Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please.
- Thread starter JW8725
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not offended. I just call BS on the price your BIL quoted and the rule of fifths.
That's a lovely watch ^^
I am getting tempted by a Rolex since I found out my brother in law can get them at cost price. I always thought a Submariner would be well out of my price range but apparently Rolex work on a rule of fifths. A jeweller buys it at cost and times it by 5 so in theory I could get a £6k Sub for £1200. My wife is rolling her eyes even at that price but I think I need to do it.
Rolex maintains their product line with an iron fist. To even have a parts account with Rolex is exclusive. That's why their resale value is so high.
Unless your BIL is a regional Director for a chain of pawn shops, this is not possible. Sorry, but someone had to say it.
If you can get a new Rolex Submariner, the best selling watch that they have, for 1200 pounds, it's either either fake, stolen, or pawned.
Fini...
Last purchase, got a watch, as wrote in the other topic, Seiko Scuba 7S26 SKX011 with a nato strap.
While it is very nice to see some of the - ah, modern - watches people have taken the time and trouble to post, I must say, as someone who thrills to the older, elegant, classic appearance of timeless watches, that I'd love to see somebody post a picture of an attractive, elegant, understated classic - say, the old Tudors from the 1950s, or the old (mid-sized) Rolexes, or an Omega from that time
Last edited:
Last edited:
I thought the Elgin Hayden W. Wheeler deserved better photos than the above(which were snapped with my iPhone shortly after buying the watch).
After talking to a few other collectors, the mystery deepens somewhat. It seems that the Elgin 375,xxx block was blocked out early on for "special" movements. In the normal sequence, it would have come up about around 1872 or 1873, and falls right in the middle of a larger run of ladies' 10 size Frances Ruby grades.
All reported examples from this run, however, have not met that description. I've been told that some were otherwise consistent with 1870s watches but had something "special" about them. Others were obviously finished much later and over a wide range of years.
Hayden Wheeler was a major retailer, but dealt primarily in Hamiltons. He bought in enough volume that Hamilton actually blocked out a couple of serial number runs for him.
In contrast, I've had at least three knowledgeable collectors tell me that they've never seen an Elgin HWW-and these folks who have probably 100 years combined experience collecting and specifically searching for watches like this.
This sort of stuff is-to me-what makes collecting antique watches(as opposed to modern watches) so exciting. With modern watches, you can pretty much open a catalog or go into a retailer, point to what you want, and lay out the money. With antique watches, you have to spend the time searching, and the knowledge to know what you're looking at. The knowledge parts comes both from reading(including doing mundane things like poring over factory ledgers and serial tables) as well as "getting your hands dirty" by looking at, handling, and remembering as many watches in your area of interest as you can. There's something of a "6th sense" that good collectors develop where they know something is unusual about a watch-and with practice that sort of refines into recognizing original as opposed to made-up pieces.
In any case, with my rambling, here are photos of the watch.
After talking to a few other collectors, the mystery deepens somewhat. It seems that the Elgin 375,xxx block was blocked out early on for "special" movements. In the normal sequence, it would have come up about around 1872 or 1873, and falls right in the middle of a larger run of ladies' 10 size Frances Ruby grades.
All reported examples from this run, however, have not met that description. I've been told that some were otherwise consistent with 1870s watches but had something "special" about them. Others were obviously finished much later and over a wide range of years.
Hayden Wheeler was a major retailer, but dealt primarily in Hamiltons. He bought in enough volume that Hamilton actually blocked out a couple of serial number runs for him.
In contrast, I've had at least three knowledgeable collectors tell me that they've never seen an Elgin HWW-and these folks who have probably 100 years combined experience collecting and specifically searching for watches like this.
This sort of stuff is-to me-what makes collecting antique watches(as opposed to modern watches) so exciting. With modern watches, you can pretty much open a catalog or go into a retailer, point to what you want, and lay out the money. With antique watches, you have to spend the time searching, and the knowledge to know what you're looking at. The knowledge parts comes both from reading(including doing mundane things like poring over factory ledgers and serial tables) as well as "getting your hands dirty" by looking at, handling, and remembering as many watches in your area of interest as you can. There's something of a "6th sense" that good collectors develop where they know something is unusual about a watch-and with practice that sort of refines into recognizing original as opposed to made-up pieces.
