Illinois Pocket Watch - issues & questions

[Galilea]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

🖐  Standardisation became a more common practice as wristwatches started to be the norm.

I will probably wish I had looked back at a reference for citing these dates, but I thought wristwatches were at least significantly representational of the overall consumer metric by about 1920, and that the the mass produced automobile was well set by 1910 tops.  How that translates into the "should have beens" in watch making is debunked by the info in John's post here. 

 

51 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

 

it's always thought of in this country or when the automobile came into existence mass production interchangeable parts. You can look in the parts catalog for watches and it says the parts interchange and typically they don't list the variations.

I was doing a project for someone with 12 size Illinois watches he picked the watch because of sheep because the parts catalog indicated only one set apart snow variations and the watch was made over 30 years??? A perfect example of mass production everything was not the same don't even kid yourself over 30 years things when change it just the parts book didn't show the changes. Even things like the our wheels that were not marked with a serial number will not interchange with another watch kids are slightly different size.

Typically the way the watches were made is there were made in batches and even in the batches there will be variations because the tools will wear slightly it's really not instantly get into making really precise measuring tools and then measure all of this and make sure everything is within production

I was watching a video on YouTube of company making CNC watchmaking equipment and they were showing how the machine is cutting the parts than they can take the parts and go to an optical comparator look at the parts verify their within the specification and if they're not adjust the CNC machine so that they are within specifications now that exist today it did not exist when most of these watches were made

there is one of my favorite Elgin at least was more truthful on the variation of parts a lot of the watch companies because the books were printed at specific times do not necessarily cover all the variations so let's look at balance staffs how many variations could we have for one part number after all the mass-produced they're all the same part number?

You will note that you do get a variation for pivots size because we look at all the groups that I didn't circle their grouped better different by pivots size but look at the first ones the 18 size the early the first watches how many different staffs do we have all with one part number

here let's look at something from the 30s look at the machinery and ask yourself how fast or easy it would it be to upgrade the factory look up big the factory is. My favorite is the machine I think it's making plates how many thousands of parts does it have even to just read school that machine would take how long

so while the watch companies may have pioneered making parts by machinery they still have a lot of hand adjusting even in the video pay attention you'll see the women take apart build do some sort of manipulation with it and they'll try it out even in the 30s are still doing a lot of hand fitting and yet in the video are those automobiles I see in the parking lot.

 

 

 

In addition to the facts recorded and cited here by John, I am thinking that the difference in size between an auto part and a watch part make them incompatible for comparison at all. Just as any minor error in any calculation in any field amplifies over time and distance, perhaps it works in the reserse as well. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

7 hours ago, Galilea said:

but I thought wristwatches were at least significantly representational of the overall consumer metric by about 1920,

Not as far as i am aware, the first world war period is generally known as the introduction of wristwatches, a more practical and convenient timepiece in battle. Wrist watches up until then were considered as too feminine up until then. I have photos of my great grandfather wearing a pocketwatch in the 40s and 50's. Wristwatches probably more popular with the younger generations around that time. So I'm thinking more like at least 1940s would be when wristwatches started to be seen worn more often.

[Galilea]

1 minute ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Not as far as i am aware, the first world war period is generally known as the introduction of wristwatches, a more practical and convenient timepiece in battle. Wrist watches up until then were considered as too feminine up until then. I have photos of my great grandfather wearing a pocketwatch in the 40s and 50's. Wristwatches probably more popular with the younger generations around that time. So I'm thinking more like at least 1940s would be when wristwatches started to be seen worn more often.

That's just what I was thinking, that after the first World War would be right, and this is where I need to get clearer. I read at one time that it was 1910 for the first generally available wrist watch, then earlier, and the trench watch / military popularization, etc. It sounds like we are thinking alike.

Except for that I have quite a few very mainstream watches from the 1930s, so.... in the end, it isn't relevant to this conversation, but it surely is interesting. I have a feeling others will help sort my history out though, thanks in advance.

[Neverenoughwatches]

5 minutes ago, Galilea said:

read at one time that it was 1910 for the first generally available wrist watch, then earlier

I think that was first attempted a few years before that date but never caught on. Not until during the war with soldiers wanting to imitate their officers. And then ex service men after the war retaining their war watches and civilians drawn to military watches for similar reasons. I still think it took a while for pocket watches to filter out, old traditions among older men. Ladies watches i would have to assume more prevalent at the time, thought more of as an item of jewellery, the reason men thought too ladylike. 

[Galilea]

22 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I think that was first attempted a few years before that date but never caught on. Not until during the war with soldiers wanting to imitate their officers. And then ex service men after the war retaining their war watches and civilians drawn to military watches for similar reasons. I still think it took a while for pocket watches to filter out, old traditions among older men. Ladies watches i would have to assume more prevalent at the time, thought more of as an item of jewellery, the reason men thought too ladylike. 

