Help Identifying a Pocket Watch Movement (NON American?)

[Gramham]

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone here can help me to identify this pocket watch movement?

The only identifying mark is a serial number (see attached photo).

Purchased in Hong Kong from a (likely) British origin collection.

Also, it does not appear to have a Swiss lever movement.

EDIT:  Have since discovered that it has a "cylinder escapement"

2 individual key positions on train side (key winder)

34 mm pillar plate w/ individual train bridges.

Running condition.

Thanks!

g.
----

Edited August 15, 2022 by Gramham
Added detail re: Escapement type

[Gramham]

Have since found two Swiss pocket watches for sale on eBay, though there still is no mention of the movement manufacturer.  

Here's the two similar examples.  Same escapement and the bridges are seemingly identical.

Example A:

Example B:

[oldhippy]

With out seeing the movements identifying is almost impossible. We need to see photos of both movements. Due to experience I'll have a shot. The dials give it away for me. I expect to see what is called a 5 bared movements and   the escapement will be cylinder. Winding and hand setting is from the back by means of two squares so a pocket watch key is needed. They come with some very fancy looking dials right down to just plain. These movements all though can look identical I can assure you parts are not interchangeable. They were made on the Swiss French border and the time period is from the 1800's most likely the middle to late.   

Here is an example of what I'm describing. This one does infarct have i d marks.  

Edited August 15, 2022 by oldhippy

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, Gramham said:

Have since found two Swiss pocket watches for sale on eBay, though there still is no mention of the movement manufacturer.  

Here's the two similar examples.  Same escapement and the bridges are seemingly identical.

Example A:

Example B:

I have one very similar graham, i will take the back off when i get home and post you a photo up

[watchweasol]

Hi It looks very similar to a five bar movement I worked on some time ago it was by Stauffer, so and co, there is a good article in Vintage Watch Straps on Stauffer,

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrIQZx3EfpinQsAZgl3Bwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwMEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1660584439/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.vintagewatchstraps.com%2fstauffer.php/RK=2/RS=efrUg6ZcMlggHpn4lp56kHalBbA-

[Gramham]

Hello Everyone,

Diving down the Rabbit Hole a bit further, I found the following dial marking(s) on a watch with a very similar-looking movement:



As well as a completely separate listing on eBay which bears a "Buren" hallmark on its (identical-looking) movement, though the serial number is very much higher (#659375) compared to the example that I have (#109440).

The earlier serial number may help to explain the absence of a hallmark on my example, or maybe the serial number my example bears is one of a series given to un-marked movements?  I don't know.

A detailed photo of the hallmark:



 

Here's some information from Revenant Watches which is now (unfortunately) down...

“From 1899 to 1932, Buren was the Swiss factory of H. Williamson, Ltd, an English company. Williamson, bought a watch factory in Switzerland and created the Buren Watch Company. Ads in the 1920’s proclaimed Buren to be “The Perfect Watch” and boasted of the linking up of Swiss watch manufacturing with British Enterprise and Capital. This came to an end during the Great Depression and Buren came to be an independent Swiss firm. This occurred in 1932 when the employees bought the plant and it became The Buren Watch Co., Switzerland. On March 1, 1966 Buren Watch Co. was acquired by the Hamilton Watch Co. and the Swiss factory became Buren Watch Hamilton. Production came to an end in 1972.”

-- http://www.revenantwatches.com/buren/

“Founded 1873 in Büren, a medieval little town at the river Aare in Switzerland, by Fritz Suter-Antenen.  Initially, Suter-Antenen produced pocket watches, first with cylinder escapement.  After 1885 with an Anker escapement, both winding with key.

In 1898 H. Williamson Ltd. London bought the label and the factory, increasing the production of pocket watches in many calibres, all manufactured completely in-house. From 1916 to 1923 a kind of interchangeable parts for the different calibres were developed. In 1925 a patent for the stones used as bearings was granted, these stones being pressed into their place, as is applied today in every watch.

Between 1925 and 1930 a broad set of pocket and wrist watches was developed (calibres 373, 25, 335, 385, 375, 378, 875, 415, 400 tonneau, 975, 460, 461, 462, 293 and 70). Annual production in Büren was about 200’000 time-pieces.