In any case, with my rambling, here are photos of the watch.
Beautiful Elgin you have there!
I have my Grandfather's pocket watch, it's a Hampden from 1893. It's gold plated and has a porcelain dial.
My Grandfather got it from an old Italian guy. He didn't really elaborate on the story so I don't really know anything more than that.
Cool story - after my Grandpa died I took it to well known watch shop here to get it appraised. The watchmaker that looked at said it was only worth around $300 or so but wanted to buy it as the guy that taught him watchmaking has serviced the watch many years before.
I have my Grandfather's pocket watch, it's a Hampden from 1893. It's gold plated and has a porcelain dial.
My Grandfather got it from an old Italian guy. He didn't really elaborate on the story so I don't really know anything more than that.
Cool story - after my Grandpa died I took it to well known watch shop here to get it appraised. The watchmaker that looked at said it was only worth around $300 or so but wanted to buy it as the guy that taught him watchmaking has serviced the watch many years before.
Last edited:
Great post; most interesting and an absolute pleasure to read. Lovely pictures, too. And what a beautiful Elgin watch, a true classic.
Beautiful Elgin you have there!
I have my Grandfather's pocket watch, it's a Hampden from 1893. It's gold plated and has a porcelain dial.
My Grandfather got it from an old Italian guy. He didn't really elaborate on the story so I don't really know anything more than that.
Cool story - after my Grandpa died I took it to well know watch shop here to get it appraised. The watchmaker that looked at said it was only worth around $300 or so but wanted to buy it as the guy that taught him watchmaking has serviced the watch many years before.
What a charming story and what a lovely watch. Thanks for posting this and sharing it.
Very nice. I'd really like one of their slimline moon phase jobs
The only thing that puts me off is the fact that I'm not a fan of watches without a second hand.
Last edited:
I'm checking my bank account and seriously considering a bid on this
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22404/lot/37/
A friend went to New York over the weekend to preview, and was nice enough to send me his detailed notes along with an endorsement to go for it(lot 39 is similar, but he advised passing).
I'll have to watch the sale tomorrow and see what it does...if it's anywhere close to estimate I can probably pull it off. At the same time, though, the 25% buyers premium(a rant for another day) makes me not want to do business with them...
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22404/lot/37/
A friend went to New York over the weekend to preview, and was nice enough to send me his detailed notes along with an endorsement to go for it(lot 39 is similar, but he advised passing).
I'll have to watch the sale tomorrow and see what it does...if it's anywhere close to estimate I can probably pull it off. At the same time, though, the 25% buyers premium(a rant for another day) makes me not want to do business with them...
Looking through some old photos, this was the last Hamilton 992B I had
(yes, the box numbers do match the case and movement)
And a scarce 1872 model Waltham "Champion." There were 200 of this grade made, and they were the last of standard production 1872 models. I snapped this one up at Auburn a few years ago for a bargain price-roughly the value of the(scarce) silver case. The March '91 Presentation on the cuvette is roughly consistent with when the ledgers report the sale of this run of movements(1890), so I suspect that the case is original.
This is the only known example of this grade(at least among the half dozen or so of us who track them) with a gold center jewel setting, although given the person from whom I purchased the watch(and his reputation) I suspect that it may not be original.
(yes, the box numbers do match the case and movement)
And a scarce 1872 model Waltham "Champion." There were 200 of this grade made, and they were the last of standard production 1872 models. I snapped this one up at Auburn a few years ago for a bargain price-roughly the value of the(scarce) silver case. The March '91 Presentation on the cuvette is roughly consistent with when the ledgers report the sale of this run of movements(1890), so I suspect that the case is original.
This is the only known example of this grade(at least among the half dozen or so of us who track them) with a gold center jewel setting, although given the person from whom I purchased the watch(and his reputation) I suspect that it may not be original.
Well, all I can report is that I was successful. This may seem like a lot of money, but the case is worth a decent chunk of change by itself, and there were only a couple hundred of these movements made.
