26 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 15, 2007
Dear Ralph,
Thank you very much for that very interesting and in depth comparison. It cannot be a calibre 46 because the serial number is wrong. Also the ‘bee’ cannot be a calibre 46 because the ‘bee’ movements are 20”’ and the calibre 46 is 19”’. It seems clear that these ‘intermediate’ numbered movements were made during the Tschopp period. There is good reason to believe that the 20”’ 'bee' was an outsourced ebauche (from earlier discussions and the broken down example analysed by Holger). We do not know if the 18”’ and 19”’ movements were also outsourced. What we need is for one of these 19”’ examples (Ralph/Adrian) to be disassembled and examined to see if they were or were not manufactured at IWC!
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
JimmyR Wrote in reply to:
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 ;-)
Regards
Jimmy
Hallo Holger, Das Problem hier ist dass es leider wenig Uhrmacher gibt auf dem Forum und sicher weinig oder eben keine Uhrmacher für die alte IWC Taschenuhren. Für die Gehäuse ist es doch vielleicht möglich dass David Boettcher aus England Antwort(e) hat. Wenn er nicht respondierd nach dieser Post, will ich ihn anschreiben. Vielen Dank für ihre Beitrag. Grüsse, Adrian, (alwaysiwc). (Dear Holger, The problem here is that unfortunately very few watch makers follow the Forum and that probably not one watch maker is familiar with the old IWC pocket watches. However, for the watch case questions David Boettcher from the U.K. might have some answers. If he does not respond to this post, I will address him. Many thanks for your contribution. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
5,031 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 9, 2006
This is incredible information and a keen source to build a knowledge base for those of us climbing up a steep learning curve. Thanks to all for you contributions...keep them coming.
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Well, the story seems to have come to an end, the watch has been completed and returned to me, my watchmaker seems to have found a new passion...old IWC watches :-) Here´s a link to his page, where he has documented the work done to (mostly) my watches old IWC watches...
Here is the finished watch, complete with a new silver bow and even with the screw going through the pendant. A good job well done...
First, congratulations --it looks fabulous. Personally, I would have cut the screw so its end doesn't extend so far, perhaps flattening the end.
On the chart, I haven't check various sources (usually Alan Myers or Ralph Ehrismann, plus of course David Seyffer) but production quantities and other details seemed a bit off.
Specifically:
--do cal. 18-23 really have 20,000 made? I see far less than Jones, and virtually none with the lower numbers. To me they're relatively rare.
--why are cal 22 and 24 call Glashuetter? That's a new one to me. Even with the (mostly) full top plate to me that's atypical nomenclature.
--why no cal. 25?
--do cal. 28-31 really have only 310 made? I've see a fair number of cal. 28.
There are other little issues, but these are what I quickly noticed. Please realize that I'm not trying to sharpshoot, but rather help either get more accuracy or learn myself.
1,100 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Dear JimmyR
Sorry, I dont want to frustrate you, but I think, the given listing (and specially the production numbers) is not yet very sophisticated. It is quite well known that the numbering of c.18 to c.31 is most probable chronological not correct. The "true" Seelands approx 25'600 to 47'000 in the same numbering as the Jones movements are called the c.24 to c.26 (c.27 is unknown).
An other erros: c.38 to c.39 are no Pallwebers.
The two old books Meis and Tölke/King give quite a good overview to the early IWC movements.
To generate such a list, it would be neessary to study many movements, documents and exchange it with the origin of the information (IWC museeum).
regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Hi Ralph and Michael, thanks for pointing that out, they´re not my lists, it was my watchmaker who started them :-) As far as I know, he tried to extract the figures and information out of "Date your IWC"... Maybe he should have asked here, or even David Seyffert, to get better information. I´ll let him know that he´s way out, Im sure he´ll be delighted :-)
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Holger, my watchmaker has aked me to translate and post his reply for him. Here the original;
Zuerst einmal Dank für die Kommentare an Michael und Ralph !
- cal. 18-23 Die Stückzahl stammt aus Date your IWC. Wie lautet die richtige Stückzahl?
- cal. 23/24 Die IWC-Bezeichung lautet natürlich genre allemand - für mich ein Synonym für Glashütter Bauart. Ich habe das umformuliert.
- cal. 25 Über dieses Werk habe ich keine Informationen gefunden. Für Bilder und Informationen wäre ich dankbar.
- cal. 28-31 Die Stückzahl ist ein Schreibfehler. Wie hoch waren die Produktionsstückzahlen dieser Werke?
- cal. 36-42 Diese Kaliber stehen in der Liste als Elgin II Kaliber und nur die Kaliber 40-42 sind als Sprungziffernuhren bezeichnet. - Was ist daran falsch?
Solltet Ihr noch weitere Fehler finden habe ich keine Probleme damit entsprechende Korrekturen durchzuführen. Ich bin weder allwissend noch so alt wie Methusalem - eben einfach nur ein Uhrmacher.
Aber nun zurück zu Jimmy's Uhrwerk: Nach Allem, was ich hier gelesen habe handelt es sich bei diesem Uhrwerk um ein Kaliber IWC 26. Dieses Kaliber IWC 26 wurde bereits unter Seeland entwickelt und produziert. Das vorliegende Werk wurde ca. 1882/3 unter dem Seeland-Nachfolger Rauschenbach und dessen Technischen Direktor Tschopp von der IWC hergestellt.
