waltham watch help
Il Guru
pocket watch that i inherited a few years ago. I had a jeweler open
the back cover and I checked the serial number on the movement. it's
32,442,019 and it is 21 jewel. the outside back case also has the
number 6204837 written on it. the watch seems very simple and doesn't
look that valuable. Is this a railway pocket watch? Does anyone know
how much this watch could be worth?
thanks in advance
Jennifer
The Baron
Colonial, 17 jewel. The book is often incorrect. The Colonial R series
made different grades, both 17j and 21j adjusted to 5 positions. I do not
believe your watch is/was railroad grade. By this time several
requirements were in place, such as 21j, 16s, lever set, overcoil balance
spring, double roller, open face etc. There would have also been a
''railroad approved'' dial and hands. Your watch may be an accurate watch
but I don't think that it meets all of these requirements. I also do not
believe that Waltham marketed this watch as one of their railroad models.
There will most likely be others to respond contrary to my statements.
My experience with railroad watches that most any watch ''could'' have been
a ''railroad watch'' on some railroad, somewhere, at some time. This due
to the many different railroads, and their rules and certification
requirements over their history. Again, I don't think your watch was
railroad grade.
"Il Guru" <il_...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4372fbd4.04091...@posting.google.com...
c.gir...@waltham.ch
requirements and the engineer who established them: Webb C. Ball,
please go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_chronometers and
follow the various threads, which shall give you a good basic
information. You can also ak follow-up questions at the NAWCC Internet
Chapter 185: http://nawcc-ihc-mb.infopop.cc/
Best regards
Claude Girardin
The Baron
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.04091...@posting.google.com...
Lloyd
> There is no such thing as a railroad chronometer.
>
FWIW, Keystone Howard series 11, 16s, 21J
is so marked on the movement, and advertised,
cased, sold as such, early 19-teens and later.
But you're right, there's no such generally
recognized "classification", and it's not a
Waltham.
Lloyd
*****
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Inspector Webb C. Ball in U.S.A. in 1893 for Railroad watches and
applied by the Waltham Watch Company, soon followed by the Elgin Watch
Company and other American, later also by some Swiss, Watch
Manufacturers, built indeed the base of today's for the official title
of "chronometer". Those standards have of course evolved with the
technology and been strengthened over the time, e.g. now the
international norm ISO 3159 provides the definition of a
wrist(watch)-chronometer with sprung balance oscillator, with the COSC
(Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute "Contrôle Officiel
Suisse des Chronomètres") own addition of a permanent display of the
second.
Each Officially certified COSC Chronometer is unique, identified by a
serial number engraved on its movement and a certification number
given by the COSC. Each movement is individually tested for 15 days,
in 5 positions, under 3 different temperatures. Based on these
measurements, 7 eleminatory criterias are calculated, the minimas of
which must all be met e,g, for movements of a diameter over 20mm,
indicated in seconds/day:
Average daily rate: -5 +8
Mean variation in rates: 3.4
Greatest variation in rates: 7
Difference between rates in H & V positions: -8 +10
Largest variation in rates: 15
Thermal variation: +-0.7
Rate resumption: +-6
To earn chronometer certification, a movement must not only be made
for the highest quality components, but also be the object of special
care on part of the finest watchmakers and timers during assembly,
standing out clearly from the standard watch production (as also in
those days between adjusted to positions & temperature and
unadjusted).
Measurements are based on a time base established by 2 independant
atomic clocks synchronised on GPS time (In those days, e.g. Waltham
had its own observatory).
Historically you are right: nobody in U.S.A. was using the terminology
"chronometer" to distinguish an especially precise and reliable watch
from the very big mass of standard watches.
However, if you compare the standards laid out in the 19th Century by
Webb C. Ball with today's, surely you shall agree with me that indeed
those Railroad pocket watches were comparedly that precise & reliable
that nowadays they deserve to be called Railroad Chronometers, in
order to distinguish them from the big mass of unadjusted mechanical
watches produced then and now.
Best regards
Claude Girardin, NAWCC 0138194, AWI 33713
General Manager
Waltham International SA, CH-2074 Marin/Switzerland
http://www.waltham.ch/
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message news:<ogq3d.10923$mQ6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
Jack Denver
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.0409...@posting.google.com...
The Baron
were very accurate timekeepers(and had to be)for their day, especially when
compared to other watches being manufactured at that time. The general
weekly rate was 30 secs. a week. As the watches were reset to ''correct
railroad time'' every day, this would have been acceptable for trains, to
be on schedule or to keep one from crashing into another.
These timepieces were not designed to maintain any sort of 1/10 level
sec./day repeatability as a ships chronometer was. Nor were the ''pocket
chronometers'' of which Waltham and others made many(different
requirements).
My remarks were to the ''copy writers'' of today trying to market a product
by using inferred ''chronometer'' phraseology. My view, although somewhat
a minority, can also be applied to the modern wrist watch. The word
'chronometer' is used in most instances today as an adjective, but implied
as a noun.
There is only one chronometer.
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.0409...@posting.google.com...
Jack Denver
All jokes aside, as we went thru in a recent thread, "chronometer" has at
least a couple of widely accepted current meanings: 1. a marine
chronometer - a clock with a chronometer escapement . 2. A (wrist) watch
that has met the standards of some certifying body such as the COSC.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:cJC3d.6100$Af2....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Jack Denver
which sells cheap quartz watches under the "Waltham" (and Elgin and Gruen)
names? Is the ownership of the Waltham name territorial, i.e. you own it in
certain countries and they in others (e.g. the US)?
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.04091...@posting.google.com...
John S.
that. They were never timed to or certified by the COSC, which owns
the name chronometer. Seiko ultimately had to stop calling their GS
watches chronometers in the 1960's, although they easily outperformed
the swiss standard.
I think that by trying to call RR watches something they never were,
it actually dilutes their well known contribution to railroad history
and safety. As a group they met and usually exceeded the standard at
the time. That is really all that has to be said.
Besides, the term chronometer really doesn't have the value or
usefulness it once had. A Seiko Perpetual Calendar has accuracy
measured in seconds per year and will run circles around any modern
mechanical chronometer. A Timex Ironman from Walmart can outperform a
COSC certified Rolex. The term chronometer has value these days as a
marketing device for high end watches. It really does not identify
accurate watches any more. I would really not like to see the term
applied to RR watches...it cheapens the image.
c.gir...@waltham.ch (c.gir...@waltham.ch) wrote in message news:<19848e9e.0409...@posting.google.com>...
Jack Denver
calling a RR watch a chronometer adds more glory to the word chronometer
than vice versa, given the noble history of the RR watch (the finest
technology of its day) and the ignoble state of the COSC mechanical
chronometer (the finest marketing of our day).
On the one hand, it's interesting to note that the RR spec of 30 sec/week
works out to about 4 secs/day, which is in line with (even exceeds) the
current COSC spec. OTOH, modern wristwatches live a much harder life than
the old pocketwatches ever did and their shock, magnetic and water
protection are far superior. Not to mention that the old RR watches received
a lot of service, whereas a modern mechanical will run for 5 or more years
unopened.
AFAIK, COSC controls the designation "Swiss chronometer" but the word
chronometer is generic and cannot be trademarked by anyone, at least in the
US. This may vary in other countries. For example, in the US, it is legally
permissible to sell "Califorinia Champagne" whereas in the EU only wines
from the designated region in France may carry that appellation.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d2223c24.04092...@posting.google.com...
The Baron
You make good points to be sure. The 4 sec./day error was not a
repeatable error. For those not familiar, a ship's chronometer might have
a daily loss of 1min. 15 secs./day, but this error was repeatable to within
1/10 sec./day(or so), that is accuracy. The railroad watch was never
tested or held to this strict of a standard, it might run 30 secs./week for
a week then the next week is might run 10 secs./week. The watch would
still be within standards, very good standards.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:-YOdnXyoM_u...@comcast.com...
Jack Denver
was in general babied as much as possible, whereas RR watches and today's
wrist "chronometers" live a much harder life out in the world. I suspect
that if you treated a RR watch as a ship's chronometer it would perform
close to one. Indeed Hamilton's WWII marine chronometers were based in part
on their RR watch technology
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:c6H3d.21992$ZC7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> What is the relationship between your company and the M.Z. Berger Company
> which sells cheap quartz watches under the "Waltham" (and Elgin and Gruen)
> names? Is the ownership of the Waltham name territorial, i.e. you own it in
> certain countries and they in others (e.g. the US)?
Waltham International SA was founded in Switzerland in 1954 by the
American Waltham Watch Company, Waltham, Mass. to supply them with
Swiss watch and movement parts, which were not readily available in
U.S.A., in order to follow-up with the new trends in watches. Upon the
demise of the U.S. company in 1957, a new distribution company was
created in Chicago, which was supplied by our company. The onslaught
of Japanese watches in the late Seventies stopped this venture.
Remained the Japanese market, which has up to now been the main market
for our style and quality of Waltham watches, made in the same spirit
of excellency as the Waltham founding & forefathers.
Due to a twist of history, the rights to the TM Waltham was bought by
MZ Berger for U.S.A. and Canada. They distribute exclusively in U.S.A.
and Canada their own Waltham watches assembled in China with Japanese
movements, under our licence, through mass distributors, outside of
the watch dealership network.
For our part, we own the rights to the trademark Waltham in all the
other watchmaking countries.
Please consult our website: http://www.waltham.ch, where we have also
installed a search engine for the collectors of antique Waltham
watches at: http://waltham.ch/cgi/waltham/search.asp
At your disposal for any further information.