Here's another that I had out recently, and honestly had forgotten about.
This is an Illinois Grade 189-one of the highest grade watches that the Illinois Watch Company made. Fortunately, for the collector, they are very under-appreciated in the market, and thus bring relatively low prices.
For comparison, a crummy, late production(Hamilton) pressed jewel Bunn Special 161B sold for 11K on Tuesday at Bonhams. This watch isn't as rare as a 161B, but IMO is a lot more interesting.
I hope you all don't mind my posting "on the bench" photos. I have a lot of fun taking them, and will continue to do so unless someone is offended by them.
Note the black polish and chamfer on a the balance arms and the pallet fork, as well as the chamfer on the plate edges and chamfer and black polish on the screw heads along with the rest of the steelwork. It's hard to find that on watches short of $20K these days.
This is an Illinois Grade 189-one of the highest grade watches that the Illinois Watch Company made. Fortunately, for the collector, they are very under-appreciated in the market, and thus bring relatively low prices.
For comparison, a crummy, late production(Hamilton) pressed jewel Bunn Special 161B sold for 11K on Tuesday at Bonhams. This watch isn't as rare as a 161B, but IMO is a lot more interesting.
I hope you all don't mind my posting "on the bench" photos. I have a lot of fun taking them, and will continue to do so unless someone is offended by them.
Note the black polish and chamfer on a the balance arms and the pallet fork, as well as the chamfer on the plate edges and chamfer and black polish on the screw heads along with the rest of the steelwork. It's hard to find that on watches short of $20K these days.
Here's another that I had out recently, and honestly had forgotten about.
This is an Illinois Grade 189-one of the highest grade watches that the Illinois Watch Company made. Fortunately, for the collector, they are very under-appreciated in the market, and thus bring relatively low prices.
For comparison, a crummy, late production(Hamilton) pressed jewel Bunn Special 161B sold for 11K on Tuesday at Bonhams. This watch isn't as rare as a 161B, but IMO is a lot more interesting.
I hope you all don't mind my posting "on the bench" photos. I have a lot of fun taking them, and will continue to do so unless someone is offended by them.
Note the black polish and chamfer on a the balance arms and the pallet fork, as well as the chamfer on the plate edges and chamfer and black polish on the screw heads along with the rest of the steelwork. It's hard to find that on watches short of $20K these days.
Well, I am not in the least bit offended. Actually, I find this stuff both educational and interesting; informative, as well.
And, on a watch thread - even one where the discussion of traditional watches is specified in the thread title - one can become rather tired of all of those pictures of Rolex Submariners; no offence to those, but I like to see a bit of history, and a wider range of sheer classics, as they are the sort of watches that send my pulse racing.
So, thank you for posting these; lovely pictures, and a most interesting story.
I mentioned this one above-it's a watch that's been on my "want list" for a while. It has a few condition issues, but I think I can clean up the steelwork pretty well and it should look a LOT better after cleaning. I pulled the balance cock, and found green goo(probably a remnant of the watch being "solo-lubed" at some point in the past). The motion is currently low, but it should run a LOT better with all the old, gummy oil cleaned out and fresh synthetic.
BTW, it's beyond me why L&R still makes even makes Solo-Lube. To explain a little bit further, normally when a watch is cleaned it is run through a 3-bath cleaner. The first bath contains the "cleaner" that is some ammonia compounds dissolved in stoddard's solvent(petroleum distillates). This cleans the old oil and grease off, along with brightening any brass, nickel, and gold. The second and third bath are a "rinse", which is essentially just stoddard's solvent and meant to remove the cleaning solution. When the cleaning solution is changed, jar 2(rinse 1) is discarded and jar 3(rinse 2) becomes jar 2. Fresh rinse is then added to the third jar.
