2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Dear Ralph, With respect, although you direct yourself only to Alan Myers, I take the liberty of showing you a Seeland cal. 25 with movement number 10944 from my collection. Please study the way this watch was signed as "International Watch Co. This signature is different from the ones you showed as well it is different from the "bee trade mark watch". Your considerations about the signatures from the early days has not brought me to believe that my IWC Seeland cal. 25 is also an "early fake". Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Dear Adrian
This is a very interesting picture. It is an other one of the movements with a serialnumber not corresponding the 1st or the 2nd numbering . But here I agree, it is a Seeland c.25 (or c.46).
For those movement I have my own (privat) theory. I think IWC sold the unnumbered and unsigned Seeland raw movements which are listed in the inventory of the 2nd fail of IWC, in big lots to a company (I do not know which one) which then finished them by signing the movements with this signature. Then, when those remaining movements were used off, and the IWC marked watches could be sold well in the UK market, an other source vas necessary and then the similar TRADE MARK watches was used as base mouvement for this watches. (But its just a theory). Whe I had once access to the selling books and I think I saw big lots of sold seeland movements.
There is still a lot of work to find out what really the history is of the TRADE "Fly" MARK movements. For me the "Tradmark stamp" looks added earlier (when the base movement was made) als the signature (When the movement was finished).
But probably I am completly wrong, and those movments with the fly are the "BOSTON Broadways" c.46.
The question is, have some one seend a "Boston broadway" with a serial number which is in the List of the 2nd numbering.
Kindest regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
Here is an image of the signature on my Calibre 24 Seeland:
and also here's my Calibre 26 Boston (which, by the way, I've always thought was a Seeland even though it might have been produced in the Tschopp era, using a Seeland design. At least Fritz Wagener and Tonya Warring told me it was a Seeland):
So, Adrian and others --my guess is that Ralph didn't mean those with other, and cruder, signatures were "fakes" in the sense of a spurious watch --but rather possibly some movements were outsourced. Or at least the plates or engraving might have been. But also at least mine, as far as I can discern, appear true blue.
Also, more for Jimmy, my Boston looks totally different that yours, more by way of elaborate finishing;
I love what Fritz called it --the hermaphrodite. That's of course because it has both key and stem winding.
26 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 15, 2007
Since my name is being used, I had better add some thoughts. Firstly we can forget the 2nd numbering Tschopp Boston (Broadways), at least the ones listed in Tolke & King. These were marketed with 7 digits. For example 7020 was marketed as 1007020 and 17221 was marketed as 1017221. Secondly, these cannot be Seelands sold on for finishing. Seelands have straight barrel bridges with train jewels in screwed down chatons or simple pivots. The movements we are discussing have curved barrel bridges and pushed in bouchons (whether jeweled or not). They are Tschopp. Thirdly, Michael’s watch is a Seeland calibre 26 dual wind. The dual wind was the only Boston finished in nickel all others as far as I know are brass. Fourthly I pay no heed to variations in the signature. Jones used a number of different signatures so there is no reason why the same cannot apply to Tschopp. Fifthly the trade mark is a bee not a fly. Bees have four wings, flies only have two. Alan
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Dear Alan
Great to hear you here. What is unclear for me whey you say the Tschopps are not in the 1st nor 2nd numbering. For me always the c.47(c.48?) where in the second numbering but got additionaly 2 digits. "20" in from. For the design differences between the Seeland and the Tschopp (Pfister/Vogel?) Broadways, I fully agree.
The only problem I have, up to now there where no documents on this type Tschopp type of movement. The only thing we know, is a list of about 1000 movements "Boston" or "Boston Broadway". The Jones, Seeland's and others could be indetified by remaining parts in the IWC. Up to now, no similar piece was shown in the books of Meis/Tölke.
If they are finally 1'0xx'xxx or just xx'xxx keep them identifiable.
The Tschopp/Broadway's, mostly identical to the AMW (Waltham) Broadway watches got an extensopn of "10" in front. But anyway, at least the last 5 digits should correspond to the list. Was such a movement/watch ever spotted?. We have seen lot of watches with identical case and movement number (not typical for IWC) with bee (thanks, I just copied the "Fly" from an other post, I was not really aware of correct animal) and curved barrel bridge or with the old type straight barrel bridge without bee.
Thank you for discussion here with us this very interesting part of the IWC- History.
