7 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 22, 2002
Greetings gentlemen, A few years back (5-6), I purchased an antique Swiss pocket watch that was of obvious fine quality. It ended up being a very interesting IWC Caliber 56, with nickel plates and simple regulator. The particular watch was sold by a well-known high-end jeweler named Bartens & Rice of New York (FWIW: I do have a ladies 9 1/4 ligne watch that was sold by Chas. Bartens. It has a Lecoultre movement in it). It was no easy task to find out the maker of the watch, but once I did, and discovered the value, I decided to sell it, as my concentration was in American watches. It was purchased by a prominent IWC collector in Europe. At the time, I was unaware of any connection between F.A. Jones and the E. Howard & Co. watches. However, I have a Philadelphia Watch Co. watch that many have theorized was made by the IWC, that exhibits similarities to early Howard Series III movements. Anyway, more recently I bought another watch that was marked "Bartens and Rice". I was intrigued by it, as it exhibited designs and workmanship that are only found on better grade watches. While it may lack more characteristics than it shares with the Jones Caliber watches, there are some similarities. The quality is obvious and there is the Bartens and Rice connection. It also shares similar click-spring setup, hairspring stud attachment, stopworks, perhaps even damasceening. So, do any of you gents believe that this watch could have been made by the IWC for Bartens and Rice? Many thanks for any input.
No, sorry I don't know any basis for assuming that IWC in the first decade or so made watches for anyone else. IWC during the Jones area was criticized by not producing enough by its own Board, and it didn't have the capacity until about 1875 to produce for itself let alone others. As it produced more circa 1875 it couldn't sell its own production. Sales also were sketchy during the ensuing Seeland years, with the UK being the primary market. There is to my best knowledge no historical evidence of producing for other companies, including Philadephia or what you are conjecturing with Bartens & Rice.
On Philadephia, the only "connection" is based on a statement in Shugart's book. Several years ago Shugart was pressed on the foundation for his comment and he admitted that there was none other than his own speculation, but asked not to be quoted. There may be something in out archives about this.
I also don't see the design or stylistic characteristics you mention, other than the fact that many movements of this era share these attributes. The balance is different, the cocks differ, the finishing differs, etc. I do see a few things in common but more in contrast.
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 22, 2002
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your timely response. I appreciate your sharing your knowledge about IWC watches. Since I'm not sure that you weren't questioning the accuracy of ANY early (In this case, 1890'ish) IWC watches being branded/sold by Bartens and Rice, I figured I'd share this picture. Again, I no longer own this watch, as it was purchased by a notable IWC collector in Europe in or around 2004-5. So, just in case you were unsure about any IWC's being made for B&R, here's a picture of the marked movement. Enjoy.
Thanks --that's very interesting. Admittedly the layout is identical.
I wonder, though, it there's a "chicken or the egg" issue...could the movement you've shown been made by someone else, with a license from IWC, or could have IWC produced a similar movement with a license from someone else? The reason I ask is that the movement decoration is totally unlike anything I've ever seen from IWC, some of the plates seem a little thicker, etc.
The fact that a well-known collector bought it doesn't in itself substantiate it to me, given that it might have been an error (even experts aren't perfect) or a desire to have a curiosity. But admittedly it <u>does</u> look like an IWC movement aside from decoration.
I am going to asking the IWC Museum Director and one other pocket watch guru their thoughts.
Thanks again --this to me is interesting even if a little on the "obscurata" side for most watch fans.
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 22, 2002
Hi Michael,
I found another under dial picture I took of the watch. The setting mechanism is not identical to what I see in the C56 from the 1891 catalog, but it's very close. I see a difference in that there's a setting lever that actually sits on the train side of the pillar plate rather the dial side. I remember it having almost like a ring-gear part of the setting mechanism but unfortunately I didn't take many pictures of the watch. It was cased in a 14K Roy hunter, of which I do have pic's if you're interested.