Solo-lube dissolves a light oil in the two rinse solutions, with the idea being that when the watch is dried it coats everything in a layer of oil. The problem is that watches really only function correctly with a tiny amount of lubricant in the correct places-one drop(such as from a dropper bottle) will lube several big pocket watches. I read somewhere that in history of the Elgin National Watch Company from about 1870-1950, they only managed to use about a gallon of oil, and that was with cleaning out the oil cups every night. In any case, Solo-Lube will allow a watch to run well for a few months, but eventually attracts dust and other crap, and just makes the whole movement look crummy. The only correct way to clean a watch is to take it completely apart, run it through the cleaner(whether ultrasonic, mechanical, or even cleaning by hand) and then re-assembling with the correct amount of oil.
In any case, here's the prize watch. This is a 16 size 1860 model Waltham with Fogg's Patent Vibrating Hairspring stud. This was designed to improve isochronism by allowing the hairspring to "breath" more concentrically than with a standard fixed stud. It wasn't actually all that effective, while a Breguet overcoil(which eventually became standard on even the cheapest American watches) is very much so. Even so, the vibrating stud-or "vibrator" in collector parlance-is an interesting artifact. I've seen estimates of production of somewhere between 200 and 300 Vibrators. So, it's not a super common piece.
Interestingly enough, a collector told me the other day that he thought there were probably only 20 surviving vibrators in 20 size. Looking through my notes, I've handled probably 10 and have seen pictures of a handful of others. That's something to think that I've seen 3/4 of the total existing ones.
Here's the much more common 16 size, in a straight, all original Robbins and Appleton case. It dates to about 1860. The engine turning on the case is a bit weak, but that's my biggest complaint.
BTW, I know we have some folks from Boston around here. If you've ventured over to Waltham, you might have been on Crescent St, which was where the Waltham Watch Company factory(still standing) was located. I get excited every time I look at a map of that part of town, because quite a few of the streets around Crescent St are named after people closely associated with the Waltham Watch Company. "Robbins St" is one of those, named after Royal E. Robbins who was superintendent of the company at one time. The "R" in "R&A" is this same Robbins.
BTW, it's beyond me why L&R still makes even makes Solo-Lube. To explain a little bit further, normally when a watch is cleaned it is run through a 3-bath cleaner. The first bath contains the "cleaner" that is some ammonia compounds dissolved in stoddard's solvent(petroleum distillates). This cleans the old oil and grease off, along with brightening any brass, nickel, and gold. The second and third bath are a "rinse", which is essentially just stoddard's solvent and meant to remove the cleaning solution. When the cleaning solution is changed, jar 2(rinse 1) is discarded and jar 3(rinse 2) becomes jar 2. Fresh rinse is then added to the third jar.
Solo-lube dissolves a light oil in the two rinse solutions, with the idea being that when the watch is dried it coats everything in a layer of oil. The problem is that watches really only function correctly with a tiny amount of lubricant in the correct places-one drop(such as from a dropper bottle) will lube several big pocket watches. I read somewhere that in history of the Elgin National Watch Company from about 1870-1950, they only managed to use about a gallon of oil, and that was with cleaning out the oil cups every night. In any case, Solo-Lube will allow a watch to run well for a few months, but eventually attracts dust and other crap, and just makes the whole movement look crummy. The only correct way to clean a watch is to take it completely apart, run it through the cleaner(whether ultrasonic, mechanical, or even cleaning by hand) and then re-assembling with the correct amount of oil.
In any case, here's the prize watch. This is a 16 size 1860 model Waltham with Fogg's Patent Vibrating Hairspring stud. This was designed to improve isochronism by allowing the hairspring to "breath" more concentrically than with a standard fixed stud. It wasn't actually all that effective, while a Breguet overcoil(which eventually became standard on even the cheapest American watches) is very much so. Even so, the vibrating stud-or "vibrator" in collector parlance-is an interesting artifact. I've seen estimates of production of somewhere between 200 and 300 Vibrators. So, it's not a super common piece.
Interestingly enough, a collector told me the other day that he thought there were probably only 20 surviving vibrators in 20 size. Looking through my notes, I've handled probably 10 and have seen pictures of a handful of others. That's something to think that I've seen 3/4 of the total existing ones.
Here's the much more common 16 size, in a straight, all original Robbins and Appleton case. It dates to about 1860. The engine turning on the case is a bit weak, but that's my biggest complaint.
