26 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 15, 2007
Further to my posting of yesterday I should clarify one point. When I talked about the curved barrel bridge of Tschopp Bostons I was referring to the 20”’ Boston that we were discussing (The Bee trade mark) I should have said that Tschopp also produced 18”’ and 19”’ Bostons and these have straight barrel bridges like Seelands. They differ from Seelands in having pivot bouchons (cup shaped bushings on the pivots).
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Hi Alan.
I am not shure, that the guys from the 1880's made it such simple for us to find out what they did.
Also the Seeland twin winder (key/stem) is a 20" movement. The movement list shows us just 100 Pieces of 20" Bostons and 200 with no indication of the diameter.
I actually cant find at home the Bee Seeland, if seems to be in the banksafe or flow away as bees do.
The diameters are not very clear, around 43 mm for the 19/20" and 38 mm for the 18".
Enclosed two pictures which could be inteseting for the pocket watch fan.
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
26 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 15, 2007
Dear Ralph,
I didn’t say it was simple, far from it. But all the first numbering series (25,600 onward) that I have seen (and we allocate to Seeland) have simple pivots and screwed in chatons for jewels. Then we come to these early numbered (9,000 – 25,000 approx) movements (which have the same numbers as Jones) and all the ones I have seen have bouchons, whether jeweled or not. I know assumptions often come back to bite you but I think it is a reasonable assumption for now. These early numbered movements crop up in the sales records of the mid 1880’s so it is reasonable assumption that these are Tschopp movements. Also none of these early numbered movements are in the 1878 inventory so they have to have been manufactured after 1878, Everything points to them being Pfister-Tschopp. When it comes to understanding the Tschopp Bostons – out-sourcing etc. that's another ball game as these discussions show and far from simple. It is worth noting that the sales records show Bostons from 1-c30,000, so it is possible that between 25,600 and 30,000 there are both Seeland and Tschopp movements. I’m not sure what you mean by “the movement list”? We know from the 1878 inventory and the sales lists that thousands of 20”’ Bostons were made. We don’t know how many dual wind were made, but it looks like only Seeland made them. They continued to be made probably after Seeland left and Rauschenbach was interim manager. I have a dual wind with the serial 70230.
1 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 14, 2012
Hi, my name is Holger and my profession is to repair all kinds of clocks and watches. The reason for the following questions is: Can a Swiss pocket watch case be distinguished from an English case, regardless of the different hallmarks?
1. Watch bows on key wound Swiss watches were generally secured with a screw through the pendant. If there was a pusher to open the lids, did the screw go through a borehole in the pusher?
Was this also the case in pocket watches from England too?
2. Swiss pocket Watches were hinged opposite the pendant - Not in pocket watches from England.
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Dear Ralph and Alan, Again I post the movement image of my 19 ""( ligne) Boston Tschopp. I do this while Ralph has posted 2 images of which he says :these two movements might interest pocket watch collectors. Please note that my watch is identical to the first image of Ralph's post, including the flower engravement on the balance bridge and the identical signature of IWC . I wonder what the movement number is of Ralph's watch; I cannot read it. Further, to the discussion on the dual winded (hermaphrodite) Boston Seeland caliber 26. I have had 2 of these but unfortunately sold one. Their movement numbers were respectively 38835 and 39736. If one compares this to the movement number of Alan's watch, my prudent conclusion might be : there were a considerable number of these watches, as Alan suggests. Finally, I would like to express both my concern and my joy about this thread. My concern is that few IWC collectors, other than pocket watch lovers can appreciate the input of the very few expert insiders on IWC's history as it is shown here. My joy is that in this thread a few unique men have expressed their knowledge and expertise. This will enable us to unravel those periods of time in the history of IWC, which are still unknown. Therefore I am grateful that experts such as Hans-Georg Aberle, Ralph Ehrismann, Alan Myers and Greg Steer have contributed to this thread. My sincere wish is that they follow-up the IWC Forum and comment whenever appropriate. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
5,025 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 9, 2006
alwaysiwc Wrote: Finally, I would like to express both my concern and my joy about this thread. My concern is that few IWC collectors, other than pocket watch lovers can appreciate the input of the very few expert insiders on IWC's history as it is shown here. My joy is that in this thread a few unique men have expressed their knowledge and expertise. This will enable us to unravel those periods of time in the history of IWC, which are still unknown. Therefore I am grateful that experts such as Hans-Georg Aberle, Ralph Ehrismann, Alan Myers and Greg Steer have contributed to this thread. My sincere wish is that they follow-up the IWC Forum and comment whenever appropriate. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
Adrian,
I certainly don't know very much about PW's at all, but I do very much enjoy reading the threads by the experts. It helps this amateur climb a very steep hill. I suspect there are many others like me that follow this with amazement and gratitude.
164 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
holger_57 Wrote:Hi, my name is Holger and my profession is to repair all kinds of clocks and watches. The reason for the following questions is: Can a Swiss pocket watch case be distinguished from an English case, regardless of the different hallmarks?
1. Watch bows on key wound Swiss watches were generally secured with a screw through the pendant. If there was a pusher to open the lids, did the screw go through a borehole in the pusher?
Was this also the case in pocket watches from England too?
2. Swiss pocket Watches were hinged opposite the pendant - Not in pocket watches from England.
Can this be generalized?
ticking regards Holger
P.S. Thanks to Jimmy for translating-help.
Hi Holger, welcome, it was about time you appeared here, I hope you get the answers to your questions, although I doubt it, you probably know more about the technicalities of these watches than anyone here, seeing that you revised all of my IWC watches ;-)
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Sorry, I am more focused on the movements of IWC. For the cases I just evaluate if it could be original or not by the general look. I pay not attention to the case details, so I can't anser your questions.
