Unknown Tool Labeled Illinois Watch

[StickDog]

Acquired this item in a lot from a departed watchmaker. It's labeled "Illinois Watch" (well known large American watch manufacturer through much of 20th c) so clearly it's watch-related. Can't find similar in any old catalog or on line and haven't ever seen anything similar in the wild.  The four prongs are springy and may be designed to hold something. The small round shaft does fit into the post on the base, but fit is loose, not the kind of close fit we expect in watches and most watch tools. Possibly these two pieces are not intended to fit together, and it's always possible parts are missing.

Anyone have any ideas before I relegate it to the scrap box? Purpose? Completeness?

[RichardHarris123]

I've no idea but I  waiting to find out too.

[StickDog]

I'll add that I considered it might be a display stand of some kind but I think that's unlikely. It's marked "Patent Pending" on bottom of base and it's substantially built of well plated brass. Seems too substantial for a display piece and they also probably wouldn't have bothered to patent it.

A bit unusual (but not unheard of) to see tools made by manfacturers rather than by the several US watch tool companies active in first 3/4s  of the 1900's. What do we make if that, if anything?

[rehajm]

Maybe movement holder? It is interesting…(says the bloke in this for the tools )

[AndyHull]

What sort of dimensions are we talking about?

Is there a patent number on it?
It looks almost like some kind of glass bulb or test tube holder.

Edited April 3, 2023 by AndyHull

[RichardHarris123]

An egg cup for watch enthusiasts. 

[StickDog]

If there was a pate t number I could look it up, but no, just "patent pending."

I could almost buy the glass bulb theory, but what would that have to do with watches?

[rehajm]

The four prongs are similar to this movement holder? The prominent Illinois name on the base suggests it was not a tool but perhaps a jewelers display stand for a watch or movement?

Edited April 3, 2023 by rehajm

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 hours ago, StickDog said:

I'll add that I considered it might be a display stand of some kind but I think that's unlikely. It's marked "Patent Pending" on bottom of base and it's substantially built of well plated brass. Seems too substantial for a display piece and they also probably wouldn't have bothered to patent it.

A bit unusual (but not unheard of) to see tools made by manfacturers rather than by the several US watch tool companies active in first 3/4s  of the 1900's. What do we make if that, if anything?

My first thoughts were for displaying purposes as no apparent function was immediately obvious. No reason why it shouldnt also have a patent, a design is a design if the creator thought it important enough to have one and it didn't encroach on a similar design. I've seen a few pocket watch displays from very simple to hang the bow from holders to extravagant display stands  but nothing quite like this. It does look like the two parts are meant to be together as the mating surfaces seem to marry up. Also the same finish and name on both parts. A shop display stand ? The curved shape of the tops of the prongs to facilitate the careful placement of a watch. Brass to minimise any scratches ? Is it large enough to hold a small pocket watch ?

[grsnovi]

Possibly an adapter so you could wear a pocket watch on a wrist strap?? Maybe that's crazy??

[Neverenoughwatches]

15 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

Possibly an adapter so you could wear a pocket watch on a wrist strap?? Maybe that's crazy??

There were such adaptations Gary when or maybe before wristwatches were starting to become necessary and popular during the WW1. Too cumbersome and time consuming for an officer to have to unbutton his coat to remove his pocket watch to know the time for military operations.  A leather wrist pocket watch pouch would seem a more convenient adaptation. There is some suggestion that shrapnel damage to a watch on the wrist could cause more injury worn this way. Not sure if there was evidence to substantiate this theory.  And then came about wristwatches that could be more appropriately slipped under the cuff. I've read somewhere that the idea of wristwatches for men was introduced a while before this but was considered too feminine.  

[RichardHarris123]

7 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

There were such adaptations Gary when or maybe before wristwatches were starting to become necessary and popular during the WW1. Too cumbersome and time consuming for an officer to have to unbutton his coat to remove his pocket watch to know the time for military operations.  A leather wrist pocket watch pouch would seem a more convenient adaptation. There is some suggestion that shrapnel damage to a watch on the wrist could cause more injury worn this way. Not sure if there was evidence to substantiate this theory.  And then came about wristwatches that could be more appropriately slipped under the cuff. I've read somewhere that the idea of wristwatches for men was introduced a while before this but was considered too feminine.  