BTW, I know we have some folks from Boston around here. If you've ventured over to Waltham, you might have been on Crescent St, which was where the Waltham Watch Company factory(still standing) was located. I get excited every time I look at a map of that part of town, because quite a few of the streets around Crescent St are named after people closely associated with the Waltham Watch Company. "Robbins St" is one of those, named after Royal E. Robbins who was superintendent of the company at one time. The "R" in "R&A" is this same Robbins.
Loving these posts. Also found some of your videos. keep it up.I mentioned this one above-it's a watch that's been on my "want list" for a while. It has a few condition issues, but I think I can clean up the steelwork pretty well and it should look a LOT better after cleaning. I pulled the balance cock, and found green goo(probably a remnant of the watch being "solo-lubed" at some point in the past). The motion is currently low, but it should run a LOT better with all the old, gummy oil cleaned out and fresh synthetic.
BTW, it's beyond me why L&R still makes even makes Solo-Lube. To explain a little bit further, normally when a watch is cleaned it is run through a 3-bath cleaner. The first bath contains the "cleaner" that is some ammonia compounds dissolved in stoddard's solvent(petroleum distillates). This cleans the old oil and grease off, along with brightening any brass, nickel, and gold. The second and third bath are a "rinse", which is essentially just stoddard's solvent and meant to remove the cleaning solution. When the cleaning solution is changed, jar 2(rinse 1) is discarded and jar 3(rinse 2) becomes jar 2. Fresh rinse is then added to the third jar.
Solo-lube dissolves a light oil in the two rinse solutions, with the idea being that when the watch is dried it coats everything in a layer of oil. The problem is that watches really only function correctly with a tiny amount of lubricant in the correct places-one drop(such as from a dropper bottle) will lube several big pocket watches. I read somewhere that in history of the Elgin National Watch Company from about 1870-1950, they only managed to use about a gallon of oil, and that was with cleaning out the oil cups every night. In any case, Solo-Lube will allow a watch to run well for a few months, but eventually attracts dust and other crap, and just makes the whole movement look crummy. The only correct way to clean a watch is to take it completely apart, run it through the cleaner(whether ultrasonic, mechanical, or even cleaning by hand) and then re-assembling with the correct amount of oil.
In any case, here's the prize watch. This is a 16 size 1860 model Waltham with Fogg's Patent Vibrating Hairspring stud. This was designed to improve isochronism by allowing the hairspring to "breath" more concentrically than with a standard fixed stud. It wasn't actually all that effective, while a Breguet overcoil(which eventually became standard on even the cheapest American watches) is very much so. Even so, the vibrating stud-or "vibrator" in collector parlance-is an interesting artifact. I've seen estimates of production of somewhere between 200 and 300 Vibrators. So, it's not a super common piece.
Interestingly enough, a collector told me the other day that he thought there were probably only 20 surviving vibrators in 20 size. Looking through my notes, I've handled probably 10 and have seen pictures of a handful of others. That's something to think that I've seen 3/4 of the total existing ones.
Here's the much more common 16 size, in a straight, all original Robbins and Appleton case. It dates to about 1860. The engine turning on the case is a bit weak, but that's my biggest complaint.
BTW, I know we have some folks from Boston around here. If you've ventured over to Waltham, you might have been on Crescent St, which was where the Waltham Watch Company factory(still standing) was located. I get excited every time I look at a map of that part of town, because quite a few of the streets around Crescent St are named after people closely associated with the Waltham Watch Company. "Robbins St" is one of those, named after Royal E. Robbins who was superintendent of the company at one time. The "R" in "R&A" is this same Robbins.
The Bunn Special on Youtube is not the same person as I am(and thank goodness because I think he's a pretty poor watchmaker
).
haha priceless my badThe Bunn Special on Youtube is not the same person as I am(and thank goodness because I think he's a pretty poor watchmaker
I mentioned this one above-it's a watch that's been on my "want list" for a while. It has a few condition issues, but I think I can clean up the steelwork pretty well and it should look a LOT better after cleaning. I pulled the balance cock, and found green goo(probably a remnant of the watch being "solo-lubed" at some point in the past). The motion is currently low, but it should run a LOT better with all the old, gummy oil cleaned out and fresh synthetic.