Actually, I just heard this from one Swiss IWC pocket watch expert --the one I especially respect for impeccable knowledge:
The movement is a very nice "c.56 americaine" original IWC (high grade c.56) some special points you find only on c.56 americaine compared to other c56/58: - shape of balance bridge - decoration - cliquet (stop system)
1,888 Discussions and CommentsMember since June 13, 2001Mansfield,Notts,
United Kingdom
Thoughts on the movement Could the movement have originated from the Boston Watch Company. The IWC Jones calibre had striking similarities. Did he not work there before setting of for Switzerland?
No, Ivan...it is an IWC movement. I also just heard from David Seyffer, the Museum Director, who checked out the number in the archives. Here's what he wrote me: (This) "is a Cal. 56. It was sold on the 4th of July 1894 to Julien Gallet & Cie. In La Chaux-de-Fonds.
"The movement was not a licensed production, it is a official IWC Movement. In the sales records there are a few more evidences about it:
"Julien Gallet ordered 6 movements, Cal. 56, 19’’’, nickel, with a Louis XV fingers, but without cases.
"The best thing: the engravings Bartens-Rice New York were made here in Schaffhausen. Julien Gallet ordered the decoration directly at IWC. Due to sales book on the dial should be signed Bartens-Rice New York.
"So Julien Gallet as a wholesaler shipped the movements to New York and sold it to Bartens Rice.
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 22, 2002
Thanks for all of that incredibly detailed information. It sure makes me wish that I'd hung on to that one, especially being that I sell very few. I am far from being a dealer. Again, it was due to my concentration in American PW's that I decided to sell to someone who I'd heard was "Mr. IWC". Now I see why he wanted it so badly.
However, I won't go and disembowel myself in dishonor for what might have been an error in judgment. Hell, if I did that.....;-) This is because I quickly reinvested the money made for a Waltham model 1872 housed in a very heavy 18k case. If the price of gold hadn't tripled, I might feel differently. But it probably found one of the best homes that it could and I'm sure it's being well taken care of, if not well publicized.
Most of you know have what it is that I have, the pictures of the gem. I suggest you keep them in your personal archives. I'll post pictures of the dial to show that Michael is correct about the dial being marked "Bartens and Rice." Suffice it to say that the dial is not the strong point of this watch anymore, as it's well chipped under the bezel. The movement, however, looked and ran great. I cleaned and oiled it myself, all the while appreciating its hearty and practical design.
Thanks again for all of the depth of information on this, Michael. I don't think that there are many folks in the world who could have compiled well-documented data on this watch.
A few years back (5-6), I purchased an antique Swiss pocket watch that was of obvious fine quality. It ended up being a very interesting IWC Caliber 56, with nickel plates and simple regulator. The particular watch was sold by a well-known high-end jeweler named Bartens & Rice of New York (FWIW: I do have a ladies 9 1/4 ligne watch that was sold by Chas. Bartens. It has a Lecoultre movement in it). It was no easy task to find out the maker of the watch, but once I did, and discovered the value, I decided to sell it, as my concentration was in American watches. It was purchased by a prominent IWC collector in Europe. At the time, I was unaware of any connection between F.A. Jones and the E. Howard & Co. watches. However, I have a Philadelphia Watch Co. watch that many have theorized was made by the IWC, that exhibits similarities to early Howard Series III movements.
Anyway, more recently I bought another watch that was marked "Bartens and Rice". I was intrigued by it, as it exhibited designs and workmanship that are only found on better grade watches. While it may lack more characteristics than it shares with the Jones Caliber watches, there are some similarities. The quality is obvious and there is the Bartens and Rice connection. It also shares similar click-spring setup, hairspring stud attachment, stopworks, perhaps even damasceening. So, do any of you gents believe that this watch could have been made by the IWC for Bartens and Rice? Many thanks for any input.
On Philadephia, the only "connection" is based on a statement in Shugart's book. Several years ago Shugart was pressed on the foundation for his comment and he admitted that there was none other than his own speculation, but asked not to be quoted. There may be something in out archives about this.