Claude Girardin
General Manager
Waltham International SA
CH-2074 Marin/Neuchatel, Switzerland
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Chronometers deserved and still deserve the terminology of
"Chronometer" and that all today's Officially Certified Chronometer
wristwatches sold on the market are usurpating the terminology?
Do you want me to send you a full documentation about today's
criterias for mechanical as well as for quartz wristwatch
"chronometers"? Could you please do same for the Marine Chronometers
you are referring to, enabling a factual comparison?
Appreciating this exchange of points of view.
Best regards
Claude Girardin
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message news:<cJC3d.6100$Af2....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
Frank Adam
wrote:
>
>There is only one chronometer.
>
I'm sure that would that be the Unitas i've had to do at the end of my
apprenticeship, which i've had to poise and adjust the crap out of, in
order to reach the timing figures that in the end gave less than a 5
second variance in any position.
Certification is a piece of paper, reality is truth.
--
Regards, Frank
The Baron
reading.
<lysa...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:stmuk0l85nl39f79i...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:31:04 GMT, "The Baron" <theb...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack and John,
> > You make good points to be sure. The 4 sec./day error was not a
> >repeatable error. For those not familiar, a ship's chronometer might
have
> >a daily loss of 1min. 15 secs./day, but this error was repeatable to
within
> >1/10 sec./day(or so), that is accuracy. The railroad watch was never
> >tested or held to this strict of a standard, it might run 30 secs./week
for
> >a week then the next week is might run 10 secs./week. The watch would
> >still be within standards, very good standards.
>
> The only ship's chronometer that I sailed with (in 10 years on the
> oggin) that had a rate of 1/10th second a day or less was a Seiko
> Quartz. Ship's mechanical chronometers had a rate of 1-2 seconds a
> day.
>
>
>
The Baron
have one on our arm. They cannot be compared to a mechanical clock. There
is no contest.
<lysa...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:stmuk0l85nl39f79i...@4ax.com...
Jack Denver
Japanese watches while the Japanese themselves continued to buy Swiss. It
sounds to me like Waltham turned to Switzerland very late in its history
compared to the other American brands such as Gruen and Bulova, who began
using Swiss sources well before WWII.
I see now that I could have answered my own question in Wikipedia, where you
just happen to be the author of the Waltham article as well as the one on
"railroad chronometers". I'm not sure if it's fair to site an article which
you yourself wrote as support for your contention that there is such a thing
as a "railroad chronometer". At least in American usage, the term "railroad
watch" was much more common.
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.04092...@posting.google.com...
The Baron
masses, want some adjective from the past, applied to a conspicuous
purchase. I'm sure they look good in the board room meetings and during
the cocktail hour.
I am impressed with you work and achievements with the watch and I'm sure
John Harrison would be as well. Maintain sanity at all cost.
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:hjmuk0tpd8revfsp9...@4ax.com...
Frank Adam
wrote:
>I am talking about repeatability, not what the hand on the clock is actually
>reading.
>
Frankly, i find it hard to get impressed by that. Repeatability is not
a very hard thing to achieve if the timepiece spends 99% of it's time
in virtually the same position.
When a ship's clock goes dial down, time is no longer an important
issue, air is.
--
Regards, Frank
The Baron
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:pdtuk0tl18v0mdvtb...@4ax.com...
Frank Adam
wrote:
Not a lot really. I'm generally hard to impress, but something
genuinly innovative will usually do it.
Having a clock run well in one basic position is not one of them.
It's simply precision as it should be, that you and i both know, is
quite achieveble.
--
Regards, Frank
Jack Denver
century, before the invention of modern machine tools and invariable metals.
By the end of WWII, Hamilton proved that building a marine chronometer was
no longer a black art to be undertaken only by wizards of horology - they
built them using the same mass production techniques that they used to churn
out pocket watches by the millions. Had not quartz taken their place, I'm
sure their heirs as precision mass producers, the Japanese, would be
churning them out too. As I said before, if you take a modern COSC grade
wristwatch movement and case it and treat it like a marine chronometer, it
will perform pretty close to one. If you scale that same movement up to 35
size, even more so.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:LNL3d.22051$ZC7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
The Baron
history. If one wants a real chronometer they let them buy an old unit on
ebay or a railroad pocket watch. To keep alive a wrist watch, with papers,
is a mockery of what has happened in the past.
The watch serves no useful purpose except to take money from foolish people
and give it to greedy laughing hypocrites.
No wait, that's a useful purpose, both are happy, and it continues the world
wide spread of ignorance and stupidity.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:vaqdna5s_Pg...@comcast.com...
Frank Adam
wrote:
No wait a bit more, how many legitimate watches out there carry a
chronometer certification and do not comply with it ? Fakes and two
minute brands aside, a customer buying such watch can be assured that
the precision will be there.
The point i'm trying to make is, that you are riding on an outdated
word. Just as the word "cool" is no longer used mainly to describe a
state of temperature, chronometer has aquired a new meaning and an
internationally accepted official one of that.
--
Regards, Frank
Jack Denver
In the mid-sixties, Seiko began to rise rapidly in the ratings at the
Neuchatel Observatory trials (which had been held for a century), going
from 153rd to 4th place in only 3 years in the "wrist chronometer" category.
The following year the trials were permanently discontinued. COSC was
created in 1973 and certifies only Swiss watches, neatly cutting the
Japanese out of the game.
http://ninanet.net/watches/others04/Mediums/mbeba.html
and here:
http://plaza19.mbn.or.jp/~kseiya/gs/history-e.html
If you buy an antique piece, not only will you have a bit of history, but
the craftsmanship is way beyond the mediocre finish that you get in a modern
Rolex, for example. OTOH, you can't wear a railroad pocket watch on your
wrist.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:x1N3d.6286$HV4....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Jack Denver
standards of even a dimestore quartz watch.
Nor is that precision all that great even by mechanical watch standards -
something like 99% of all the submitted watches pass the none too rigorous
test, whose standards have not been raised in 30 years. Nowadays, given
laser poised balances and other refinements, it is enough to buy a
"chronometer grade" ETA without wasting money on a piece of paper that
certifies the obvious.
There's no doubt that "chronometer" today in popular parlance means a watch
with a COSC certificate. It's just that this is a corruption of the word's
original meaning.
"The term "chronometer" began in 1715 with English watchmaker Jeremy
Thacker, for a sea watch using a verge movement. John Arnold extended the
use to pocketwatches in 1782 for those having spring or pivoted detent
escapements. When the Swiss designed lever escapements with equivalent or
better precision, the term came to indicate the high precision, rather than
the escapement type. In 1925, the Swiss Association for Chronometry said: "A
chronometer is a watch which has received a certificate from an astronomical
observatory". "
http://ninanet.net/watches/others04/Mediums/mbeba.html
So the evolution of the name all makes sense up to this point. Even though
a watch might have a lever escapement, if it beat a chronometer escapement
in a trial, was it not worthy of the chronometer name?
But read on...
"The system of official Swiss testing agencies certifying the performance of
individual watch movements to a certain (high) standard is an entirely
distinct and parallel undertaking [vs. the observatory trials]. These do not
involve competition, and the standards are therefore fixed, and much less
rigorous. COSC certification is strictly a commercial matter; for example,
during the span 1974 through 1988, although not the best years for
mechanical watches, over 4 million watches received COSC certification. ....
As FvO states "Everybody will be able to wear a "Bureaux Officiels" (the
predecessors to the COSC) tested chronometer wristwatch, but, with few
exceptions, nobody will be able to wear an observatory tested watch."
So at some point the jump was made from a chronometer being an observatory
tested watch, a true rarity, into a marketing device that is churned out by
the millions. This is the typical pattern for manufacturers - you start
with the "real thing" (say butter or wool or diamond) and then you make a
substitute that performs "similarly" but is cheaper to make and then you
make an even cheaper version of the substitute so that the end product is
something that is clearly inferior but suitable for foisting on the masses
in large quantity. You give it a name that is as close as possible to the
original to cause confusion.
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:b88vk058nao43qjso...@4ax.com...
Revision
"Jack Denver"
> something like 99% of all the submitted watches
> pass the none too rigorous test, whose standards
> have not been raised in 30 years.
Quite so....I think that a carefully oiled and assembled ETA 2824 would
stand a good chance of passing the COSC test.
Reading this thread has got me wondering what a watch movement maker
would do differently to build a watch that was optimized for maximum
accuracy. Or is the current model already optimized in that regard? I
supppose if you put in a 36000 bph balance you could improve the accuracy
a little.
Then there was a remark by Daniels that he was of the opinion that in a
controlled environment that his co-axial design should be able to stay
within a second per month. That might impress even Frank Adam.
c.gir...@waltham.ch
complaining that Waltham Watch Company was exporting (too cheaply)
their quality movements to Switzerland, and that consumers accepted to
pay prices of up to 40-50% higher (however including horrendous US
Duty Taxes) for Swiss Made watches, assembled with movements
originating from U.S.A.
I selected to use the terminology Railroad Chronometer instead of
watches, although it was not in use at the time, in order to
distinguish those - temperature & position adjusted - quality
timekeepers from the big mass of the unadjusted watches.
I feel to be fair in trying hard to give factual information, open to
everyone's scrutiny, under my own name and responsibility and remain
always open for constructive controversy. My aim is to inform about
the origins of the industrialisation of watchmaking at Waltham and
enhance the awareness for good quality watches.