Until I get solid data, I am only speculating. About the watch being perceived as too feminine by men, I don't see why or how that would be so, although again, I have not researched it. The reason I question the notion is because if watches were made wearable for the convenience of fighting men, one would think they were perceived as masculine. Horology as a whole seems still to be a male-dominated hobby and possibly profession. In fact, I am not sure it is true, but I was told last week that I am the only female on this forum. 

Then, if male watches popularized the wrist watch, it seems counter-intuitive that the phenomenon would grow to see women's watches explode as jewelry, leaving male wearable watches in the lurch and feminizing the entire class of watch.

Last reason I wonder is because the earliest wrist watch I own is a 1911 Elgin, and it is large, chunky and masculine. In my experience as a collector, Elgins for men have always been bigger than the whatever was offered by the competition. 

Surely this would be easy to research but I cannot do it at present, other priorities. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 minutes ago, Galilea said:

The reason I question the notion is because if watches were made wearable for the convenience of fighting men, one would think they were perceived as masculine.

Exactly and that is how they came to  being worn more often AFTER the war. Those thoughts would have taken a little while to take effect but would eventually spread through the masses to become the norm. Like i said old traditions of wearing a watch on a chain would die hard with the older male population.  I can imagine the generation that didn’t go to war saying " I AM NOT wearing a puffy watch on my wrist, those are for girly women "

[tomh207]

3 minutes ago, Galilea said:

Until I get solid data, I am only speculating. About the watch being perceived as too feminine by men, I don't see why or how that would be so, although again, I have not researched it. The reason I question the notion is because if watches were made wearable for the convenience of fighting men, one would think they were perceived as masculine. Horology as a whole seems still to be a male-dominated hobby and possibly profession. In fact, I am not sure it is true, but I was told last week that I am the only female on this forum. 

Then, if male watches popularized the wrist watch, it seems counter-intuitive that the phenomenon would grow to see women's watches explode as jewelry, leaving male wearable watches in the lurch and feminizing the entire class of watch.

Last reason I wonder is because the earliest wrist watch I own is a 1911 Elgin, and it is large, chunky and masculine. In my experience as a collector, Elgins for men have always been bigger than the whatever was offered by the competition. 

Surely this would be easy to research but I cannot do it at present, other priorities. 

My limited knowledge on this is ladies watches were either pendant watches or wristlets, mainly because they had no pockets back in the day. The most famous watch said to be the first men’s wristwatch was the Cartier Santos. This was made by Cartier for his friend and early aviation pioneer Santos Dumont when he said it was so inconvenient to use a pocket watch when flying. My understanding of the more common use of the wristwatch is from WW1, that being the difficulty army officers had coping with holding a pistol, whistle and pocket watch all at the same time when coordinating an attack. This is where trench watches first came about, basically a pocket watch with wire loops soldered to the case to allow it to be strapped to the wrist. This caught on with the troops and both officers and other ranks were asking relatives back home to have them put together for them at the watchmaker. This seems to have been thought of as a jolly good idea and so we came to have the wristwatch we have today as the design matured.

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

2 hours ago, Galilea said:

Horology as a whole seems still to be a male-dominated hobby and possibly profession. In fact, I am not sure it is true, but I was told last week that I am the only female on this forum. 

I'm not sure that's entirely truthful thing as I know quite a few women in horology.

then one of the problems the message board is secret identities. Can you tell from someone secret identity whether their male or female?

Oh and I believe this is a female yes I know she specializes but I'm sure she has general horology knowledge?

https://komonews.com/news/erics-heroes/antiquarian-horologist-bellow-washington-vashon-engineeer-island-machines-of-genius-silver-swan-clocks-watchmaker-golden-cage-bowes-museum

 

[Galilea]

35 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

I'm not sure that's entirely truthful thing as I know quite a few women in horology.

then one of the problems the message board is secret identities. Can you tell from someone secret identity whether their male or female?

Oh and I believe this is a female yes I know she specializes but I'm sure she has general horology knowledge?

https://komonews.com/news/erics-heroes/antiquarian-horologist-bellow-washington-vashon-engineeer-island-machines-of-genius-silver-swan-clocks-watchmaker-golden-cage-bowes-museum

 

Thank you for that link, the one maybe to a woman who might know about horology, I shall feature her in my unicorn collection. I hope you can appreciate the humor in that statement.

You cite one link and mention several more females you have known in horology, which I assume represent a tiny percentage of males you have encountered. That ratio qualifies the field as being male dominated. I think you were agreeing with, not disputing my observation, since you are a very bright man.

As far as being the only female here on this forum, I find that hard to believe, but do not know and have no preference. Hidden Identities, past participants and all, I am with you. Perhaps the person who mentioned that was talking about women-who-identified-themselves-as-such and are active in the forums today. 

Thank you, John, and we'll see you here later on.