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
26 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 15, 2007
Dear Ralph,
Thank you for your helpful comments. We know that the second numbering Bostons (Broadways) had the prefix 10 or 100 because they are listed in the IWC sales records. 5 digit numbers had the prefix 10 and four digit numbers had the prefix 100. Presumably large serial numbers looked good for sales when compared alongside Waltham watches. I have never seen one of these watches. I was very interested to hear that you had seen identical watches without ‘International Watch Co’. I have looked for years but all the watches not signed ‘International Watch Co’ were signed Waltham. All styles of IWC Boston are based on Waltham. If you know of watches that are NOT Waltham and are NOT signed ‘International Watch Co’ , that would be a wonderful discovery! What were they signed? Or were they unsigned? You made the very interesting observation that only the 'Bee' watches have the case and movement with the same number. Best regards, Alan
164 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
I´d like to pay my dues (and respect) to all of you, Adrian, Ralph, David, Hans-Georg, Michael, Tony, Hajo and of course Alan for contributing towards this thread, I´m sure we all learned something from the pictures and discussions. What a wonderful and knowledgeable crowd you are. I would also like to express my gratitude and thanks to David Seyffer and Alan Myers who willingly helped me and my watchmaker Holger Löhr, supplying all the information they had and listening to our problems, thoughts and woes. Thank you all.
Every so often I've revisited the "Bee" trademark with no success, I've found similar marks but nothing that matches exactly, and I've searched insects from ants, bees, butterfies and through to wasps.
As Alan mentioned the Walthan route was one that might shed some light and the following image is from "Watches 1850-1980" by M.Cutmore.
Swiss watch movements were passed off as American as American manufacturers market share grew with the above being an example. I've added the "Bee" movement for comparison.
While the movements are somewhat similar, I've often wondered whether the "Bee" movement was passed off for a higher grade screwed balance Waltham watch.
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
cellar Wrote:Every so often I've revisited the "Bee" trademark with no success, I've found similar marks but nothing that matches exactly, and I've searched insects from ants, bees, butterfies and through to wasps.
As Alan mentioned the Walthan route was one that might shed some light and the following image is from "Watches 1850-1980" by M.Cutmore.
Swiss watch movements were passed off as American as American manufacturers market share grew with the above being an example. I've added the "Bee" movement for comparison.
While the movements are somewhat similar, I've often wondered whether the "Bee" movement was passed off for a higher grade screwed balance Waltham watch.
Just a thought from left field.
Cheers from the cellar
Hello Greg...
I just wondered how a shot of my "Bee movement" came to downunder ;-)
regards from approx 20'000 km away
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
I just wondered how a shot of my "Bee movement" came to downunder ;-)
regards from approx 20'000 km away
Ralph
Delivered by long distance bee ;-)
I'd put the image together in 2011 when I last visited the subject and used an image saved in the "Bee Trade Mark" file, probably from one of your posts on this site or maybe from Fritz's site.
With respect, although you direct yourself only to Alan Myers, I take the liberty of showing you a Seeland cal. 25 with movement number 10944 from my collection. Please study the way this watch was signed as "International Watch Co.
This signature is different from the ones you showed as well it is different from the "bee trade mark watch".
Your considerations about the signatures from the early days has not brought me to believe that my IWC Seeland cal. 25 is also an "early fake".
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
This is a very interesting picture.
It is an other one of the movements with a serialnumber not corresponding the 1st or the 2nd numbering .
But here I agree, it is a Seeland c.25 (or c.46).
For those movement I have my own (privat) theory.
I think IWC sold the unnumbered and unsigned Seeland raw movements which are listed in the inventory of the 2nd fail of IWC, in big lots to a company (I do not know which one) which then finished them by signing the movements with this signature.
Then, when those remaining movements were used off, and the IWC marked watches could be sold well in the UK market, an other source vas necessary and then the similar TRADE MARK watches was used as base mouvement for this watches. (But its just a theory).
Whe I had once access to the selling books and I think I saw big lots of sold seeland movements.
There is still a lot of work to find out what really the history is of the TRADE "Fly" MARK movements.
For me the "Tradmark stamp" looks added earlier (when the base movement was made) als the signature (When the movement was finished).
But probably I am completly wrong, and those movments with the fly are the "BOSTON Broadways" c.46.
The question is, have some one seend a "Boston broadway" with a serial number which is in the List of the 2nd numbering.
Kindest regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
Here is an image of the signature on my Calibre 24 Seeland:
and also here's my Calibre 26 Boston (which, by the way, I've always thought was a Seeland even though it might have been produced in the Tschopp era, using a Seeland design. At least Fritz Wagener and Tonya Warring told me it was a Seeland):
So, Adrian and others --my guess is that Ralph didn't mean those with other, and cruder, signatures were "fakes" in the sense of a spurious watch --but rather possibly some movements were outsourced. Or at least the plates or engraving might have been. But also at least mine, as far as I can discern, appear true blue.