The crisis after 1929 forced Williamson Ltd. to sell the facilities in Büren to a local group of new shareholders and the swiss-american financier Roland Gsell.

From 1932 onwards the "Buren Watch Company S.A." rapidly developed new wrist watch calibres (No. 40, 45, 35, 60, 295, 350, 50, 356, 14, 370, 410, 380, 462, 30 and 565).  Buren also participated in the race to ever flatter watches, e.g. by the calibre 300, 280 (very flat with 2.8 mm, and acclaimed as very precise, in 1960), and cal. 65 for flat women watches. All parts were still manufactured inhouse.

In 1945/6 the fabrication of cal. 525 was started, an automatic bumper movement watch, in 1953 the automatic calibres 535-539 with "Rotowind" (with second hand from center, or power reserve indication).

1954 Buren established the patent for its Minirotor – the small rotor integrated at the same level as the rest of the movement, which can thus get very flat. The watch was called "Superslender" (calibres 1000 and 1001 and produced from 1957 onwards), then adapted to "Intramatic" (cal. 1280, 1281, 1320 and 1321) and "Slendermatic" for women. The patent for Superslender was licensed – together with Universal of Geneva to other firms, eg. Complication-Piaget or IWC, the patent for Intramatic was licensed to Baume & Mercier, Bulova and Hamilton (used in the “Thin-O-Matic” line).

The automatic movements were further developed, together with Breitling, Heuer-Leonidas and Dubois Depraz, to build the world‘s first automatic chronograph in 1969 (cal. 11 „Chronomatic“), where the crown (seldom to use in an automatic watch) was set at the left of the dial, the two chronograph push-pieces at the right side.

In 1966 the swiss-american owner Gsell wanted to retire and engineered the aquisition of Buren by the Hamilton Watch Company (USA). Hamilton transferred its production 1969 to Büren, doubling its capacity to about half a million pieces. But the markets for Buren-Hamilton watches suddenly shrank, 1972 the factory was liquidated.

Source: Hans Kocher-Aeschbacher, "Die Geschichte der Uhrmacherei in Büren", ed. Callwey, 1992, Munich, Büren
(Kocher was the last director of Buren watch).

Source:

http://www.finertimes.com

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

12 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I have one very similar graham, i will take the back off when i get home and post you a photo up

Hi Graham. I dont know if this is of any use to you. I actually have two similar. One in bad shape and way beyond anything i can do with it to get it running. A shattered balance jewel, broken staff pivots and a damaged rusty hairspring. Designed as old hippy described.  Serial numbers present but no maker. The other is different with a one piece train bridge instead, this actually wants to run, hopefully just a clean and a reforming of the h/s.

[Gramham]

17 hours ago, oldhippy said:

With out seeing the movements identifying is almost impossible. We need to see photos of both movements. Due to experience I'll have a shot. The dials give it away for me. I expect to see what is called a 5 bared movements and   the escapement will be cylinder. Winding and hand setting is from the back by means of two squares so a pocket watch key is needed. They come with some very fancy looking dials right down to just plain. These movements all though can look identical I can assure you parts are not interchangeable. They were made on the Swiss French border and the time period is from the 1800's most likely the middle to late.   

Here is an example of what I'm describing. This one does infarct have i d marks.  

Hello @oldhippy,

Yes, of course you are right. 

Upon closer examination, the two examples I have here are very similar-looking on the train side, but when you examine the dial side they are markedly different.  One has a fancy winding regulator mechanism that looks like a Maltese Cross, the other lacking it entirely. 

- I guess these "five bar" movements have a lot of variations depending on what features were incorporated
- I further guess that they were produced under sub-contract and therefore were often made without hallmarks

No doubt this seriously complicates matters when seeking repair parts or even donor movements.

g.
----

3 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Hi Graham. I dont know if this is of any use to you. I actually have two similar. One in bad shape and way beyond anything i can do with it to get it running. A shattered balance jewel, broken staff pivots and a damaged rusty hairspring. Designed as old hippy described.  Serial numbers present but no maker. The other is different with a one piece train bridge instead, this actually wants to run, hopefully just a clean and a reforming of the h/s.

Hello @Neverenoughwatches,

Looks like one of your examples is somewhat close to one of the movements that I have on hand.