I don't believe the shrapnel theory, would I prefer a  super fast sliver of metal hitting a watch or my skin? If nothing else more surface area so less pressure, bullet resistant vests basically spread the force. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

15 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

I don't believe the shrapnel theory, would I prefer a  super fast sliver of metal hitting a watch or my skin? If nothing else more surface area so less pressure, bullet resistant vests basically spread the force. 

Tbh it wasn't a great theory and i couldnt find anything that proved it. 

15 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

I don't believe the shrapnel theory, would I prefer a  super fast sliver of metal hitting a watch or my skin? If nothing else more surface area so less pressure, bullet resistant vests basically spread the force. 

I think it was to do with the damage sustained elsewhere on the body/ face from shrapnel spread from a direct hit to the pocket watch. I suppose in some circumstances a single bullet wound could be dealt with easier than multiple shrapnel wounds. Also less shrapnel kept that injury more localised to that individual and not his fighting buddies. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Neverenoughwatches

[StickDog]

Sorry. Should have included a scale photo.

Way too small to display any pocket watch. Conceivably a micro lady's watch. Nut not a very good design for a  display piece IMHO. PW WW adapter? Just how do you see that working?

[RichardHarris123]

1 minute ago, StickDog said:

Sorry. Should have included a scale photo.

Way too small to display any pocket watch. Conceivably a micro lady's watch. Nut not a very good design for a  display piece IMHO. PW WW adapter? Just how do you see that working?

How big is the coin for us non Americans?

[oldhippy]

It looks like one of those Thingamajigs. 

[rehajm]

38 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

How big is the coin for us non Americans?

Not what it used to be...oh, you mean how large? 19mm

Edited April 3, 2023 by rehajm

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, StickDog said:

Sorry. Should have included a scale photo.

Way too small to display any pocket watch. Conceivably a micro lady's watch. Nut not a very good design for a  display piece IMHO. PW WW adapter? Just how do you see that working?

I'm wondering why its in two parts. Do the prongs just sit in the base and lift out freely.  That would then seem like the base is just a holder and if it is a tool of sorts its just the top part.

1 hour ago, StickDog said:

Sorry. Should have included a scale photo.

Way too small to display any pocket watch. Conceivably a micro lady's watch. Nut not a very good design for a  display piece IMHO. PW WW adapter? Just how do you see that working?

We haven't seen the underside of the base yet. 

[HectorLooi]

Illinois Watch Co wasn't known for tooling. They were known more for pocket watches. So is this related to pocket watches?

Those four prongs look like they were made to grip a rod. Are we looking at it the correct way up?

[0812]

ChatGPT tends to with the general idea that it's a watch stand/display: 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, 0812 said:

ChatGPT tends to with the general idea that it's a watch stand/display: 

 

Its just the size that doesn't fit that suggestion. You would expect the pocket watch to fit entirely inbetween the prongs.

[xyzzy]

The base is pretty small.  Smaller than a pocket watch, even a ladies size.  It would tip over easily.  And the long thin shaft and with the conical hole in the base it fits into (one assumes).  Seems like a complicated thing to make for no real purpose in a display stand.

Maybe a tool for poking holes in bands?  With a wooden file handle in the prongs.

Edited April 4, 2023 by xyzzy

[StickDog]

Well, appreciate all the input. In the absence of a clear and certain answer I think the winning submission has to go to Old Hippie. Apparently its "one if those thingamajigs!" Thanks to all and sundry!

Edited April 4, 2023 by StickDog

[RichardHarris123]

2 minutes ago, StickDog said:

Well, appreciate all the input. In the absence of a clear and certain answer I think the winning submission has to go to Old Hippie. Apparently its "one if those thingamajigs!" Thanks to all and sundry!

I'm disappointed, I thought my idea of eggcup was best.

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, RichardHarris123 said:

I'm disappointed, I thought my idea of eggcup was best.

Richard, that is exactly what i would be using it for.