Also, more for Jimmy, my Boston looks totally different that yours, more by way of elaborate finishing;
I love what Fritz called it --the hermaphrodite. That's of course because it has both key and stem winding.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Firstly we can forget the 2nd numbering Tschopp Boston (Broadways), at least the ones listed in Tolke & King. These were marketed with 7 digits. For example 7020 was marketed as 1007020 and 17221 was marketed as 1017221.
Secondly, these cannot be Seelands sold on for finishing. Seelands have straight barrel bridges with train jewels in screwed down chatons or simple pivots. The movements we are discussing have curved barrel bridges and pushed in bouchons (whether jeweled or not). They are Tschopp.
Thirdly, Michael’s watch is a Seeland calibre 26 dual wind. The dual wind was the only Boston finished in nickel all others as far as I know are brass.
Fourthly I pay no heed to variations in the signature. Jones used a number of different signatures so there is no reason why the same cannot apply to Tschopp.
Fifthly the trade mark is a bee not a fly. Bees have four wings, flies only have two.
Alan
Great to hear you here.
What is unclear for me whey you say the Tschopps are not in the 1st nor 2nd numbering. For me always the c.47(c.48?) where in the second numbering but got additionaly 2 digits. "20" in from.
For the design differences between the Seeland and the Tschopp (Pfister/Vogel?) Broadways, I fully agree.
The only problem I have, up to now there where no documents on this type Tschopp type of movement. The only thing we know, is a list of about 1000 movements "Boston" or "Boston Broadway". The Jones, Seeland's and others could be indetified by remaining parts in the IWC. Up to now, no similar piece was shown in the books of Meis/Tölke.
If they are finally 1'0xx'xxx or just xx'xxx keep them identifiable.
The Tschopp/Broadway's, mostly identical to the AMW (Waltham) Broadway watches got an extensopn of "10" in front. But anyway, at least the last 5 digits should correspond to the list. Was such a movement/watch ever spotted?. We have seen lot of watches with identical case and movement number (not typical for IWC) with bee (thanks, I just copied the "Fly" from an other post, I was not really aware of correct animal) and curved barrel bridge or with the old type straight barrel bridge without bee.
Thank you for discussion here with us this very interesting part of the IWC- History.
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
Thank you for your helpful comments. We know that the second numbering Bostons (Broadways) had the prefix 10 or 100 because they are listed in the IWC sales records. 5 digit numbers had the prefix 10 and four digit numbers had the prefix 100. Presumably large serial numbers looked good for sales when compared alongside Waltham watches.
I have never seen one of these watches.
I was very interested to hear that you had seen identical watches without ‘International Watch Co’. I have looked for years but all the watches not signed ‘International Watch Co’ were signed Waltham.
All styles of IWC Boston are based on Waltham. If you know of watches that are NOT Waltham and are NOT signed ‘International Watch Co’ , that would be a wonderful discovery! What were they signed? Or were they unsigned?
You made the very interesting observation that only the 'Bee' watches have the case and movement with the same number.
Best regards,
Alan
I would also like to express my gratitude and thanks to David Seyffer and Alan Myers who willingly helped me and my watchmaker Holger Löhr, supplying all the information they had and listening to our problems, thoughts and woes.
Thank you all.
Jimmy
Last edited: 17 February, 2013 - 19:07
As Alan mentioned the Walthan route was one that might shed some light and the following image is from "Watches 1850-1980" by M.Cutmore.
Swiss watch movements were passed off as American as American manufacturers market share grew with the above being an example. I've added the "Bee" movement for comparison.
While the movements are somewhat similar, I've often wondered whether the "Bee" movement was passed off for a higher grade screwed balance Waltham watch.
Just a thought from left field.
Cheers from the cellar
cellar@gregsteer.net
Last edited: 17 February, 2013 - 19:42
Hello Greg...
I just wondered how a shot of my "Bee movement" came to downunder ;-)
regards from approx 20'000 km away
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
Delivered by long distance bee ;-)
I'd put the image together in 2011 when I last visited the subject and used an image saved in the "Bee Trade Mark" file, probably from one of your posts on this site or maybe from Fritz's site.
Cheers Greg.
cellar@gregsteer.net
Last edited: 17 February, 2013 - 23:47