BTW, it's beyond me why L&R still makes even makes Solo-Lube. To explain a little bit further, normally when a watch is cleaned it is run through a 3-bath cleaner. The first bath contains the "cleaner" that is some ammonia compounds dissolved in stoddard's solvent(petroleum distillates). This cleans the old oil and grease off, along with brightening any brass, nickel, and gold. The second and third bath are a "rinse", which is essentially just stoddard's solvent and meant to remove the cleaning solution. When the cleaning solution is changed, jar 2(rinse 1) is discarded and jar 3(rinse 2) becomes jar 2. Fresh rinse is then added to the third jar.
Solo-lube dissolves a light oil in the two rinse solutions, with the idea being that when the watch is dried it coats everything in a layer of oil. The problem is that watches really only function correctly with a tiny amount of lubricant in the correct places-one drop(such as from a dropper bottle) will lube several big pocket watches. I read somewhere that in history of the Elgin National Watch Company from about 1870-1950, they only managed to use about a gallon of oil, and that was with cleaning out the oil cups every night. In any case, Solo-Lube will allow a watch to run well for a few months, but eventually attracts dust and other crap, and just makes the whole movement look crummy. The only correct way to clean a watch is to take it completely apart, run it through the cleaner(whether ultrasonic, mechanical, or even cleaning by hand) and then re-assembling with the correct amount of oil.
In any case, here's the prize watch. This is a 16 size 1860 model Waltham with Fogg's Patent Vibrating Hairspring stud. This was designed to improve isochronism by allowing the hairspring to "breath" more concentrically than with a standard fixed stud. It wasn't actually all that effective, while a Breguet overcoil(which eventually became standard on even the cheapest American watches) is very much so. Even so, the vibrating stud-or "vibrator" in collector parlance-is an interesting artifact. I've seen estimates of production of somewhere between 200 and 300 Vibrators. So, it's not a super common piece.
Interestingly enough, a collector told me the other day that he thought there were probably only 20 surviving vibrators in 20 size. Looking through my notes, I've handled probably 10 and have seen pictures of a handful of others. That's something to think that I've seen 3/4 of the total existing ones.
Here's the much more common 16 size, in a straight, all original Robbins and Appleton case. It dates to about 1860. The engine turning on the case is a bit weak, but that's my biggest complaint.
BTW, I know we have some folks from Boston around here. If you've ventured over to Waltham, you might have been on Crescent St, which was where the Waltham Watch Company factory(still standing) was located. I get excited every time I look at a map of that part of town, because quite a few of the streets around Crescent St are named after people closely associated with the Waltham Watch Company. "Robbins St" is one of those, named after Royal E. Robbins who was superintendent of the company at one time. The "R" in "R&A" is this same Robbins.
Well, I, too am 'loving these posts' and the accompanying pictures.
They are interesting, full of fascinating new information, a bit of history, some lore, and informed by a genuine and wonderful enthusiasm for the topic and a generous joy in sharing this stuff with us. Thanks a lot.
Do you ever actually wear, or use any of these genuinely old watches as time-keepers? If I had such a thing, I would most certainly try to find a way to use it, occasionally.
Beautiful and functional objects should be used for whatever it is that they were designed to do, rather than gathering dust in a cupboard, or hiding away in a locked bank vault.
I have some beautiful heavy exceptionally well made crystal wine glasses that my parents had, and an uncle had, and I use them daily; if one gets broken, that is life; I derive great pleasure from them, rather than simply using them on one day of the year - say, Christmas Day, and living in fear of an accidental breakage instead of enjoying your glass of wine. Likewise, I have a set of antique sherry and port glasses - well over a century old - and I use them, too.
Anyway, reading your post, I found myself thinking about that date, 1860, which you mentioned at least twice. That, of course, is the year that Abraham Lincoln stood for election for the office of President, and won, beating a split Democrat ticket. Extraordinary to think of the times your watches have marked with their exquisite internal mechanisms. They are beautiful, and please keep posting about them.
Last edited:
Thank you for your nice comments.