Claude Girardin
Waltham International SA
CH-2074 Marin/Neuchātel, Switzerland
http://www.waltham.ch/
John S.
for mechanical watches and a much higher one for quartz timed watches.
If they held mechanical watches to the accuracy attainable by quartz
movements then Rolex would not be able to call their timepieces
superlative chronometers or even plain old chronometers. And that
would hurt sales.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message news:<%QJ3d.5113$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> I thought the current COSC requirement was -4 +6?
Answer: Appreciating your sharp mind: you are right Jack Denver, I
unfortunately quoted wrongly, please find with my apologies,
underneath the correct values, in seconds/day:
a) (values) for diameter UNDER OR EQUAL to 20 mm,
b) values for diameter OVER 20 mm (you were aware of ):
Average daily rate: (-5 +8) -4+6
Mean variation in rates: (3.4) 2
Greatest variation in rates: (7) 5
Difference between rates in H & V positions: (-8 +10) -6+8
Largest variation in rates: (15) 10
Thermal variation: (+-0.7) +-0.6
Rate resumption: (+-6) +-5
which makes more sense now.
Best regards
Claude Girardin
Jack Denver
http://www.zeno-watch.ch/Sonstige/Chronometer/body_chronometer.html
among others.
I'm sure Zeno just orders these with chronometer grade parts from ETA and
needs to put very little if any work into them to get them to pass. It
can't be otherwise because of Zeno's pricepoint, which doesn't allow for a
lot of hand labor.
A hint at what it would take to make a super accurate mechanical wristwatch
can be gained by looking at the observatory trial watches. Though they kept
superlative time, they were known for being very finicky to set up and very
fragile in use.
"Revision" <kentnobettsspam@techispdotcom> wrote in message
news:10kvesu...@corp.supernews.com...
c.gir...@waltham.ch
opinions.
Personally, usually sporting one of our latest COSC certified Waltham
Chronometer on my wrist, I alternatively take great pleasure in
wearing an antique Waltham wristwatch.
Antique or new, the ticking heart of a mechanical watch evokes the
whole Universe and shall mainly please men. Most women shall prefer
the easiness of quartz & compensate their lack of mechanical romantic
by gold, diamonds and / or design connected to brand glamour. As the
brand Waltham evokes e.g. the pioneering age of industrial
watch-making, Lincoln, The Spirit of St. Louis, Peary and other great
human achievements, numerous watch brands are loaded with archetypes &
emotions; wearers want to share in with.
A quality brand watch has a spiritual value, is a symbol, a token to
show one's personality (or lack thereof), individuality, taste and
status. Just like with cars. But with the difference that the watch
you wear is your closest "friend" at all times & cannot maim or kill
people.
Not highest precision is required, but ease of use & reliability.
Movement finish: I just wonder at the quality perception: perhaps
Waltham faced the same negative perception Vs the ancient masters
hand-made watches, as you are judging some today's famous brands'
compared to the industrially made watches of yesteryear?
I agree with you, who are we to judge other people's values &
lifestyles? As long as it keeps everybody happy, from those whose life
income depend upon to those having the advantage of appreciating a
watch also for its style and built-in emotional values, both sides are
on the winning side. Basically nobody can live without fulfilling
some of his dreams, if not spirituality.
Now, with regards to railroad watches: would you really resent me for
keeping calling them railroad chronometers?
P.S. Some calibres were fitted with 36'000 assortments as early as the
60s, e.g. 111/2"-2836 ETA. I shall get back with more information
soon.
Best regards
Claude Girardin
Waltham International SA
The Baron
serviced.
<lysa...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:bcivk0phv86qgftdc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:32:05 GMT, "The Baron" <theb...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I am talking about repeatability, not what the hand on the clock is
actually
> >reading.
>
> So was I.
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> What is the relationship between your company and the M.Z. Berger Company
> which sells cheap quartz watches under the "Waltham" (and Elgin and Gruen)
> names? Is the ownership of the Waltham name territorial, i.e. you own it in
> certain countries and they in others (e.g. the US)?
Waltham International SA was founded in Switzerland in 1954 by the
>American Waltham Watch Company, Waltham, Mass. to supply them with
Swiss watch and movement parts, which were not readily available in
U.S.A., in order to follow-up with the new trends in watches. Upon the
demise of the U.S. company in 1957, a new distribution company was
created in Chicago, which was supplied by our company. The onslaught
of Japanese watches in the late Seventies stopped this venture.
Remained the Japanese market, which has up to now been the main market
for our style and quality of Waltham watches, made in the same spirit
of excellency as the Waltham founding & forefathers.
Due to a twist of history, the rights to the TM Waltham was bought by
MZ Berger for U.S.A. and Canada. They distribute exclusively in U.S.A.
and Canada their own Waltham watches assembled in China with Japanese
movements, under our licence, through mass distributors, outside of
the watch dealership network.
For our part, we own the rights to the trademark Waltham in all the
other watchmaking countries.
Please consult our website: http://www.waltham.ch, where we have also
installed a Waltham Serial Numbers search engine for the benefit of
all collectors of antique Waltham watches at:
The Baron
and saluted. ''Evokes'', yes, an excellent word, in this case meaning not
exactly the same but will fool most, and guaranteed to give a warm fuzzy
feeling inside.
Yes, I object to railroad watches being called chronometers, it's just
another example of ''dumbing down'' that our society is plagued with and
with those desperate to make money through the ignorance of others.
When the revolution comes, we will know where to go.
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.04092...@posting.google.com...
Moka Java
>
> Not highest precision is required, but ease of use & reliability.
> Movement finish: I just wonder at the quality perception: perhaps
> Waltham faced the same negative perception Vs the ancient masters
> hand-made watches, as you are judging some today's famous brands'
> compared to the industrially made watches of yesteryear?
I don't think so. Watches were a pure luxury item in the 1860's when
the American Waltham Watch Company was just getting off the ground.
Interchangeable parts were a boon to putting a watch in everybody's
pocket and later on everybody's wrist. The great master watchmakers of
the past couldn't produce enough watches by hand to even consider mass
marketing. The lack of mass media and limited communications made the
great masters unknown except in their small circles. OTOH, I'm sure the
Swiss masters were sweating in their socks when the first 1857's crossed
their benches.
Does Waltham make it's movements in house or are they ETAs like most
other Swiss brands?
Richard "owner of some very beautiful industrially made watches" F
Jack Denver
"Moka Java" <watchesrt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2rb3gnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Does Waltham make it's movements in house
Don't be silly.
or are they ETAs like most
> other Swiss brands?
Bingo. Frankly, this is the only realistic alternative left for all but the
ultra-high priced brands. What non-ETA "in-house" movements are left in
Swiss watches under say $3000?
This is no knock on Waltham - they are just doing what all their competitors
are doing and what is economically feasible. It's just not reasonable
nowadays to expect a small Swiss label (outside of haute horology) to have
its own manufacture and even if they did, it wouldn't be as good as what ETA
turns out with its many tens of millons of dollars worth of high tech
machine tools, its vertically integrated sourcing for every component and
it's long experience refining its movements to a high state of reliability.
Even IWC starts with ETA kits for this reason. Even Poljot is putting ETA's
in some of its watches. ETA (Swatch) itself would like to recapture the
profits that others make by taking their movements and marketing them under
another name, so they have tried to cut back on availability, but I believe
have met with resistance from the Swiss anti-trust authorities.
Note to Mr. Girardin:
Please save your flowery evocations of Lindbergh, etc. for your marketing
materials. Most of us here have been around long enough and have seen the
inside of enough watches to be a little cynical about such things, so it's
better to stick to hard facts instead of flowery rhetoric. I say this not as
a criticism, but just as a suggestion of what will and will not be well
received here. Fundamentally, I don't disagree that the average consumer
buys watches as they do autos, partly based on performance statistics and
reviews, but partly (often even mostly) based on emotional appeal. It's just
that this group is not representative of the general watch buying public, so
that you have to tailor your appeal (not that you should be using this forum
for marketing anyway) to suit the audience.
>
> Richard "owner of some very beautiful industrially made watches" F
At one time, industrial manufacture and beauty were not considered mutually
exclusive. It is only recently, when manufacturers have decide to squeeze
every last penny of cost that they could out of a product (while keeping the
price the same or higher), did "beauty" end up on the cut list, along with
"quality" and "craftsmanship".
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Appreciating your kind cooperation.
Claude Girardin
Waltham International SA
CH-2074 Marin/Neuchātel, Switzerland
http://www.waltham.ch/
Post a follow-up to this message"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<OYCdnW15btr...@comcast.com>...
The Baron
followed it but it's subject is interesting, something to do with portable
atomic clocks(watches). This seems to be a more practical direction to
go, resurrecting chronometers or continuing a dead end, is not logical for a
massed produced product. The numbers are not there, not even for the
foolish.
Making standards for a wrist watch (that it can pass) different from other
chronometers is illogical to me as well. If it was the intention, (in
1925 as another stated) to make this watch available to ship captains,
astronometers, the military etc., then it was nobel effort. However, by
simply listening to complaints over the years, just on this newsgroup, it
was/is a failure.
Wrist watches take too much of a beating to keep good time, for a very long
period of time. Although we have not discussed ''value'', which is
difficult to define, would one of these timepieces increase in $ over a 10
year period? Would they sell for less than new? Would this happen to a
ships chronometer? What would they sell for on ebay?
Frank Adam
>And that's why COSC had to splut the chronometer standard...a low one
>for mechanical watches and a much higher one for quartz timed watches.