Gruß Holger
and here´s the rough translation; First of all, thanks for the comments to Michael and Ralph
- cal. 18-23 The numbers comes from Date your IWC. What are the correct numbers?
- cal. 23/24 The IWC designation is of course genre allemand - for me synonymous with Glashütte design. I have reworded it.
- cal. 25 I have found no information on this movement. Images and information would be appreciated.
- cal. 28-31 The produced number is a typo. How many of these movements were produced?
- cal. 36-42 These calibers are in the list as Elgin II caliber and only the caliber 40-42 are referred to as jumping-numerals (Pallweber) watches. - What's wrong with that?
If you still find more mistakes I have no problems to perform the appropriate corrections. I am neither omniscient nor as old as Methusalem - just simply a watchmaker.
But back to Jimmy's Movement: From all that I have read here, this movement is a caliber 26 IWC? Caliber 26 was already developed and produced in the Zealand era, this particular movement was produced around 1882/3 under the Zealand successor, Rauschenbach and his Technical Director, Tschopp of IWC.
Thank you very much for that very interesting and in depth comparison.
It cannot be a calibre 46 because the serial number is wrong.
Also the ‘bee’ cannot be a calibre 46 because the ‘bee’ movements are 20”’ and the calibre 46 is 19”’.
It seems clear that these ‘intermediate’ numbered movements were made during the Tschopp period. There is good reason to believe that the 20”’ 'bee' was an outsourced ebauche (from earlier discussions and the broken down example analysed by Holger). We do not know if the 18”’ and 19”’ movements were also outsourced. What we need is for one of these 19”’ examples (Ralph/Adrian) to be disassembled and examined to see if they were or were not manufactured at IWC!
Best regards,
Alan
Hallo Holger,
Das Problem hier ist dass es leider wenig Uhrmacher gibt auf dem Forum und sicher weinig oder eben keine Uhrmacher für die alte IWC Taschenuhren. Für die Gehäuse ist es doch vielleicht möglich dass David Boettcher aus England Antwort(e) hat.
Wenn er nicht respondierd nach dieser Post, will ich ihn anschreiben.
Vielen Dank für ihre Beitrag.
Grüsse,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
(Dear Holger,
The problem here is that unfortunately very few watch makers follow the Forum and that probably not one watch maker is familiar with the old IWC pocket watches. However, for the watch case questions David Boettcher from the U.K. might have some answers. If he does not respond to this post, I will address him.
Many thanks for your contribution.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Bill
Here´s a link to his page, where he has documented the work done to (mostly) my watches old IWC watches...
Here is the finished watch, complete with a new silver bow and even with the screw going through the pendant. A good job well done...
Last edited: 21 March, 2013 - 05:39
On the chart, I haven't check various sources (usually Alan Myers or Ralph Ehrismann, plus of course David Seyffer) but production quantities and other details seemed a bit off.
Specifically:
--do cal. 18-23 really have 20,000 made? I see far less than Jones, and virtually none with the lower numbers. To me they're relatively rare.
--why are cal 22 and 24 call Glashuetter? That's a new one to me. Even with the (mostly) full top plate to me that's atypical nomenclature.
--why no cal. 25?
--do cal. 28-31 really have only 310 made? I've see a fair number of cal. 28.
There are other little issues, but these are what I quickly noticed. Please realize that I'm not trying to sharpshoot, but rather help either get more accuracy or learn myself.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Sorry, I dont want to frustrate you, but I think, the given listing (and specially the production numbers) is not yet very sophisticated.
It is quite well known that the numbering of c.18 to c.31 is most probable chronological not correct.
The "true" Seelands approx 25'600 to 47'000 in the same numbering as the Jones movements are called the c.24 to c.26 (c.27 is unknown).
An other erros:
c.38 to c.39 are no Pallwebers.
The two old books Meis and Tölke/King give quite a good overview to the early IWC movements.
To generate such a list, it would be neessary to study many movements, documents and exchange it with the origin of the information (IWC museeum).
regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Last edited: 23 May, 2013 - 23:51
As far as I know, he tried to extract the figures and information out of "Date your IWC"... Maybe he should have asked here, or even David Seyffert, to get better information. I´ll let him know that he´s way out, Im sure he´ll be delighted :-)
Best Regards
Jimmy
Here the original;
and here´s the rough translation;
First of all, thanks for the comments to Michael and Ralph
- cal. 18-23
The numbers comes from Date your IWC. What are the correct numbers?
- cal. 23/24
The IWC designation is of course genre allemand - for me synonymous with Glashütte design. I have reworded it.
- cal. 25
I have found no information on this movement. Images and information would be appreciated.
- cal. 28-31
The produced number is a typo. How many of these movements were produced?
- cal. 36-42
These calibers are in the list as Elgin II caliber and only the caliber 40-42 are referred to as jumping-numerals (Pallweber) watches. - What's wrong with that?
If you still find more mistakes I have no problems to perform the appropriate corrections. I am neither omniscient nor as old as Methusalem - just simply a watchmaker.
But back to Jimmy's Movement:
From all that I have read here, this movement is a caliber 26 IWC?
Caliber 26 was already developed and produced in the Zealand era, this particular movement was produced around 1882/3 under the Zealand successor, Rauschenbach and his Technical Director, Tschopp of IWC.
Regards Holger
Last edited: 29 March, 2013 - 13:08