As for wearing watches-I actually do with a lot of regularity. I wore one nearly daily for about 7 years. As a chemist, a pocket watch actually makes a lot o sense as it's safe from solvent splashes on the crystal and other things.
I have been wearing my Rolex pretty much daily lately, but on days where I know I'm going to be doing bench work I generally do wear a pocket watch.
Pretty much nothing is off limits for me to wear-about the only thing I don't wear are really crisp, high condition gold and silver cases.
Your question about my "1860" references actually requires a fairly long and involved back story.
At one time, it was fairly common for American manufacturers to name a new model of something after the year in which it was introduced. You see it, for example, in gun makers-you will often hear folks talk about 1873 and 1892 model Winchesters, or 1873 and 1911 model Colts.
Waltham was no exception, except that the model number sequence gets a bit convoluted and all the more interesting of a story to tell
The Warren Manufacturing Company was founded around 1850 in Roxbury, MA by three individuals-Edward Howard, Aaron Dennison, and an individual by the name of Davis. Davis was a financial backer, while Howard was a watchmaking genius. Dennison was an Engish-born watchmaker who handled a lot of the day-to-day operation o the company.
The first 17 watches produced were a dual barrel 8 day design that was not commercially successful. These were signed "Howard, Davis, and Dennison." One of these is in the Smithsonian, one was in Henry Ford's private collection(and is now in the Ford museum) and the remainder are still in private collections. One actually remained in the Waltham archives until 1988.
After these initial 17 watches, the company switched over to a more conventional 18 size full plate 30 hour design. It is thought that the first 82 of these were signed "Warren", although no example higher than serial number 44 is known. There are five examples of Warrens known-#18, #29, #31, #36, and #44. These are fascinating watches-I've personally handled #31, which is probably the second best example known after #18. After this, the next roughly 900 watches were signed Samuel Curtis. After this, the company moved to the banks of the Charles River in Waltham, and the next 4000 watches were signed Dennison, Howard, and Davis. After this, Howard left to found the E. Howard watch company in Boston.
In the mid to late 1850s, there was a push toward manufacturing higher grade watches in American. This was Howard's push in leaving. Waltham's own response was an 18 size, 3/4 plate watch in 1859. Around 1858, several engineers-namely Woerd and Fogg-defected from Waltham to found the Nashua Watch Company in Nashua, NH. The company designed a couple of different watches, namely a 20 size, 3/4 plate watch and a smaller companion 16 size watch. I think they finished about a dozen 20 size watches, some with 15j and some with 19j(I have 6 in my notes, although I know of a few others hidden in collections). At this point, the Nashua Watch Company ran out of money and were "rescued" by the American Watch Company at Waltham. Nashua was re-absorbed but maintained as their own separate department. The remaining Nashua 20 size material was finished at Waltham with 19j(these watches have a number of identifying characteristics and are very desireable) and signed "American Watch Company." Waltham also introduced the Nashua-designed 16 size movement. The 20 size and 16 size continued in production in two grades-the 19j "American Watch Company" grade and the 15j "Appleton, Tracy & Co" grade-AT&Co was a name the company briefly used around 1860. The Nashua department was responsible for several further very successful designs at Waltham.
At this point, the factory had been content to refer to watches by their size and configuration-i.e. 18 size full plate, 18 size 3/4 plate, etc. A new 18 size full plate model was introduced in 1870, however, and things began to get complicated. So, at that point, the company retroactively assigned model designations. The new 18 size model was called the 1870 model. The original 18 size full plate model(which continued in production well past the new 1870 model) was called the 1857 model. This was related-I believe-to when the company was called the Appleton, Tracy &Co, although the original design dated back to about 1851. The 18 size 3/4 plate model was the 1859 model. Where things really get odd, however, is with the Nashua derived models. The 16 size 3/4 plate Nashua-derived model was given the designation of the 1860 model, while the 20 size was called the 1862 model. 1860 was the year in which the American Watch Company reacquired Nashua, although the initial products finished were 20 size models and the 16 size came a bit later.
In any case, that's the model designation story. Of course, the model designation actually has no correlation to when the watch was made(the 1883 model, for example, was made well into the late 1920s).