- Maltese Cross wind regulator
- 109 prefix on the serial number (yours #10936 or #10956 mine is #109440)
- #51 or #31 model number (mine is #71)

My has a working balance and is running, but lacks a case, dial, minute wheel, dial side intermediate wheel (likely for hour) and other critical bits and pieces. 

It's really a donor movement.  I bought it to get in some practical work in terms of working with tweezers and such, but (honestly) I don't want to start out with these somewhat small and obscure Swiss movements, so I've ordered a couple of American (18 size Elgin) movements to lose parts on the floor from

So, I've put the two examples I have aside, for now, until I have developed more confidence in my practical skills, and a better understanding of these (I guess) very early ébauche participants...as Buren appears to be, and many others certainly were.

Its interesting how the smart early brands climbed up the value chain to be as customer-facing as possible...then ditched their manufacturing operations in favor of client related value-added activities like branding, design, increased retail availability and, ultimately, financing.  I see this cycle repeating over and over in pretty much every vertical I have a good look at.

g.
----
 

[Gramham]

Hello,

I have since discovered that the thing I called a "Maltese Cross Wind Regulator" is simply called a Stop Work.

[oldhippy]

That is correct.  Also known as the Geneve stop work.

[dadistic]

On 8/15/2022 at 7:02 PM, Gramham said:

Its interesting how the smart early brands climbed up the value chain to be as customer-facing as possible...then ditched their manufacturing operations in favor of client related value-added activities like branding, design, increased retail availability and, ultimately, financing.  I see this cycle repeating over and over in pretty much every vertical I have a good look at.

g.

In other words they got very boring

It's interesting that you think of these things as value-added, I see half of them (especially modern marketing) as  value removing.

In industry I called VAR's Valueless Addled Resellers, because so many of them just weaseled themselves into the distribution chain to get i little "taste" and did nothing other than add delay and cost. 

Of course, this is not universally true, especially in international markets, but I've been sorely disappointed that the "frictionless" market that I hoped to appear as the Internet matured has not done so.

I guess this is off topic, should move it to the "chat" forum I guess

Cheers!  

[Gramham]

5 hours ago, dadistic said:

In other words they got very boring

It's interesting that you think of these things as value-added, I see half of them (especially modern marketing) as  value removing.

In industry I called VAR's Valueless Addled Resellers, because so many of them just weaseled themselves into the distribution chain to get i little "taste" and did nothing other than add delay and cost. 

Of course, this is not universally true, especially in international markets, but I've been sorely disappointed that the "frictionless" market that I hoped to appear as the Internet matured has not done so.

I guess this is off topic, should move it to the "chat" forum I guess

Cheers!  

Hello @dadistic,

Many people share your views and see all "middlemen" as parasites that have somehow interposed themselves between the factory loading dock and the customer front porch.  If you've never been a supply chain participant and only ever been on the consumer end, I can perfectly understand how such a view might develop. 

But before you condemn all middlemen, consider this:  In a ruthless free-market economy why would middlemen be allowed to exist if not to serve a purpose that is not addressed by the producer or the consumer?  There must be some set of economic responsibilities that the consumer and the factory DON'T want to assume.  Otherwise, in the absence of market distortions such as legislation, tariffs and other artificial means of keeping them in the game, laissez-faire principles would dictate that they would be made extinct by either the factory or the consumer taking up the responsibility and its attendant economic premium (higher price on the part of the factory, lower price on the part of the consumer).

Forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know.  I get this question a LOT in my Theory of Money course - which is really an Introduction to Economics course with a more appealing wrapper, as nobody is interested in Economics, but everybody is interested in Money!

Hope that helps!

g.
----

[dadistic]

Well, I can give you a concrete example from personal experience. 

I spent the last years of my career at a small US Midwest manufacturer. Speco, Inc. , which makes meat grinder plates and knives. Family business, 5th generation now operating the company, been around since the Chicago Stockyard days, about 100 years. Sells internationally, and has customers on every continent except Antarctica

Speco uses the stocking distributor model. Only three inside sales people, including the company President. When I left revenue was about 10 million per year. Now, is the stocking distributor model now the most efficient way of doing things? Maybe 50 years ago, but I don't think so anymore. In fact, most of the distributors, except the largest, and this even includes some catalog houses, no longer actually stock products. It has become a drop ship model,with Speco doing the fulfillment.  