> If they held mechanical watches to the accuracy attainable by quartz
>movements then Rolex would not be able to call their timepieces
>superlative chronometers or even plain old chronometers. And that
>would hurt sales.
>
They are two different classes of watches. Was Sugar Ray Leonard not
quite as much of a champion as Ali ?
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
<kentnobettsspam@techispdotcom> wrote:
>Reading this thread has got me wondering what a watch movement maker
>would do differently to build a watch that was optimized for maximum
>accuracy. Or is the current model already optimized in that regard? I
>supppose if you put in a 36000 bph balance you could improve the accuracy
>a little.
>
There is no magic. The goal is to :
1, Have everything balanced as well as possible
2, To deliver as consistent power as possible
3, To eliminate and/or compensate for temperature and motion induced
variances, but these are nigh impossible to fully satisfy.
>Then there was a remark by Daniels that he was of the opinion that in a
>controlled environment that his co-axial design should be able to stay
>within a second per month. That might impress even Frank Adam.
>
That escapement did actually impress me <g>, but i thought it was a
bit too little too late to impress the world full of quartz wearers.
I do very much doubt that 1 sec/month figure, btw.
I don't think there is much that anyone can do to a mechanical watch
that would set the world on fire. It'll make us go 'wow' here on the
group and in the enthausiast sectors, but in general it's like
designing a better distributor for a car engine.
Great job, but... it won't beat my chip.
With all that said, do remember that i am pro mechanical and don't
hold any quartz watch in too high a regard as far as the 'wow' factor
goes. To me, simple software that drives a handful of functions is not
a huge achievement. Putting it all into a chip the size of a pinhead
however, certainly was, when it happened. Not anymore.
--
Regards, Frank
c.gir...@waltham.ch
I shall henceforth refrain from any lyrics and stop calling Railroad
Watches any other way.
Our mechanical movements parts originate from ETA and are being
assembled as per our own specification by an independent assembly
company (as long as Swatch Group allows). Our quartz movements
originate directly from ETA.
Best regards
Claude Girardin
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<db-dnbUub9a...@comcast.com>...
John S.
manufacturer. It's a great way to control manufacturing costs and
still be able to provide a reliable product. Of the companies that
once made their own movements, it would be interesting to find out
just how many of the core components were really manufacturered
in-house. I suspect the answer would be there was a lot of
outsourcing.
Heck, when watch and clock making was truly a cottage industry there
was a lot of outsourcing.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<db-dnbUub9a...@comcast.com>...
The Baron
John S.
having more class than the other. What I don't understand is why a
certification for accuracy is measured by two different standards.
I think it is safe to say that the battery powered IC controlled watch
was a huge improvement in watch technology for most people. In a 10
year span watches went from being something you had to tend every
morning to something that just kept running. All of a sudden battery
powered watches priced at $20.00 had made the COSC standard for
accuracy obsolete. For a few dollars watches could be made to perform
sophisticated chronograph functions, track multiple time zones and
store a perpetual calendar. Sophisticated features once found only in
the most expensive watches became available to all.
COSC had to develop a split standard for watch accuracy because their
single standard measured in seconds per day was eclipsed by a
fundamental shift in watch technology. If they didn't set a low
standard for mechanical watches and a much higher one for eletronic
watches they faced the possibility of certifying virtually all watches
as chronometers. That wouldn't bode well for sales of expensive
mechanical watches.
Having a seconds per day standard for mechanical watches is useful as
a reminder of where watch accuracy once was. Sort of like driving a
1950 Buick to experience how driving once was. But the Buick of 55
years ago like the mechanical chronometer has been eclipsed by
fundamental shifts in technology.
I do enjoy my Omega Chronometer watch with the understanding it is a
bit of an anachronism.
Frank Adam <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<io81l0dngvjqbj5ol...@4ax.com>...
Jack Denver
classes of racecars, classes of yachts, etc. The problem is that our
technology has extended so far that you can't have a race where, as in the
earliest days, you just say "show up and whoever has the best (fastest) car
regardless of technology wins." You'd have cars with turbojets going 400
mph and the crashes would be awesome. Instead, the rulebooks for the
different classes of auto racing are a foot thick and make the COSC rules
simple by comparison.
As you say, they had no choice but to either bifurcate the standard or give
up on mechanical watches altogether. Don't think that they didn't seriously
consider the latter - remember that there was a mass extinction of Swiss
watch manufacturers at the time of the quartz introduction. Pure logic would
dictate that the mechanical watch would join the hand cranked adding machine
and the vacuum tube radio in the dustbin of history. This is what usually
happens when a superior technology arrives and most people thought this is
where the watch industry was headed. Basically the survival of the
mechanical chronometer (and perhaps the Swiss mechanical watch in general)
can be credited (for better or for worse) to one manufacturer: Rolex, who to
this day accounts for maybe 90% of the COSC certified watches sold. Whether
out of innate conservatism or brilliant marketing insight, they stuck with
the mechanical watch when all others thought that the handwriting was on the
wall. When the smoke cleared and they were still standing (not only standing
but thriving), others realized that maybe there was a still niche for
mechanical watches after all.
Although I'm not prepared to shell out for a worthless chronometer
certificate and less still for the premium that Rolex charges for its
watches, I'm glad that Rolex took the path that it did and that we can still
buy mechanical watches.
Of course you are right that the split standard means that a COSC mechanical
certificate no longer means that the watch you are buying is the "best" in
any absolute sense, only the best in a very constrained artificial category
(like best marathon time in a wheelchair). As someone else said, joining up
another thread, a true best and something worth of the modern title of
"chronometer" would be something like a wristwatch atomic watch (a true
independent timekeeper, not a RC watch which is a "slave clock"). But we
are used to making distinctions like this in the modern world if only
because the absolutes we have reached are so extreme and so useless at the
same time - while astronauts orbit at 20,000 mph, we still speak of the
"fastest plane".
Watch certificates (and even observatory trials) were always about bragging
rights and marketing driven, but they meant something too. In a day when it
was not unusual for lower grade mechanical watches to be off by 30 seconds
or more A DAY, there was a real need and advantage to owning a watch that
did 30 seconds a week (especially if your job was time critical, e.g RR
locomotive driver). Today, higher precision in a wristwatch is more or less
bragging rights only - what practical difference does it make if your
wristwatch does 30 seconds a year or 20? Though there are lots of
applications that depend on even higher precision (e.g. co-ordinating the
waveforms of the powergrid, where a fraction of 1/60th of a second puts you
out of phase) these are not handled by wristwatches. So you have a paradox -
watches became more precise and less critical at the same time. So now we
can glory in their magnificent "worthlessness". There is nothing wrong with
that - Faberge eggs are worthless too, as are Calder mobiles, etc.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d2223c24.04092...@posting.google.com...
John S.
hand cranked adding machine
and the vacuum tube radio in the dustbin of history. This is what
usually
happens when a superior technology arrives and most people thought
this is
where the watch industry was headed. Basically the survival of the
mechanical chronometer (and perhaps the Swiss mechanical watch in
general)
can be credited (for better or for worse) to one manufacturer: Rolex,
who to
this day accounts for maybe 90% of the COSC certified watches sold."
It is interesting how a small group of people do hang on to older
technology long after it has become obsolete. There are people who
won't give up vacuum tube powered stereos and amateur radio equipment
because in their opinion it is quieter, sounds better and they just
feel more comfortable tuning an analog receiver. Others like
listening to vinyl records because the sound is more "real" than a CD.
If pure timekeeping ability is what is being sought there is no
comparison between quartz and balance wheel timed watches. And yet in
the face of such a technological advance there are many of us (me
included) who enjoy the sound of an Omega 752 or watching the buttery
smooth seconds hand on a hybrid F300hz movement.
Frank Adam
>Two different classes of watches??? I don't know about one technology
>having more class than the other. What I don't understand is why a
>certification for accuracy is measured by two different standards.
>
LOL, it's not class as in the Beverly Hill sense. :)
It's like having a 318i compared to an M3. They're both cars and
they're both BMWs and they even look kinda similar, but the M3 is in a
different class altogether.
You may still buy a 318i, because it is a very nice car that does
everything extremely well in it's own class, but if you want kick arse
performance you do have to go for an M3.
Just as those two very similar looking cars will not be placed in the
same car magazine comparison test, a mechanical watch can not be
compared in accuracy to a quartz watch as they are in different
classes of technology.
I don't necessarily buy the conspiracy theory that was presented in
the thread, but i do understand and half agree with some points having
been made. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have the standards
clearly earmarked as 'mechanical' and 'electronic' chronometers and
requiring that signage on the dials, but i guess that chrono word is
already a long one. I don't want to see those big dial watches again !
:)
--
Regards, Frank
Jack Denver
"obsolete" technology has hung on better than most. Usually if the obsolete
tech survives at all, it is as a tiny niche appealing to hobbyists, not as a
mainstream product. How many vinyl records are for sale at your local Best
Buy ? Mechanical watches are also a niche product, but a rather large one
and one that is sold in mainstream channels (although outside of Rolex,
you'd be hard pressed to find a mechanical watch at your average shopping
mall).
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d2223c24.04092...@posting.google.com...
Jack Denver
certificate.
http://www.ozdoba.net/swisswatch/history_part4.html
At least if you can read French.
Putting it on the dial is emphasizing the obvious - if you can't figure out
on your own whether a watch is mechanical or quartz, you deserve whatever
you get.
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:a8n3l0h55a09o0o99...@4ax.com...
Frank Adam
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I think that the standards are already well marked if you read a COSC
>certificate.
