There's an interesting discussion now provoked by the finding of an early Pallweber by one forum contributor (click here).
I'd like to suggest that IWC's early numbering makes some sense, but there is at least one issue. Here’s the movement numbers from my some of the 19th century IWC watches in my collection.
Some watches from my collection and their movement numbers
28xx –an early Jones, circa 1870 160xx –another Jones 244xx –a late Jones 276xx –a Seeland from the late 1870s 362xx –a late Seeland 1005xx –a Calibre 28 (à bascule pilier) circa 1882 –this makes no sense
Then the second numbering starts, from the mid-1880s to in my examples the early 1890s. All these make sequential sense:
50xx –an Elgin I, circa 1883-1884 100xx –an Elgin II (Pallweber), probably a year or two later 44xxx –a Calibre IWC 60xxx –a Calibre IWC 80xxx –a Calibre IWC
Does anyone know how the Calibre 28 got such a strange number?
1,105 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Hi Michael
Interesting discussion: Early numbering of watches.
I think you know my opinion: Seeland wantet to get some order in his numbering system. (bigger sections for the same caliber type)
He started after the last Jones (about 25400) with his first caliber, we call it now c.24.
At 35'001 he started with the next caliber type (c.25 & c.26) At 40'000 he started an other proto-type (probably c.18) Later he used the numbres 43'001... for the similar c.22 (Lepine "port chaton")
At 45'000 he continued with the c.24, as the numbers where used til 35'000
From 55'001 was used for the caliber c.19.
From 60'001 was placed the c.23 (Savonette version of "port chaton")
Then there was a gap for other "planed movements".
The nex IWC-Director continued with the c.28 at a new range, at 100'001 and at 110'001 for the c.29
Later (approx. 1883/4) they started again with a new numbering at 1, which was continued till today.
I know tis is quite cryptic for those who does not know the actual caliber numbering. But I am shure there will be a new, more chronilogical caliber numbering for the differernt calibers soon.
With watchful regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Thanks, Ralph. That's very helpful and informative.
Here's what David Seyffer, Museum Curator, wrote me about this:
"The number is not strange at all; 1005xx –Calibre 28 was made probably 1881/82. The number is due to the 1st numbering system introduced by Jones. Maybe Seeland did not to carry on numbering the movements consecutively so before the 2nd numbering system was introduced very high numbers are known. Sometimes we find IWC movements from 1882/83 within number interval of one million and more. To stop the inflationary numbering IWC was probably the reason why the 2nd numbering system was introduced in summer 1884.
271 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 27, 2008
Michael Friedberg Wrote: Here's what David Seyffer, Museum Curator, wrote me about this:
" Maybe Seeland did not to carry on numbering the movements consecutively so before the 2nd numbering system was introduced very high numbers are known. Sometimes we find IWC movements from 1882/83 within number interval of one million and more. To stop the inflationary numbering IWC was probably the reason why the 2nd numbering system was introduced in summer 1884.
If this is true, the numbering system we now call the 2nd is in fact the 3rd system.
1. Jones-numbering: consecutive numbers from 1 2. Seeland-numbering: batches of numbers allocated to calibers, started from about number 25400 making sure calibers have a unique number. 3. current numbering: consecutive numbers from 1, started in the summer of 1884
The last numbering seems strange. Because it starts over at number 1 there are calibers with the same number and thus creating confusion.
I'd like to suggest that IWC's early numbering makes some sense, but there is at least one issue. Here’s the movement numbers from my some of the 19th century IWC watches in my collection.
Some watches from my collection and their movement numbers
28xx –an early Jones, circa 1870
160xx –another Jones
244xx –a late Jones
276xx –a Seeland from the late 1870s
362xx –a late Seeland
1005xx –a Calibre 28 (à bascule pilier) circa 1882 –this makes no sense
Then the second numbering starts, from the mid-1880s to in my examples the early 1890s. All these make sequential sense:
50xx –an Elgin I, circa 1883-1884
100xx –an Elgin II (Pallweber), probably a year or two later
44xxx –a Calibre IWC
60xxx –a Calibre IWC
80xxx –a Calibre IWC
Does anyone know how the Calibre 28 got such a strange number?
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Interesting discussion: Early numbering of watches.
I think you know my opinion: Seeland wantet to get some order in his numbering system. (bigger sections for the same caliber type)
He started after the last Jones (about 25400)
with his first caliber, we call it now c.24.
At 35'001 he started with the next caliber type (c.25 & c.26)
At 40'000 he started an other proto-type (probably c.18)
Later he used the numbres 43'001... for the similar c.22 (Lepine "port chaton")
At 45'000 he continued with the c.24, as the numbers where used til 35'000
From 55'001 was used for the caliber c.19.
From 60'001 was placed the c.23 (Savonette version of "port chaton")
Then there was a gap for other "planed movements".
The nex IWC-Director continued with the c.28 at a new range, at 100'001 and
at 110'001 for the c.29
Later (approx. 1883/4) they started again with a new numbering at 1, which was continued till today.
I know tis is quite cryptic for those who does not know the actual caliber numbering.
But I am shure there will be a new, more chronilogical caliber numbering for the differernt calibers soon.
With watchful regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Last edited: 23 May, 2013 - 23:51
Here's what David Seyffer, Museum Curator, wrote me about this:
"The number is not strange at all; 1005xx –Calibre 28 was made probably 1881/82.
The number is due to the 1st numbering system introduced by Jones. Maybe Seeland did not to carry on numbering the movements consecutively so before the 2nd numbering system was introduced very high numbers are known. Sometimes we find IWC movements from 1882/83 within number interval of one million and more. To stop the inflationary numbering IWC was probably the reason why the 2nd numbering system was introduced in summer 1884.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
If this is true, the numbering system we now call the 2nd is in fact the 3rd system.
1. Jones-numbering: consecutive numbers from 1
2. Seeland-numbering: batches of numbers allocated to calibers, started from about number 25400 making sure calibers have a unique number.
3. current numbering: consecutive numbers from 1, started in the summer of 1884
The last numbering seems strange. Because it starts over at number 1 there are calibers with the same number and thus creating confusion.
Regards,
Bas