I answer some of your questions in your email here so that everyone can see them.
No, I do not mind you reproducing information from my web site, such as the Borgel trade mark registration, as I do in fact state on my web site, but I do ask that it is acknowledged, which you have done for the date letter table.
I note that you quote me as saying Borgel watches such as your pocket watch pocket watches were known as "Borgel Officer's watch or Borgel Trench watch, so called because they came into popular use during the First World War (WW1)" This is not what I intended and has arisen because of a slight ambiguity in my text. It is Borgel wristwatches that are known as "Borgel Officer's watches or Borgel Trench watches, not pocket watches. I have now made this clearer on my web site.
It would appear from your comments in the post and your email that you have not seen my page about Stauffer and IWC. This is a sub-page to my History page which can be accessed at www.vintagewatchstraps.com/stauffer.html. You will find considerably more information about Stauffer and IWC in the section www.vintagewatchstraps.com/stauffer.html#StaufferIWC, where amongst a lot more information about Stauffer and IWC you will discover, inter alia, that there never were any Schaffhausen Bocks below the balance cocks of these IWC movements supplied to IWC!
2,626 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 20, 2007
Thank you David for the prompt reaction. Indeed whilst I had seen your Stauffer page, I had missed the part regarding different Bock/RAM's where you clearly state that possibly previous interpretations regarding the Stauffer Ram may have been incorrect. With your permission, I replicate this interesting paragraph here. Of Bocks and Rams
So I assume that indeed, the Stauffer Ram mark, can be found under the balance cock on my IWC manufactured movement.
829 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2006
Congratulations Mark for your auction success. An impressive historic timepiece. It is quite amazing to read that Adrian with his great knowledge of IWC timepieces helped you to identify and to get it. He helped me as well in 2009 as I showed him a PW, a golden hunting watch which I bought coincidentally 1976 on a antique market in Dublin, as a Stauffer <peerless> watch. For 33 years unknown and than an IWC! Really hazards? :-)
8541 Wrote:So I assume that indeed, the Stauffer Ram mark, can be found under the balance cock on my IWC manufactured movement.
Dear Mark,
Well, assumptions are dangerous things, and I am not at all sure whether all IWC watches or movements supplied to Stauffer have the Stauffer ram under the cock. When you have your movement restored I would be very interested to know what you find.
And in fact I am still rather mystified as to why this stamp was put there at all. From the examples I have seen it is clearly the Stauffer ram, but it is not visible to the end user, unlike the "S&CO. under a crown" so why stamp it on the movement at all? Currently a mystery.
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Hi Mark, Congratulations with your broad arrow Borgel IWC P.W. I have never seen one before but I am almost sure that it has been used by the British War Department ( W.D.) during W.W.I. I looked in the book of Konrad Knirim : "British Military Timepieces" but found no Borgel. But on page 259 one can see one of the oldest IWC military watches depicted sofar. It is a cal. 65, produced in 1904. On the case back a broad arrow ( there were many variants). This one has no number and indeed that is unusual. But there are more watches with a "crowfoot" only, or with one letter. I have the impression that during the last months many IWC p.w's have been discussed here. And that pleases me. Thanks for posting. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Hi David, Good to see you here again. From previous emails, I have learned a lot about the Stauffer marks from you and you were the first to point out that the Stauffer Ram was different from the Schaffhausen Bock. What puzzles me is who stamped these "Rams" and "peerless" markings. One could assume that this was done by Stauffer, but it is my guess that it was done by IWC. After all, as far as I know,IWC sent complete movements to London, were they were cased by Stauffer, using British cases, when made from silver, marked with British hallmarks, as is shown by Mark in his Borgel watch. The complete movements had no IWC marks or stamps, except the Schaffhausen Bock, of which we now know that it is not a Schauffhausen Bock but a Stauffer Ram. If IWC did not apply these markings, it would have meant that the complete movements had to be dismantled again once arrived in London, to allow Stauffer marking. That would cost time and money. Or did IWC send dismantled movements.....? Kind regards, Adrian.
alwaysiwc Wrote:Hi David, Good to see you here again. From previous emails, I have learned a lot about the Stauffer marks from you and you were the first to point out that the Stauffer Ram was different from the Schaffhausen Bock. What puzzles me is who stamped these "Rams" and "peerless" markings. ... If IWC did not apply these markings, it would have meant that the complete movements had to be dismantled again once arrived in London, to allow Stauffer marking. That would cost time and money. Or did IWC send dismantled movements.....? Kind regards, Adrian.