>
>http://www.ozdoba.net/swisswatch/history_part4.html
>
>At least if you can read French.
>
You scared me there, Jack. I thought i'd have to go to Bablefish and
that is always a daunting, if sometimes entertaining, thing to do. :)
>Putting it on the dial is emphasizing the obvious - if you can't figure out
>on your own whether a watch is mechanical or quartz, you deserve whatever
>you get.
>
That's true, but it would raise the level of understanding in people
not familiar with the watch industry.
Although, who knows if it would make a difference..
One thing that we watchmakers can boast with is that very few people
know *anything* about watches. My old boss used to have a ball
everytime he told a customer that the watch isn't ready yet, because
the center wheel adjustment lever needs to be realigned. And for that,
as everyone knows, we have to pull the watch apart again.. i'm sure
we've had a couple of those on o/seas order too. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Revision
"Frank Adam"
>I thought i'd have to go to Bablefish and
> that is always a daunting
That is for sure. Babelfish generally messes stuff up somewhat, turning
"You will not find a good watch like this" into "You will find that this
watch is not good", at least in German, anyway.
The Baron
US Waltham....... now Swiss Waltham, yep they are same.
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message watches.
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Appreciating your remarks.Points well taken gentlemen.
I shall henceforth refrain from any lyrics and stop calling Railroad
Watches any other way.
Our mechanical movements parts originate from ETA and are being
assembled as per our own specification by an independent assembly
company (as long as Swatch Group allows). Our quartz movements
originate directly from ETA.
Best regards Claude Girardin Waltham International SA c.gir...@waltham.ch
Jack Denver
little if any connection with the original company, so again if Mr. Girardin
is a sinner he is in good company . After the blowup of first the American
watch industry in the '50s and then the Swiss at the quartz revolution of
the '70s, hundreds of once well known watch companies went under. Some of
these names lay dormant for decades until the recent mechanical watch
revival made having a historical connection a good marketing idea and
someone would look up the heirs and buy the name from them. Swiss Waltham
can at least claim some continuous thread of connection to the original
company and from what I gather they never stopped selling watches in Japan.
The "coattails" situation I think is more appropriate for Hamilton. At some
point Swatch just bought the brand name and the current Hamiltons have
nada/zilch connection to the Lancaster, PA made ones.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:N%24d.6535$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
John S.
and one that is sold in mainstream channels (although outside of
Rolex,
you'd be hard pressed to find a mechanical watch at your average
shopping
mall)."
Actually you might be surprised. Many of the small one-owner watch
shops sell Seiko automatics. And the Seiko outlet store is a great
resource for automatic Seiko 5 and diver watches. I've seen Swiss
Army auto's for sale at Nordstroms. And the upscale jewlers show many
swiss autos including Tag and Omega. Automatic movements are far from
dead, just a very tiny slice of the watch pie these days.
Cruise through the watch shops in asia as well as many lesser
developed countries automatics and you will see lots of automatics.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<R6KdneAEi9K...@comcast.com>...
John S.
everything extremely well in it's own class, but if you want kick arse
performance you do have to go for an M3.
Just as those two very similar looking cars will not be placed in the
same car magazine comparison test, a mechanical watch can not be
compared in accuracy to a quartz watch as they are in different
classes of technology."
Actually, if I wanted "kick arse" performance I would go for the
quartz over a COSC certified automatic every time. There is no
comparison.
Yes, I realize that performance standards have to be relaxed for
certain classes of cars. Watches too. It would not be realistic to
expect that a Honda Element would perform with the same sparkling
acceleration and solid handling as an M3. And I would never expect
that a mechanical watch movement would perform with the same high
accuracy as a quartz timed movement.
I'm imagining the confusion potential auto buyers would have if the
auto industry adopted one label "Fast Car" to segregate the top
performers. Of course the same label could be applied to Volkswagen
vans having high double digit and Z6's with single digit acceleration
rates. The label would provide about as much information and
introduce as much confusion as the COSC Chronometer label for accurate
watches.
If all watchmakers would just include one phrase: "Quartz" or
"Mechanical" on all watch dials, potential buyers would have a
reasonably good indicator of absolute watch accuracy. Having a few
mechanical and quartz watches described as "Chronometer" really
doesn't say much about which watches are truly accurate.
Jack Denver
autos are very popular - don't have to deal with battery changing.
I thought that Seiko itself was not bringing Seiko 5's into US, so that if
you see any in the shops they are grey market. Someone correct me if I'm
wrong.
I think we both agree that one way or another mechanicals are a niche
product - you can find them if you look, but they are certainly not
prevalent. If you REALLY want a niche product, try finding a handwind in a
local shop. Not Wempe or Torneau, but just your mall jeweler.
Jack Denver
whether a watch is quartz or mechanical themselves by looking at the second
hand or the minimally trained sales staff can tell them. Given that
mechanicals sell at a premium nowadays, its a selling feature that gets
touted.
The "chronometer" label means that a watch is "superior in its respective
class" (remember there are quartz chronometers too, with their own (higher)
standards). The Swiss are masters of discretion and they (like Bill
Clinton) understand the difference between lying and not telling the (whole)
truth.
Frankly, if you have the money to spend $3,000 on a watch you should have
enough brains to figure this out or get your hands on an article or two that
offer a basic education on watch technology. If you do this you will know
exactly what a COSC certificate gets you (diddly). It's no secret for those
who care to know. I know this doesn't always happen and there are Rolex
buyers that are shocked and disappointed that their brand new shiny Rolex
keeps worse time than the $10 quartz that it replaced. Frankly, that's their
problem for shelling out big $ without understanding what they were getting
into. Being rich involves a certain level of discomfort with the job - rich
women have to wear those tight pointy shoes with high heels and they have to
maneuver a giant SUV while taking on a little tiny cellphone - its a tough
job, but someone has to do it to keep the rest of us employed. Rolex shades
the truth about a lot of things ("It takes a year to make a Rolex" - a
statement that may be true on it's face but meaningless) but their level of
timekeeping accuracy isn't one of those things (instead they are just silent
about it in the ads). Caveat emptor.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d2223c24.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
Moka Java
> I meant in the US. I realize in Asia and 3rd world places, the Seiko 5
> autos are very popular - don't have to deal with battery changing.
>
> I thought that Seiko itself was not bringing Seiko 5's into US, so that if
> you see any in the shops they are grey market. Someone correct me if I'm
> wrong.
The Seiko outlet has Seiko 5's, Orange and Black Monsters and other
mechanical dive watches. Bought a Black Monster, metal band, NIB with a
3 year USA warranty for $159.98 + tax. Speaking to the clerk, the
outlets are selling watches not otherwise available in the US because
Seiko has been reading the watch forums too.
>
> I think we both agree that one way or another mechanicals are a niche
> product - you can find them if you look, but they are certainly not
> prevalent. If you REALLY want a niche product, try finding a handwind in a
> local shop. Not Wempe or Torneau, but just your mall jeweler.
>
Omega and Swatch autos are available in a store or 2 in most every mall
around here.
Richard "on L.I., the land of malldom" F
Jack Denver
I'm not sure that Swatch even has any autos in its current US lineup, though
again some may come in grey market or maybe they are old stock.
As I said before, it's not that autos are unavailable (there are even those
Gruens they sell at Walmart) but that you have to seek them out, because for
every store that has 1 model of auto in stock there are 10 CVS drugstores
and Kay Jewelers that have none.
Another example of this is the Fossil/Zodiac outlet stores. In a store full
of perhaps a 1000 watches, if you are lucky they will have one or 2 Zodiac
autos in stock (not the # of styles but the # of actual auto watches), plus
a handful of retro-funky looking Fossil autos with Miyotas and the clerk may
not even know which ones these are (Zodiac makes identical models with
either quartz or mechanical movements).
Last time I was in one, they had run out of the classic looking round face
one that I bought for $80 (one rule of outlet shopping is buy 'em when you
seem 'em because they won't be there next time). Fossil has infected Zodiac
with the retro virus so that the only Zodiac auto they had was a funky faux
70's looking oversize "TV screen" watch at $160.
My $80 Zodiac with ETA 2824 BTW is doing terrifically. It was regulated way
fast (19 secs/day) out of the factory but after some trial and error due to
lack of timing machine, I cut it back almost to the limit of the ETAchron
fine regulator and now it gains 2 to 4 secs every night off my wrist and
loses them back during the day, so that it runs virtually spot on. I get
the feeling that a lot of modern mechanicals could do just as well if only
people were willing to (repeatedly) regulate them until they were matched
with their owner's wear pattern.
"Moka Java" <watchesrt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2rgbmgF...@uni-berlin.de...
The Baron
knowledge (easily obtainable by searching the web) and understand that US
companies such as Waltham, Hamilton, Elgin, Seth Thomas, Ansonia etc. are
no longer in manufacture within the US.
Attempts by companies to sell products under these names, are to me at the
very least silly, or worse fraudulent. I understand the legality of
owning a name and of the right to use it. No one company or country is
being singled out here, but consider that I might have more respect (less
insult) or interest in a mechanical wrist watch if it had the name Girardin
instead of Waltham. Girardin sounds like Nardin or perhaps some expensive
French perfume, ''obviously'' high quality.
Rolex is living proof that a ''non US'' name can be effective, is/does it
not? At least it proves that some will spend more than 10 times it's
''value'', and be happy to do so. And perhaps it indicates, with good
marketing/copy writing, a manufacture can make less and have higher profits.
