.


----------



## bobbee

"JOE", 1914.


----------



## bobbee

Three British wrist watch patents.

Clarence Roberts, 1907.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&ND=3&date=19080507&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#









1909, Sigmund Pulzer.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&ND=3&date=19101020&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#









An unusual entry from a lady, Nelly Harding 1912.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&ND=3&date=19121017&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#









Cheers, Bob.


----------



## bobbee

Okay, yet another important (I think) discovery.

After my discovery of a never before seen patent from 1890 for the first self-winding wrist watch, seen here: Very early wristwatch articles - Page 60
I never thought I would top or even equal this.
But with this new discovery-something I also think has never been seen on this or other internet sites-I think I might have just about equalled it!

This patent is for an alarm wrist watch dating from 1892 (applied), by Carl Otto Major of Dresden. The patent is not for a watch holder, but an integral watch and bracelet with-well, I'll leave the rest for you to see for yourselves!

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...T=D&ND=3&date=18930822&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

The description of this watch is amazing, and must be read (It is in English) to be believed.
Here are the two illustrations from the patent above, to give you an idea of just how unusual this is.















Thanks for looking, Bob.


----------



## bobbee

Some amazing adverts from WW1.















Beautiful chronograph, and another ad for the compass watch.
















The next two show some of the kit that could be ordered.

































...and for radger, a great advert from 1916 for a compass on a strap.









Thanks, Bob.


----------