Way back when sales was very personal, it was about the relationships  between the salesperson and the buyer. Not any longer. 

Speco's closest competitor in terms of product and market is Thomas Precision, and they use a completely different model. They have a direct sales force, and sell directly to the customer, and by all accounts are doing a gangbuster business. They are a much newer company than Speco, have have grown quite quickly in the past two decades.  I don't know what their financials look like, but they are certainly able to compete with Speco in every market that both are in. 

If Speco has an advantage here, and perhaps one of the reasons that it is still in business, is that it is not a financially driven business, being a private company. It just has to make enough money to keep the family happy. 

I tried to plant the suggestion that that instead of keeping the "stocking distributor" model that at least the company could move to a "factory representative" model, independent outside sales people based on commision, which is closer to current reality, but there was no stomach for change. Speco is somewhat trapped in a web of individually negotiated discounts with distributors that would be difficult to untangle, even if the result would be significantly more money flowing to Speco, and no price increase or service reduction to the customer.  The principals are simply not interested in that kind of disruptive change. 

Speco's website was always built  with the potential for direct to customer sales, but see above. It would take a commitment to an expansion of customer service,  but not on any huge scale. Again, no one was ready to deal with the disruption that that would entail.

In the past, manufacturer's often found that fulfillment and end customer service was too far away from their core competencies, and farmed those functions out to distributors.  With modern logistics companies able to handle warehousing and fulfillment, and an internet based "catalog" within the reach of even the smallest concern, I don't think this is as true anymore. 

The only place where Speco's current setup is probably the best is in their international markets. There, barriers like distance, language, and culture mean that it can be advantageous to have "boots on the ground" that handle more than just sales, that are involved in logistics too.  Even still, Speco's international distributors don't stock very much inventory, but they do provide an order consolidation service that reduces the cost of shipping.  Significant inventories means significant risk of getting stuck with obsolete inventory as customers change equipment. 

So, as I said, there are roles for people to grease the wheels, but only in certain circumstances.  Mostly in international business, not so much in domestic US business. 

From my personal experience, the state of most distribution networks is driven mostly by history, personal relationships, and emotion. Not economic efficiency.

Another example, the automotive semiconductor debacle. Rote implementation of the "just in time" model, cancelling orders, which meant that when the market roared back the capacity had been scooped up by other customers, which meant that auto manufacturers left huge piles of money on the table. 

A rational actor would not have done that.  Sheer inertia and the inability to manage supply chain disruption. As inefficient as it gets.  

Cheers!

 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

4 hours ago, dadistic said:

Well, I can give you a concrete example from personal experience. 

I spent the last years of my career at a small US Midwest manufacturer. Speco, Inc. , which makes meat grinder plates and knives. Family business, 5th generation now operating the company, been around since the Chicago Stockyard days, about 100 years. Sells internationally, and has customers on every continent except Antarctica

Speco uses the stocking distributor model. Only three inside sales people, including the company President. When I left revenue was about 10 million per year. Now, is the stocking distributor model now the most efficient way of doing things? Maybe 50 years ago, but I don't think so anymore. In fact, most of the distributors, except the largest, and this even includes some catalog houses, no longer actually stock products. It has become a drop ship model,with Speco doing the fulfillment.  

Way back when sales was very personal, it was about the relationships  between the salesperson and the buyer. Not any longer. 

Speco's closest competitor in terms of product and market is Thomas Precision, and they use a completely different model. They have a direct sales force, and sell directly to the customer, and by all accounts are doing a gangbuster business. They are a much newer company than Speco, have have grown quite quickly in the past two decades.  I don't know what their financials look like, but they are certainly able to compete with Speco in every market that both are in. 

If Speco has an advantage here, and perhaps one of the reasons that it is still in business, is that it is not a financially driven business, being a private company. It just has to make enough money to keep the family happy. 

I tried to plant the suggestion that that instead of keeping the "stocking distributor" model that at least the company could move to a "factory representative" model, independent outside sales people based on commision, which is closer to current reality, but there was no stomach for change. Speco is somewhat trapped in a web of individually negotiated discounts with distributors that would be difficult to untangle, even if the result would be significantly more money flowing to Speco, and no price increase or service reduction to the customer.  The principals are simply not interested in that kind of disruptive change. 