For me it is unusual for a manufacturer, distributor, etc. to make
themselves known on this list. By doing so they can gather ALL of the
information they might use to conduct business, not just what they want to
hear. It is of course unlikely they would actually use it.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:i6GdnS-feM_...@comcast.com...
Jack Denver
> I have lived too long (over 30 and not upwardly mobile) or have too much
> knowledge (easily obtainable by searching the web) and understand that US
> companies such as Waltham, Hamilton, Elgin, Seth Thomas, Ansonia etc.
are
> no longer in manufacture within the US.
And most haven't for upwards of 40 years. The US watch/clock industry is
dead, dead, dead as an industry can be.
>
> Attempts by companies to sell products under these names, are to me at the
> very least silly, or worse fraudulent. I understand the legality of
> owning a name and of the right to use it. No one company or country is
> being singled out here, but consider that I might have more respect (less
> insult) or interest in a mechanical wrist watch if it had the name
Girardin
> instead of Waltham. Girardin sounds like Nardin or perhaps some
expensive
> French perfume, ''obviously'' high quality.
>
Then start your own watch company and call it by your own name. This is what
people did once upon a time, but nowadays a "famous brand name" is extremely
valueable. It gives you a head start with consumers in a very cluttered
landscape where many makes are competing for attention. This is true whether
the famous name is "Tiger Woods" or "Coca Cola" or even a famous name from
the past like Waltham. This is neither silly nor fraudulent, but just wise
business. Although unfortunately in the case of Waltham, MZ Berger has so
degraded the brand that I'm not sure whether the name means a thing anymore,
especially since those who remember the glory days of Waltham are themselves
mostly gone.
> Rolex is living proof that a ''non US'' name can be effective, is/does it
> not? At least it proves that some will spend more than 10 times it's
> ''value'', and be happy to do so. And perhaps it indicates, with good
> marketing/copy writing, a manufacture can make less and have higher
profits.
>
Where have you been? The former US brand names for watches barely resonate
with consumers anymore. Brand equity is a wasting asset and in the last 40
years the equity of most US brands has wasted away to almost nothing. If you
say "Waltham" to an under 30 in the US, he will either say "a city near
Boston" or draw a complete blank. The action is in Swiss and Japanese brands
and also in brands that tie into famous fashion labels - Burberry, Coach,
Gucci, etc.
> For me it is unusual for a manufacturer, distributor, etc. to make
> themselves known on this list.
Maybe make themselves known, but who knows how many are reading this? If
they are smart they are, but a lot of people still discount the internet as
just a bunch of "guys in pajamas". If you have been following the
"Rathergate" memo fiasco, this is what CBS thought until last week, but I
bet they don't think that anymore.
By doing so they can gather ALL of the
> information they might use to conduct business, not just what they want to
> hear. It is of course unlikely they would actually use it.
The problem with guys like us is that we know too much. The watch companies
would be better off putting a hit on us than taking our advice, so that they
could just keep doing what they are doing. They WANT people to buy watches
based on emotion rather than any kind of rational thought, because emotion
is what allow them to sell you a $300 watch for $3000. I have to say though
that there are certainly a few watch companies that are "leaving money on
the table" - Seiko for one. They are apparently fearful that bringing in the
Seiko 5's and the 7S26 based auto divers will "confuse the public" that
associates Seiko with quartz. People are not that easily confused and there
is a sizable ebay/grey market bringing these things in when Seiko could be
doing this itself (and probably charging more money - shhh). Are you reading
this Seiko? As for the Swiss, about the only advice I personally can offer
is "stop overcharging for your watches" and this is, I suspect, not advice
that they really want to hear.
The Baron
one is listening. Perhaps Swiss Waltham could manufacture, old US Waltham
parts, certainly good PR and perhaps might increase sales of their new
watches.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:K4WdnQo7RL9...@comcast.com...
Jack Denver
devoted to American Waltham, with a searchable serial # database, etc. This
is more than they have to do and is I believe done not as a PR effort but
out of a genuine devotion to the history of the brand. It is certainly more
that MZ Berger does for the once great brand names in its stable, which is
nada and for that matter more than Swatch does with Hamilton.
As for manufacturing old Waltham parts, again, I suggest you take your own
advice rather than give it to others. Poor Mr. Girardin would be in the
poorhouse following your lead, making Girardin brand watches and US Waltham
parts.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:T_I4d.7893$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
John Rowland
>
> The US watch/clock industry is
> dead, dead, dead as an industry can be.
Are Timex not designed and made in the US?
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Jack Denver
"Seventy-five hundred employees are located on four continents: in
Middlebury (next door to Waterbury), Connecticut; Little Rock, Arkansas;
Manaus, Brazil; Besancon, France; Pforzheim, Germany; Cebu, the Philippines;
People's Republic of China; Jerusalem, Israel; and Delhi, India."
I suspect that the manufacturing is mostly done in the lower labor cost
countries on that list.
I really meant though, the "fine" watch industry - back in the day when
there was a distinction, Timex built pin-lever "dollar watches" that were
not in the same class as jeweled watches from Waltham, Elgin, etc. Nowadays
of course, with quartz technology there's no bright line distinction between
the two except the pricetag.
"John Rowland" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:civof0$6a8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
The Baron
likely is in the poorhouse, or he would not be on this newsgroup.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:G9idnRKNWc5...@comcast.com...
Frank Adam
wrote:
I see. Want us to pass the hat and send you a few bucks ?
--
Regards, Frank
The Baron
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvu6l0lje5hf8d1a8...@4ax.com...
John Rowland
>
> "Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:kvu6l0lje5hf8d1a8...@4ax.com...
> >
>
Send them to me, I'm saving for a Timex.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Revision
a single term, accuracy. Lots more to it than that, as odd as it seems.
Revision
OKEAH with Seiko orange.....
http://www.pmwf.com/cgi-bin/Forum/webbbs_config.cgi?noframes;read=380900
Jack Denver
"John Rowland" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cj0i9p$d20$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Frank Adam
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
This is starting to defeat the "pass the hat" idea.. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Let's get back to Waltham: I appreciated reading all your exchanges,
gentlemen.
With one exception you are right: Waltham International SA, which was
founded in 1954 by the original American Waltham Watch Company to
supply the U.S. market with all the watches, watch & movement parts,
which were not available from U.S. manufacture, has never seized
designing, developing, manufacturing and distributing genuine Waltham
watches, as it had been its mission as from the first place: U.S.
Watch Manufacturers had to venture to Switzerland, or diappear, as all
U.S. capital was invested in U.S.A. in other - more profitable on the
short term - industries.
We have not usurpated the rights to the TM Waltham, and can rightly -
on top of rightfully - consider ourselves as the heirs of the Waltham
founders and forefathers. We care about Waltham's past and therefore
have added our Waltham Serial Numbers search engine to our site:
http://www.waltham.ch. We also participate to NAWCC's and some of
their chapters' activities.
We regret the fact that the rights to the TM in U.S.A. & Canada do not
belong to our company: they had been seized by the U.S. Treasury
Department at the demise of Waltham Chicago, and later on sold to U.S.
Citizens, with the consequences, which you are aware of and also
regret.
To the attention of our friend The Baron: why can you not feel happy
as a proud American citizen that we are taking care of Waltham - the
U.S. first and most famous brand - and appreciate that we are trying
to put it back in the right way in the mind of today's people.
Let the Japanese and the Chinese, manufacture and sell watches for
just keeping time, at the lowest prices you personally seem to be
willing to afford. Let the Swiss continue their manufacturing and
marketing of high Brand value to all those people, who are able to
notice & appreciate the difference and feel for the immaterial values,
which really make life worth living.
And do not despise them, as you are not willing to try and understand
their motivation.
Although I cannot share your opinions, I respect and I have learned
from your exchanges, as I have been learning everyday since now 60
years and over 35 years in the watch industry.
Cheers!
Claude Girardin
c.gir...@waltham.ch
The Baron
Switzerland, your watches are made in Switzerland. Yes, it's much clearer
now.
''The Waltham Watch Co,''(a US manufacturing company) ceased existence the
first time that they sold a watch with a Swiss movement (no US made). Is
this understandable?
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
Jack Denver
Did they "cease to exist" the minute they opened an overseas factory?
The Amish religious group was founded in Switzerland and then some of its
members emigrated to the US (and other countries). Eventually the parent
group in Switzerland died out and now Amish are found exclusively abroad,
keeping the name of their founding group. Were they no longer entitled to
this name once the Swiss Amish expired thru no fault of their own?
There have been other cases where an overseas subsidiary outlived the parent
company. You have the "Japanese Victor Co." (JVC) even though RCA Victor is
long gone (the RCA name currently owned by Thomson of France.) And others
I'm sure.
From what I can tell, Mr. Girardin's company has better claim and a more
direct connection to the Waltham name than many others who are using
historic watch brands. I wish that there was still a US watch industry
(other than Timex) but there isn't and hasn't been for upwards of 30 years
and that's the way it is, so there's no point in blaming Mr. G.
"Hamilton's" are made in Switzerland . "Elgins" and "Gruens" are made in
China. They're not trying to fool anyone - the origins are clearly marked.
So get over it.
I hope that Mr. G will not interpret the Baron's heartfelt postings as
hostile and will continue to contribute to this group. Having the insight of
someone on the "inside" of the Swiss watch industry is a very valuable
perspective.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:jtE5d.7109$JQ2....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
The Baron
their design group. This in no way has any relationship, nor can be
compared with, Swiss Waltham and a company that ''used to'' make watches in
the US.
The Amish and JVC vs. RCA Victor have no connection to this thread either.