I also don't see the design or stylistic characteristics you mention, other than the fact that many movements of this era share these attributes. The balance is different, the cocks differ, the finishing differs, etc. I do see a few things in common but more in contrast.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
Thanks for your timely response. I appreciate your sharing your knowledge about IWC watches.
Since I'm not sure that you weren't questioning the accuracy of ANY early (In this case, 1890'ish) IWC watches being branded/sold by Bartens and Rice, I figured I'd share this picture. Again, I no longer own this watch, as it was purchased by a notable IWC collector in Europe in or around 2004-5.
So, just in case you were unsure about any IWC's being made for B&R, here's a picture of the marked movement. Enjoy.
I wonder, though, it there's a "chicken or the egg" issue...could the movement you've shown been made by someone else, with a license from IWC, or could have IWC produced a similar movement with a license from someone else? The reason I ask is that the movement decoration is totally unlike anything I've ever seen from IWC, some of the plates seem a little thicker, etc.
The fact that a well-known collector bought it doesn't in itself substantiate it to me, given that it might have been an error (even experts aren't perfect) or a desire to have a curiosity. But admittedly it <u>does</u> look like an IWC movement aside from decoration.
I am going to asking the IWC Museum Director and one other pocket watch guru their thoughts.
Thanks again --this to me is interesting even if a little on the "obscurata" side for most watch fans.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
I found another under dial picture I took of the watch. The setting mechanism is not identical to what I see in the C56 from the 1891 catalog, but it's very close. I see a difference in that there's a setting lever that actually sits on the train side of the pillar plate rather the dial side. I remember it having almost like a ring-gear part of the setting mechanism but unfortunately I didn't take many pictures of the watch. It was cased in a 14K Roy hunter, of which I do have pic's if you're interested.
Actually, I just heard this from one Swiss IWC pocket watch expert --the one I especially respect for impeccable knowledge:
The movement is a very nice "c.56 americaine" original IWC (high grade c.56) some special points you find only on c.56 americaine compared to other c56/58:
- shape of balance bridge
- decoration
- cliquet (stop system)
Nice watch indeed!
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
Could the movement have originated from the Boston Watch Company. The IWC Jones calibre had striking similarities. Did he not work there before setting of for Switzerland?
Ivan
iwcforme
Ivan
iwcforme
iwcforme@aol.com
Last edited: 11 December, 2012 - 13:27
(This) "is a Cal. 56. It was sold on the 4th of July 1894 to Julien Gallet & Cie. In La Chaux-de-Fonds.
"The movement was not a licensed production, it is a official IWC Movement.
In the sales records there are a few more evidences about it:
"Julien Gallet ordered 6 movements, Cal. 56, 19’’’, nickel, with a Louis XV fingers, but without cases.
"The best thing: the engravings Bartens-Rice New York were made here in Schaffhausen. Julien Gallet ordered the decoration directly at IWC. Due to sales book on the dial should be signed Bartens-Rice New York.
"So Julien Gallet as a wholesaler shipped the movements to New York and sold it to Bartens Rice.
---
Very interesting, no?
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
However, I won't go and disembowel myself in dishonor for what might have been an error in judgment. Hell, if I did that.....;-) This is because I quickly reinvested the money made for a Waltham model 1872 housed in a very heavy 18k case. If the price of gold hadn't tripled, I might feel differently. But it probably found one of the best homes that it could and I'm sure it's being well taken care of, if not well publicized.
Most of you know have what it is that I have, the pictures of the gem. I suggest you keep them in your personal archives. I'll post pictures of the dial to show that Michael is correct about the dial being marked "Bartens and Rice." Suffice it to say that the dial is not the strong point of this watch anymore, as it's well chipped under the bezel. The movement, however, looked and ran great. I cleaned and oiled it myself, all the while appreciating its hearty and practical design.
Thanks again for all of the depth of information on this, Michael. I don't think that there are many folks in the world who could have compiled well-documented data on this watch.
Best,
Mr.Roundel
Best regards,
Jim
"We are the other people, we are the other people...you're the other people too!"
Frank Zappa
Last edited: 13 March, 2012 - 15:03