Speco's website was always built  with the potential for direct to customer sales, but see above. It would take a commitment to an expansion of customer service,  but not on any huge scale. Again, no one was ready to deal with the disruption that that would entail.

In the past, manufacturer's often found that fulfillment and end customer service was too far away from their core competencies, and farmed those functions out to distributors.  With modern logistics companies able to handle warehousing and fulfillment, and an internet based "catalog" within the reach of even the smallest concern, I don't think this is as true anymore. 

The only place where Speco's current setup is probably the best is in their international markets. There, barriers like distance, language, and culture mean that it can be advantageous to have "boots on the ground" that handle more than just sales, that are involved in logistics too.  Even still, Speco's international distributors don't stock very much inventory, but they do provide an order consolidation service that reduces the cost of shipping.  Significant inventories means significant risk of getting stuck with obsolete inventory as customers change equipment. 

So, as I said, there are roles for people to grease the wheels, but only in certain circumstances.  Mostly in international business, not so much in domestic US business. 

From my personal experience, the state of most distribution networks is driven mostly by history, personal relationships, and emotion. Not economic efficiency.

Another example, the automotive semiconductor debacle. Rote implementation of the "just in time" model, cancelling orders, which meant that when the market roared back the capacity had been scooped up by other customers, which meant that auto manufacturers left huge piles of money on the table. 

A rational actor would not have done that.  Sheer inertia and the inability to manage supply chain disruption. As inefficient as it gets.  

Cheers!

 

 

Phew. Thats the longest post I've ever read. Tbh a lot of the details went over my head and not my industry at all. I think the jist of it is middlemen and distributers take a cut and do little in return. I sort of agree here and have experience of that. I have bought kitchens from middlemen distributors.  Any issues i have they dont want to know as they didnt make them and take no responsibility for any problems and are even reluctant to refer them back to the manufacturer.  And have often looked to me to deal with the manufacturer and leave them out of it. So in effect they're middlemen with the product only one way and thats on the way in and up to getting paid. This happened quite a few times until i got fed up of it and went direct to the manufacturer and struck up good relationships with them. Yet i still have had recent issues with internet companies distributing extra kitchen products such as sinks, taps and other ancillaries.  Most of them really dont give a shite about the consumer. Now i buy everthing local and direct from the manufacturer, similar price and far less hassle. 

[HectorLooi]

Thanks to the stocking distributor model, we have NOS items appearing on eBay all the time. If the entire world shifts to the just-in-time model or the indent-order model, there wouldn't be any hidden stashes waiting to be discovered.

[Gramham]

Hello Everyone,

One can certainly see the appeal (and power) of the "Internet Catalog" in action when looking over Amazon or Alibaba.  I myself recently benefited from the extremely powerful Amazon model - especially while buying a single generic item from quasi-anonymous sellers exclusively on the basis of price. 

Here's what happened.  As an example of Watchmaking (can I even call it that?) low-hanging fruit, I determined that I would attempt to do a "Hydro Mod" on a Casio Marlin MDV-106B.  This modification is a well-trodden path and I thought that even at this stage of my supposed development as a Watchmaker (can I even call myself that?) I would be able to perform this simple modification.

I figured I'd:

1)  Buy a Casio Marlin

2)  Buy a sapphire crystal

3)  Buy extremely low cTs oil

4)  Buy a replacement rubber strap

5)  Integrate all of the above in a video

Problem was, the watch arrived with heavily damaged packaging, as I have documented on this forum:

Naturally I complained (almost ZERO cost to me, so why not?).  After some consideration, Amazon came back with a significant refund, making the watch even less expensive.

In my case, Amazon acted as a Retailer, Logistics Provider and Insurer.

They did not inhabit the role of Manufacturer, or even the (hated) Distributor.

g.
----

Edited August 19, 2022 by Gramham
Added URL to Casio Duro Buy

[Neverenoughwatches]

35 minutes ago, HectorLooi said:

Thanks to the stocking distributor model, we have NOS items appearing on eBay all the time. If the entire world shifts to the just-in-time model or the indent-order model, there wouldn't be any hidden stashes waiting to be discovered.

Horses for courses matey.