I like the theory that IWC stamped them in Schaffhausen, as movements produced for and destined for its UK partner. But it's only a guess.
Skule
I answer some of your questions in your email here so that everyone can see them.
No, I do not mind you reproducing information from my web site, such as the Borgel trade mark registration, as I do in fact state on my web site, but I do ask that it is acknowledged, which you have done for the date letter table.
I note that you quote me as saying Borgel watches such as your pocket watch pocket watches were known as "Borgel Officer's watch or Borgel Trench watch, so called because they came into popular use during the First World War (WW1)" This is not what I intended and has arisen because of a slight ambiguity in my text. It is Borgel wristwatches that are known as "Borgel Officer's watches or Borgel Trench watches, not pocket watches. I have now made this clearer on my web site.
It would appear from your comments in the post and your email that you have not seen my page about Stauffer and IWC. This is a sub-page to my History page which can be accessed at www.vintagewatchstraps.com/stauffer.html. You will find considerably more information about Stauffer and IWC in the section www.vintagewatchstraps.com/stauffer.html#StaufferIWC, where amongst a lot more information about Stauffer and IWC you will discover, inter alia, that there never were any Schaffhausen Bocks below the balance cocks of these IWC movements supplied to IWC!
Regards - David Boettcher
Last edited: 9 December, 2012 - 10:08
Of Bocks and Rams
So I assume that indeed, the Stauffer Ram mark, can be found under the balance cock on my IWC manufactured movement.
Best regards
Mark
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
It is quite amazing to read that Adrian with his great knowledge of IWC timepieces helped you to identify and to get it. He helped me as well in 2009 as I showed him a PW, a golden hunting watch which I bought coincidentally 1976 on a antique market in Dublin, as a Stauffer <peerless> watch.
For 33 years unknown and than an IWC! Really hazards? :-)
Kind regards
Hajo
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Last edited: 9 January, 2013 - 09:24
Dear Mark,
Well, assumptions are dangerous things, and I am not at all sure whether all IWC watches or movements supplied to Stauffer have the Stauffer ram under the cock. When you have your movement restored I would be very interested to know what you find.
And in fact I am still rather mystified as to why this stamp was put there at all. From the examples I have seen it is clearly the Stauffer ram, but it is not visible to the end user, unlike the "S&CO. under a crown" so why stamp it on the movement at all? Currently a mystery.
Regards - David
Last edited: 9 December, 2012 - 13:29
Congratulations!
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 11 January, 2013 - 11:07
Congratulations with your broad arrow Borgel IWC P.W. I have never seen one before but I am almost sure that it has been used by the British War Department ( W.D.) during W.W.I.
I looked in the book of Konrad Knirim : "British Military Timepieces" but found no Borgel. But on page 259 one can see one of the oldest IWC military watches depicted sofar. It is a cal. 65, produced in 1904. On the case back a broad arrow ( there were many variants). This one has no number and indeed that is unusual. But there are more watches with a "crowfoot" only, or with one letter.
I have the impression that during the last months many IWC p.w's have been discussed here. And that pleases me. Thanks for posting.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Good to see you here again.
From previous emails, I have learned a lot about the Stauffer marks from you and you were the first to point out that the Stauffer Ram was different from the Schaffhausen Bock. What puzzles me is who stamped these "Rams" and "peerless" markings. One could assume that this was done by Stauffer, but it is my guess that it was done by IWC. After all, as far as I know,IWC sent complete movements to London, were they were cased by Stauffer, using British cases, when made from silver, marked with British hallmarks, as is shown by Mark in his Borgel watch. The complete movements had no IWC marks or stamps, except the Schaffhausen Bock, of which we now know that it is not a Schauffhausen Bock but a Stauffer Ram.
If IWC did not apply these markings, it would have meant that the complete movements had to be dismantled again once arrived in London, to allow Stauffer marking. That would cost time and money. Or did IWC send dismantled movements.....?
Kind regards,
Adrian.
I like the theory that IWC stamped them in Schaffhausen, as movements produced for and destined for its UK partner. But it's only a guess.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 9 December, 2012 - 15:39
Kind regards,
Clemens