166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
...and here´s Alan Myers reply to my question, as I also originally thought it may be a Seeland... Hi Jimmy, This is a genuine IWC watch. I need to know the serial number and also the size (18"' or 20"'). I am pretty sure it is a Tschopp Boston and not a Seeland, but the serial number is needed for confirmation.
I managed to see the number on an enlarged image. It is definitely a Tschopp Boston 20"' from around 1882/3. I have one just like it with the same Bee trade mark. We cannot trace this trade mark but assume it was sold for marketing on by a retailer much like IWC did with Stauffer & Co in the early 20th Century. Alan
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
I recieved the first pictures of the Tschopp Boston after my watchmaker had taken it apart. The movement and case numbers are identcal, and the signatures can be seen much clearer. I´ll post the result of the finished watch in due course.
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Alan Myers was so good as to provide me with an image of his Tschopp Boston, serial Nr 16171, mine is Nr 17477, making it 1306 later. The interesting point is the winder had been moved from the going barrel, to the left of it within those numbers. I wonder why this was done? Alans Mine
217 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 27, 2001
Differences between the Seeland-Calibres c.24, c.25 and c.26 are small. The picture shows a c.25 of my collection. Zeitwerke showed 7 Seeland watches from different collectors. I must look for this picture, I'll post it.
1,910 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
Although the Seeland era is obviously an important chapter of IWC's history, horologically speaking, it appears to have been a low point. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Antonio, The answer to your question is from my perspective yes and no. Remember, that the dream of Jones was to produce machine made movements to be exported mainly to the USA, where engine turned cases were produced and mounted. Jones used for that a three quarter plate movement, but this was not a new idea. Howard Watch and Clock Co., the manufacturer for which Jones had worked in Boston, produced its first three quarter plate movement in 1862 already. Basically there were 3 different movement constructions during the 19th century, which were used by nearly all watch manufacturers in Switzerland, Germany , France, Great Britain and in the USA. These were the full plate, the three quarter plate and the (finger) bridge constructions. When Jones crossed the Atlantic in 1868, the machine production of pocket watches was already started up in the USA. When the first bankcrupty of IWC occurred in 1875 and Jones had to leave, IWC appointed Frederick Frank Seeland as he had "convincing papers" and a good reputation built up as a watch maker, trained at the American Watch Company in Waltham, Massachussets. Seeland had to go on to produce watches by machines, but now for less than half the price of the Jones movements. No wonder that Seeland selected an already full developed construction : the full plate movement made in large quantities by Waltham and Elgin. Imagine that Elgin in the USA delivered its first watch movement in 1867, the year that Jones was ready to head for Switzerland. But in 1888, Elgin reached a peak of 7.500 movements per week, produced by 2300 workers! Most of these watch movements were sold to retailers where the customer could select the case, dial and hands. Seeland must have had a lot of competition, certainly on the US market. And even with the low prices he could not survive. Maybe one can say : right watch, wrong time. This expression was true several times during the history of IWC. So, in terms of hrological innovation, Seeland did not add substantially to the history of IWC. On the other hand, he succeeded in a few years to change the production towards completely other watches which were cheaper but also less in quality. The way Seeland gave up his mission is, no doubt to be critisised : he just left secretely for America, something that Jones had not done. As far as I could find in the literature, Seeland made up the figures about the stock to produce better business results, but did not steal money or watches. I find the history of the Seeland period interesting as well as the watches that were produced when he took over from the founder of the company... But yes, that is very personal. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Thank you Hans-Georg for taking your time to look for the Friederich Wagener watches, and thank you Adrian for filling in the story behind the making and history of these timepieces. Tony, you are quite right about the quality, if the name International watch hadn´t been present, or the watches were not in some way related to IWC, I suspect these watches would have been binned a long time ago ;-)...but...I collect and have them restored for what they are, a part of IWC´s heritage, no matter what quality. I like to compare these artifacts to my old Porsche, of course the new(er) ones are more sophisticated but it´s the oldies that ooze tradition.
Hi Jimmy,
This is a genuine IWC watch. I need to know the serial number and also the size (18"' or 20"').
I am pretty sure it is a Tschopp Boston and not a Seeland, but the serial number is needed for confirmation.
I managed to see the number on an enlarged image. It is definitely a Tschopp Boston 20"' from around 1882/3. I have one just like it with the same Bee trade mark. We cannot trace this trade mark but assume it was sold for marketing on by a retailer much like IWC did with Stauffer & Co in the early 20th Century.
Alan
I´ll post the result of the finished watch in due course.
Regards
Jimmy
Last edited: 7 February, 2013 - 10:52
I wonder why this was done?
Alans
Mine
The picture shows a c.25 of my collection. Zeitwerke showed 7 Seeland watches from different collectors. I must look for this picture, I'll post it.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
clepsydra
ad fontes...
The answer to your question is from my perspective yes and no.
Remember, that the dream of Jones was to produce machine made movements to be exported mainly to the USA, where engine turned cases were produced and mounted.
Jones used for that a three quarter plate movement, but this was not a new idea. Howard Watch and Clock Co., the manufacturer for which Jones had worked in Boston, produced its first three quarter plate movement in 1862 already. Basically there were 3 different movement constructions during the 19th century, which were used by nearly all watch manufacturers in Switzerland, Germany , France, Great Britain and in the USA. These were the full plate, the three quarter plate and the (finger) bridge constructions.
When Jones crossed the Atlantic in 1868, the machine production of pocket watches was already started up in the USA. When the first bankcrupty of IWC occurred in 1875 and Jones had to leave, IWC appointed Frederick Frank Seeland as he had "convincing papers" and a good reputation built up as a watch maker, trained at the American Watch Company in Waltham, Massachussets. Seeland had to go on to produce watches by machines, but now for less than half the price of the Jones movements. No wonder that Seeland selected an already full developed construction : the full plate movement made in large quantities by Waltham and Elgin. Imagine that Elgin in the USA delivered its first watch movement in 1867, the year that Jones was ready to head for Switzerland. But in 1888, Elgin reached a peak of 7.500 movements per week, produced by 2300 workers! Most of these watch movements were sold to retailers where the customer could select the case, dial and hands. Seeland must have had a lot of competition, certainly on the US market. And even with the low prices he could not survive. Maybe one can say : right watch, wrong time. This expression was true several times during the history of IWC.
So, in terms of hrological innovation, Seeland did not add substantially to the history of IWC. On the other hand, he succeeded in a few years to change the production towards completely other watches which were cheaper but also less in quality.
The way Seeland gave up his mission is, no doubt to be critisised : he just left secretely for America, something that Jones had not done. As far as I could find in the literature, Seeland made up the figures about the stock to produce better business results, but did not steal money or watches.
I find the history of the Seeland period interesting as well as the watches that were produced when he took over from the founder of the company...
But yes, that is very personal.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
and thank you Adrian for filling in the story behind the making and history of these timepieces.
Tony, you are quite right about the quality, if the name International watch hadn´t been present, or the watches were not in some way related to IWC, I suspect these watches would have been binned a long time ago ;-)...but...I collect and have them restored for what they are, a part of IWC´s heritage, no matter what quality. I like to compare these artifacts to my old Porsche, of course the new(er) ones are more sophisticated but it´s the oldies that ooze tradition.
Best Regards
Jimmy
Last edited: 10 February, 2013 - 17:51