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
1,096 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
To continue the story, I compared the Seeland c.25 with one of the 9'000 to 25'000 numbered IWC signed watches.
The diameter is the same, but there are some small detail which are different (red: Seeland, blue: similar Seeland).
It is now clear, this are not "remaining" raw movements from the Seeland area, it's a different movement. Also the angle of the racket is differernt.
When it is a very similar movement built by IWC why? Ok, could be a later improvement, the c.46? What is then with the "Bee"- movement, an other improvement, an other c.46.
I am getting confused with those intermediate numberd (9'000-25'000) movements. What really is behind this watches?
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
When I talked about the curved barrel bridge of Tschopp Bostons I was referring to the 20”’ Boston that we were discussing (The Bee trade mark)
I should have said that Tschopp also produced 18”’ and 19”’ Bostons and these have straight barrel bridges like Seelands. They differ from Seelands in having pivot bouchons (cup shaped bushings on the pivots).
Regards,
Alan
I am not shure, that the guys from the 1880's made it such simple for us to find out what they did.
Also the Seeland twin winder (key/stem) is a 20" movement. The movement list shows us just 100 Pieces of 20" Bostons and 200 with no indication of the diameter.
I actually cant find at home the Bee Seeland, if seems to be in the banksafe or flow away as bees do.
The diameters are not very clear, around 43 mm for the 19/20" and 38 mm for the 18".
Enclosed two pictures which could be inteseting for the pocket watch fan.
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 18 February, 2013 - 23:44
I didn’t say it was simple, far from it. But all the first numbering series (25,600 onward) that I have seen (and we allocate to Seeland) have simple pivots and screwed in chatons for jewels. Then we come to these early numbered (9,000 – 25,000 approx) movements (which have the same numbers as Jones) and all the ones I have seen have bouchons, whether jeweled or not. I know assumptions often come back to bite you but I think it is a reasonable assumption for now. These early numbered movements crop up in the sales records of the mid 1880’s so it is reasonable assumption that these are Tschopp movements.
Also none of these early numbered movements are in the 1878 inventory so they have to have been manufactured after 1878, Everything points to them being Pfister-Tschopp. When it comes to understanding the Tschopp Bostons – out-sourcing etc. that's another ball game as these discussions show and far from simple.
It is worth noting that the sales records show Bostons from 1-c30,000, so it is possible that between 25,600 and 30,000 there are both Seeland and Tschopp movements.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the movement list”?
We know from the 1878 inventory and the sales lists that thousands of 20”’ Bostons were made. We don’t know how many dual wind were made, but it looks like only Seeland made them. They continued to be made probably after Seeland left and Rauschenbach was interim manager. I have a dual wind with the serial 70230.
Best regards,
Alan
my name is Holger and my profession is to repair all kinds of clocks and watches.
The reason for the following questions is:
Can a Swiss pocket watch case be distinguished from an English case, regardless of the different hallmarks?
1. Watch bows on key wound Swiss watches were generally secured with a screw through the pendant. If there was a pusher to open the lids, did the screw go through a borehole in the pusher?
Was this also the case in pocket watches from England too?
2. Swiss pocket Watches were hinged opposite the pendant - Not in pocket watches from England.
Can this be generalized?
ticking regards
Holger
P.S. Thanks to Jimmy for translating-help.
Dear Ralph and Alan,
Again I post the movement image of my 19 ""( ligne) Boston Tschopp. I do this while Ralph has posted 2 images of which he says :these two movements might interest pocket watch collectors.
Please note that my watch is identical to the first image of Ralph's post, including the flower engravement on the balance bridge and the identical signature of IWC . I wonder what the movement number is of Ralph's watch; I cannot read it.
Further, to the discussion on the dual winded (hermaphrodite) Boston Seeland caliber 26. I have had 2 of these but unfortunately sold one. Their movement numbers were respectively 38835 and 39736. If one compares this to the movement number of Alan's watch, my prudent conclusion might be : there were a considerable number of these watches, as Alan suggests.
Finally, I would like to express both my concern and my joy about this thread. My concern is that few IWC collectors, other than pocket watch lovers can appreciate the input of the very few expert insiders on IWC's history as it is shown here.
My joy is that in this thread a few unique men have expressed their knowledge and expertise. This will enable us to unravel those periods of time in the history of IWC, which are still unknown.
Therefore I am grateful that experts such as Hans-Georg Aberle, Ralph Ehrismann, Alan Myers and Greg Steer have contributed to this thread.
My sincere wish is that they follow-up the IWC Forum and comment whenever appropriate.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Adrian,
I certainly don't know very much about PW's at all, but I do very much enjoy reading the threads by the experts. It helps this amateur climb a very steep hill. I suspect there are many others like me that follow this with amazement and gratitude.
Bill
Bill
Hi Holger, welcome, it was about time you appeared here, I hope you get the answers to your questions, although I doubt it, you probably know more about the technicalities of these watches than anyone here, seeing that you revised all of my IWC watches ;-)
Regards
Jimmy
I pay not attention to the case details, so I can't anser your questions.
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.
The diameter is the same, but there are some small detail which are different (red: Seeland, blue: similar Seeland).
It is now clear, this are not "remaining" raw movements from the Seeland area, it's a different movement. Also the angle of the racket is differernt.
When it is a very similar movement built by IWC why?
Ok, could be a later improvement, the c.46?
What is then with the "Bee"- movement, an other improvement, an other c.46.
I am getting confused with those intermediate numberd (9'000-25'000)
movements. What really is behind this watches?
regards
Ralph
There is no time in the now it's time for a watch.