If you want to talk about your ''wish'' (that there still were American
watch factories), then perhaps we could mention why there are no factories
now, and exactly why they went out of business. I don't think you or Mr.
Girardin would care to hear the truth as you would most likely feel my
''heartfelt postings'' were ''hostile'', which they are not. To be
hostile I would actually have to know you and Mr. Girardin, and I don't know
either one of you.
If you don't care to hear opinions that are different than yours, then I
feel sorry for you, as you must know everything and have nothing more to
learn. Are you a Swiss Waltham dealer or dealer wantabe?
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:0dednW1_R-0...@comcast.com...
> I disagree. Toyota has factories all around the world (including the US).
> Did they "cease to exist" the minute they opened an overseas factory?
>
> >
Jack Denver
and no intention of "going pro" in any way.
I am very much interested in learning... the purpose of my post was to try
not to scare away Mr. G from this forum (not that I think he scares easily),
who I'd like to learn from too.
And from you, I'd love to hear "the truth" about what happened to the US
watch industry. I'd love to hear your perspective on this. My understanding
is similar to Mr. G's - the US watch companies decided to pursue other more
profitable endeavors, principally gov't defense contracts, and they let
their watchmaking capabilities atrophy. That and some bad management
decisions made them all go broke in the end, but I suppose when the current
of economics is against you, paddling harder just means prolonging the
agony. We're seeing this now with the major US airlines - no strategy that
the historic major carriers try can save them. That each and every one of
the US watch companies (except low-cost Timex) is gone indicates to me that
there was a structural problem. Note that even before the Japanese (and
later the Chinese) came into the US market, Timex had already taken a 50%
market share.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:6SH5d.7154$Vl3....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Honest John
US watch industry."
I would love to hear "the truth" myself, don't be shy !
Let us have it with both barrells, Baron.
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Jack Denver: appreciating your viewpoint & comments, which I share. Do
not worry about my future contribution: I am at your disposal for any
further query. I can recommend that you also participate to the NAWCC
forums at: http://nawcc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x as well as that of
their Internet Chapter 185.
The Baron: please do not reverse the situation, in my opinion, both
Jack Denver and I have up to now been more open to controversy than
you were. Also I would appreciate reading your lecture of "THE TRUTH"
with regards to the global demise of the American Watch Industry. I
would like to know your opinion about what is Made in U.S.A. vs Made
in Switzerland and / or other countries under global branding, as your
own positive contribution to this forum.
Best regards
Claude Girardin
The Baron
''
I only have my own truth, but I would ask all to consider the following.
Who were the American watch companies and what did they want? Were they
mindless corporate management, that were only interested in profit for their
shareholders, and made bad decisions? Or were they people that actually
wanted to make and sell watches at reasonable profits? Perhaps some of
each?
There are some articles written by and about, former employees of these
companies. Perhaps not enough to get overview, but a flavor.
How did the Swiss come to dominate the world market after WW2? Did they
finally build a better product? Perhaps by less expensive methods, through
re-tooling efforts? If so, how were they able to accomplish this task?
Were the American factories not able or willing to re-tool? Could they not
compete with overseas labor costs? If so why not?
An aside here, what is a manufacturer? Is he an intensive maker or an
extensive maker? This may explain most of view during the course of this
thread. American watch and clock manufacturers were intensive, for the
most part, they made all of their parts and cases. Waltham did not make
parts for Elgin, Elgin did not make parts for Hamilton etc. Are there any
intensive Swiss watch companies?
Does the world know or care about how or where a product is made? Are they
only interested in cost?
''American'' clockmakers today are furniture factories, that but German
movements. Only recently have some of these companies purchased the German
movement manufacturers. Does this make the product a American product or a
German product? A hybrid?
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:L5OdnX_gvPG...@comcast.com...
The Baron
newsgroup. I still feel your product is more honest if it has another
name. The Waltham root does not have to be denied or praised and it is kind
of you to list information on your site.
I also understand the inability to have any other view, as your paychecks
and business cards have the word Waltham on them. Do all at your
company/factory know what a Waltham is or where it might be?
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.04092...@posting.google.com...
Jack Denver
virtually the entire watch from start to finish. Swatch at this stage is as
integrated (or if you prefer, intensive) as any American maker ever was.
Keep in mind that the American pocket watch makers mostly sold movements,
with cases by others.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:Y8Y5d.7226$5H5....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Jack Denver
industry. It was clear, as early as the '50s, that mechanical watches were
dinosaurs and would soon be superseded by some form of electric or
electronic timekeeper. Mechanical watches were music boxes in the age of
hi-fi. Some of the makers (Hamilton, Bulova) tried to make and even lead the
transition but they were overtaken by low cost producers from Japan and
China and even US newcomers (TI, Timex). Others just pulled the plug
(Waltham, Elgin, Gruen) in favor of what they thought were more promising
industries. The disruption in US watch production caused by WWII was also a
factor. Having been out of most watch production for several years, the
decision to restart the lines had different economics than if watches had
been coming off the line all along. Pocket watches were fated to die in any
event and the old line US makers never had the commanding technological or
marketing lead in wristwatches that they once had had in pockets. If you
look at the big innovations of the 20th century mechanical watch -
waterproof case, self-winding, invar metal, incabloc shock protection, etc.
, none of these were US inventions, though some were picked up by US makers.
Remember that the Swiss came "that" close to fulfilling the prediction. At
the time of the quartz revolution, it really looked like the mechanical
watch was finished for good and something like 90% of the Swiss brands went
under. Had it been so, the American makers would have looked smart for
getting out early. Thru a fortunate turn of events, just when it looked like
the game was completely over, the market took an unexpected turn and the
"mechanical revival" began. Also, in the quartz arena, the Swiss managed to
carve out a niche for themselves, partly at the high end and partly thru the
innovative concept of the Swatch line. Could the Americans have done the
same? Conceivably, if they had a Hayek, but they didn't - history is often
influenced by one man. I'm pretty sure that if Hayek had been run over by a
trolley car, Swiss watches might not be where they are today. But remember,
this was the same time that Americans lost many of their industries to
imports - the electronics (stereo and TV) business, the small appliance
business and many others, so maybe there were global forces in play here.
The watch industry was one of the 1st to go but by no means the last.
American dominance of world manufacturing was fated to be temporary - we
had a head start, while others were held back by war and political
conditions, but once peaceful conditions and market economies were restored,
it was only a question of time before others caught up.
Unfortunately, when the American makers got out of watches, the stuff that
they got into did not turn out to be profitable in the long run. This is
probably not surprising - if you were to switch from clock repair to making
sushi, how well would you do? But in a way you have to give them credit for
seeing the handwriting on the wall early on.
"The Baron" <theb...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:Y8Y5d.7226$5H5....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> Yes, about the time they stopped making real chronometers.
>
> >
> > At one time, industrial manufacture and beauty were not considered
> mutually
> > exclusive. It is only recently, when manufacturers have decide to squeeze
> > every last penny of cost that they could out of a product (while keeping
> the
> > price the same or higher), did "beauty" end up on the cut list, along with
> > "quality" and "craftsmanship".
The Baron: I would very much appreciate your lecture on what was a
real chronometer, measured as to which standards, compared to today's,
which prompts you to disqualify them as chronometers. Perhaps you
could also teach us what should be done in your eyes, in order to have
today's COSC officially certified Chronometer pass your own standards.
Looking forward to reading your factual response.
Claude Girardin
http://www.waltham.ch
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> The same irony had already existed before in U.S.A. Trade unions kept
> complaining that Waltham Watch Company was exporting (too cheaply)
> their quality movements to Switzerland, and that consumers accepted to
> pay prices of up to 40-50% higher (however including horrendous US
> Duty Taxes) for Swiss Made watches, assembled with movements
> originating from U.S.A.
>
> I selected to use the terminology Railroad Chronometer instead of
> watches, although it was not in use at the time, in order to
> distinguish those - temperature & position adjusted - quality
> timekeepers from the big mass of the unadjusted watches.
>
> I feel to be fair in trying hard to give factual information, open to
> everyone's scrutiny, under my own name and responsibility and remain
> always open for constructive controversy. My aim is to inform about
> the origins of the industrialisation of watchmaking at Waltham and
> enhance the awareness for good quality watches.
>
> Appreciating your kind cooperation.
>
> Claude Girardin
> Waltham International SA
> CH-2074 Marin/Neuchātel, Switzerland
> http://www.waltham.ch/
>
> Post a follow-up to this message"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<OYCdnW15btr...@comcast.com>...
> > Thanks. That clears it up. It's ironic that American consumers preferred
> > Japanese watches while the Japanese themselves continued to buy Swiss. It
> > sounds to me like Waltham turned to Switzerland very late in its history
> > compared to the other American brands such as Gruen and Bulova, who began
> > using Swiss sources well before WWII.
> >
> > I see now that I could have answered my own question in Wikipedia, where you
> > just happen to be the author of the Waltham article as well as the one on
> > "railroad chronometers". I'm not sure if it's fair to site an article which
> > you yourself wrote as support for your contention that there is such a thing
> > as a "railroad chronometer". At least in American usage, the term "railroad
> > watch" was much more common.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
> > news:19848e9e.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > > > What is the relationship between your company and the M.Z. Berger
> Company
> > > > which sells cheap quartz watches under the "Waltham" (and Elgin and
> Gruen)
> > > > names? Is the ownership of the Waltham name territorial, i.e. you own it
> in
> > > > certain countries and they in others (e.g. the US)?
> > >
> > > Waltham International SA was founded in Switzerland in 1954 by the
> > > American Waltham Watch Company, Waltham, Mass. to supply them with
> > > Swiss watch and movement parts, which were not readily available in
> > > U.S.A., in order to follow-up with the new trends in watches. Upon the
> > > demise of the U.S. company in 1957, a new distribution company was
> > > created in Chicago, which was supplied by our company. The onslaught
> > > of Japanese watches in the late Seventies stopped this venture.
> > > Remained the Japanese market, which has up to now been the main market
> > > for our style and quality of Waltham watches, made in the same spirit
> > > of excellency as the Waltham founding & forefathers.
> > >
> > > Due to a twist of history, the rights to the TM Waltham was bought by
> > > MZ Berger for U.S.A. and Canada. They distribute exclusively in U.S.A.
> > > and Canada their own Waltham watches assembled in China with Japanese
> > > movements, under our licence, through mass distributors, outside of
> > > the watch dealership network.
> > >
> > > For our part, we own the rights to the trademark Waltham in all the
> > > other watchmaking countries.
> > >
> > > Please consult our website: http://www.waltham.ch, where we have also
> > > installed a search engine for the collectors of antique Waltham
> > > watches at: http://waltham.ch/cgi/waltham/search.asp
> > >
> > > At your disposal for any further information.
> > >
> > > Claude Girardin
> > > General Manager
> > > Waltham International SA
> > > CH-2074 Marin/Neuchatel, Switzerland
Quote of one of my previous messages: "The same irony had already
existed before in U.S.A. Trade unions kept complaining that Waltham
Watch Company was exporting (too cheaply) their quality movements to
Switzerland, and that consumers accepted to pay prices of up to 40-50%
higher (however including horrendous US Duty Taxes) for Swiss Made
watches, assembled with movements originating from U.S.A."
I am surprised that nobody reacts: although Waltham Watch Company had
already been able at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition to
win the Gold Medal of the international precision contest with a batch
of ten watches picked-up at random at the end-control station of the
assembly line, whereas the Swiss and all other manufacturers had
nursed over uncounted months painstakenly regulated hand made watches
- in the end Waltham could never convince U.S. customers of the
superiority of U.S. made watches versus the Swiss. Can somebody
explain to me the reason why U.S. customers accepted to pay a premium
of up to 50% for Swiss Brands, although it was a know fact that they
had been assembled with previously exported Waltham movements? Was it
better styling? Snobbish "foreign" appeal? Better service? Better
Marketing?
Claude Girardin
Waltham International SA
http://www.waltham.ch
c.gir...@waltham.ch
Quote of one of my previous messages: "The same irony had already
c.gir...@waltham.ch
> Once again the attempt is made to sum up the performance of a watch with
> a single term, accuracy. Lots more to it than that, as odd as it seems.
My opinion & experience are that as from a certain degree of accuracy
- accurate time, when needed is readily available, free of charge,
anywhere (mobile phone, computers, hand-held games, etc) - is not as
important as reliability: you do not want to be bothered with repairs
on your watch.
The higher the price range, the more important factors are the image,
the look, the prestige of the watch brand. Also younger people buying
falling for watches nowadays want exciting, fun watches to be worn as
accessories and do not bother too much about (in-)accuracy.
Jack Denver
WWII (the start of the "downhill" run for the US industry) was 70 years
after the Centennial Exposition. This is a long time in any industry. By
then, the American manufacturing system had long been introduced to
Switzerland and the contrast between the two industries no longer existed.
Some of the US makers had factories in both countries that were virtually
identical copies of each other.
I'll also repeat from another post of mine: " Pocket watches were fated to
die in any
event and the old line US makers never had the commanding technological or
marketing lead in wristwatches that they once had had in pockets. If you
look at the big innovations of the 20th century mechanical watch -
waterproof case, self-winding, invar metal, incabloc shock protection, etc.
, none of these were US inventions, though some were picked up by US
makers."
I have to say there was a crossover point, which must have been somewhere
around WWII, where "Swiss Made" went from being considered clearly inferior
(as in 1876) to comparable to superior in the mind of the consumer. Japan
had that same crossover point in its manufacturing industry. At one time if
you said "Made in Japan" the image that came to mind was "cheap tin toy" ,
similar to the Made in China association today (although perhaps not for
much longer). Nowadays, "Made in Japan" means Nikon Camera, Lexus auto,
etc. - a mark of quality, while once great marques like Cadillac are shunned
by buyers, especially younger ones (this may be something of a hint- you
don't want to drive "your father's Oldsmobile" as one ad campaign put it,
nor perhaps want to wear "your grandpa's watch" and even now when I think of
Waltham I think of some old guy with whiskers pulling a pocket watch from
his vest pocket). I think this came (in both cases) from the foreign
industry moving forward, both in terms of the product itself and its
marketing (e.g. the famous Rolex Channel swimmer, the watch in the aquarium
in the shop window) while the American industry rested on its past
reputation and did not try hard enough to keep up. An industry is like a
shark - you have to keep swimming forward or you'll die.
<c.gir...@waltham.ch> wrote in message
news:19848e9e.0409...@posting.google.com...
The Baron
Hamilton, not a Waltham.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uK2dnWBWIeM...@comcast.com...
Moka Java
>
>
> Quote of one of my previous messages: "The same irony had already
> existed before in U.S.A. Trade unions kept complaining that Waltham
> Watch Company was exporting (too cheaply) their quality movements to
> Switzerland, and that consumers accepted to pay prices of up to 40-50%
> higher (however including horrendous US Duty Taxes) for Swiss Made
> watches, assembled with movements originating from U.S.A."
You've lost me here. I've been collecting watches for 17+ years and
have been a member of the NAWCC and attending NAWCC marts since 1991. I
regularly visit antique shops and flea markets looking for watches.
While it is by no means rare to find a high grade Swiss pocket watch,
the vast majority of the pocket watches I find are American. And the
vast majority of them are low end Elgins and Walthams. They are, nearly
100% of the time, cased in American made cases. The vast majority of
the vintage Swiss pocket watches I find are low end of the cylinder
escapement, bar movement pin set variety. I'm in the NY metro area and
I don't suppose there was a more populated and prosperous area in the US
from 1870 to 1940.
>
> I am surprised that nobody reacts: although Waltham Watch Company had
> already been able at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition to
> win the Gold Medal of the international precision contest with a batch
> of ten watches picked-up at random at the end-control station of the
> assembly line, whereas the Swiss and all other manufacturers had
> nursed over uncounted months painstakenly regulated hand made watches
> - in the end Waltham could never convince U.S. customers of the
> superiority of U.S. made watches versus the Swiss. Can somebody
> explain to me the reason why U.S. customers accepted to pay a premium
> of up to 50% for Swiss Brands, although it was a know fact that they
> had been assembled with previously exported Waltham movements? Was it
> better styling? Snobbish "foreign" appeal? Better service? Better
> Marketing?
>
From my observations the Swiss did not start making any real impact on
the high end American watch market until some time after 1900. American
watch companies were not making repeaters, chronographs or other
complicated watches. For every delicate Le Phare repeater I see there
are several hundred robust unadjusted American watches ticking away.
So please kindly explain where you're getting your information from as
my casual observations of pocket watches carried by Americans does not
support your assertions.
Richard "not an authority" F
Jack Denver
wristwatch era, and more specifically, the post WWII era, in the "upper
middle market" where Omega, Rolex, Eterna, etc. (as well as Swiss watches
imported under American labels) began to outsell American manufactured
pieces. See my post above. Pre-WWII, Rolex was virtually unknown in the
US - to call it "obscure" at that time would be giving it too much credit.
As you say, the American pocket watches were never really excelled for
robustness and longevity. The Swiss, as you say, always had the lead in the
high end complicated watches - repeaters and such, which was never much of a
market by unit volume. But the real watch battles of the post WWII era were
fought in wristwatches.
"Moka Java" <rtwa...@fishyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2rrlv3F...@uni-berlin.de...
Frank Adam
(c.gir...@waltham.ch) wrote:
That is partly correct, but those who buy high priced watches do
expect a higher level of workmanship and accuracy, but at the same
time they are not quite willing to accept the service costs that go
along with that, interestingly a Seiko owner will more than likely
accept the service cost, despite the fact that it's near a third to
half of what a new watch would be selling for.
Interestingly, you may hear only the occasional Ferrari owner complain
about their pride and joy's service costs, which as a matter of fact
is one of the highest of any road car when compared mile per mile.
If a Toyota that has travelled as few a miles as a Ferrari and spent
as much time(and money) in the garage as a Ferrari does, it would not
be referred to by many as one of the most reliable cars in the world.
Yet, owning an overpriced, far from reliable and single purpose
vehicle like a Ferrari is looked upon as a sign of success, owning a
Toyota is kind of mundaine.
As for youngsters..
All i have to do is to look at my daughter (14 and a half) with her
mobile phone. When i bought my last one, i was looking at how it feels
in my hands(i hate these new mini ones), coverage, battery reserve and
mainly ease of use. When she bought hers, it was all about what games
does it have, does it have a nice "screen saver" option, can it send
pictures and last but certainly not least, does it look cute and does
it many snap on accessories available.
And SMS-ing is so much fun. Of course an SMS is roughly the cost of a
minute worth of talk time, but talking on phones is so outdated..
And then there are others kids, who'll look at my watch and ask "what
does yours do ?", to which i invariably will say "it shows the time".
"Oh" they say with a disappointed look.
--
Regards, Frank