| Author | Message | ||
     Photogshooter New member Username: Photogshooter Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2007 Rating: N/A |
I have this Waltham WW II military issue wristwatch that is a bit baffling to me. *(I have attached a couple of pictures) The movement: (escapement bridge?) >6/0 D >17 Jewels >Waltham USA >4 adj's (barrel bridge) >ser # Q42706 What I know; the 6/0 D is a Waltham A-17 hacking movement according to Whitney's book, Military Timepieces. The A-17 is Korean War era, not WW II. The case, dial and hands are all WW II era. The screw back case is stamped: Ord. Dept. U.S.A. No. OG-195357 Ok. From all appearances, it looks and feels like a WW II issue watch. As you can see in the images, it's a sub seconds model, parkerized case and has the proper nomenclature for a WW II waterproof screw back case Also, the hour & minute hand illuminate briefly, in the dark (likely, NOS). Here's what is baffling, the movement is clearly an A-17. but it does not "hack." Also, the ser # is confusing. I cannot match this number anywhere. If I drop the "Q", this places the watch to 1857 and it becomes a Wm Ellrey Model 57, 18s pocket watch. Clearly, it is not a 18s pocket watch. I have examined the ser # w/ different powered loupes and I am certain this is the correct ser #. So, what do I have? A "franken-watch" that was once a A-17 hack that has been converted to a WW II issue non-hacking watch or an unusual military watch? What are your thoughts? *(The first image is from the seller's photo, and the second image is mine. Sorry for the poor quality.) Thanks, CCO    | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3136 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Isn't the A-17 a center second movement? So I'm not sure how this could be an A-17 movement? How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is clearly an A-17 movement? | ||
| Photogshooter New member Username: Photogshooter Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2007 Rating: N/A |
Based on Whitney's book, Military Timepieces, he states the 6/0 D is an A-17 hack (center sweep seconds). The movement I have is clearly marked a 6/0 D (You may be able to see it in the image.) Also, the ser# is Q42706. I'm as baffled as you are. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3137 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
6/0 D's where only used in A-17s, then it's probably a bridge from an A-17 that was used to repair this watch. It can't be an A-17 movement in its entirety, as a sub second movement is not an A-17 spec movement...no way around that. A-17 = center sec. | ||
| Photogshooter New member Username: Photogshooter Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2007 Rating: N/A |
I agree w/ you. I likely have a "franken-watch." Now, the serial number is really baffling. I cannot match it to any known source for Waltham. Any ideas? | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3138 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Seems like the 6/0 D comes both in sweep and sub second versions. http://www.watch-prices.com/graphics/images/watches/rxw0144m.jpg so it may not necessarily be a franken. I don't know about your serial #, sorry. | ||
| Photogshooter New member Username: Photogshooter Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2007 Rating: N/A |
Thanks for your help and sharing the pics. Your pics clearly show a 6/0 D, but the movement/train bridge is slightly different. For the Ser #, I'll keep trying to figure out what I have. Again, thanks Zaf for your help. I have this post on another forum and did not get any help at all. You forum is far more informative and inviting. Again, Thanks, CCO | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3139 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
The bridge is different because it accomodates a sweep second. | ||
| Sonnytris New member Username: Sonnytris Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2008 Rating: N/A |
Gentlemen I also own a A-17 Waltham watch and love it I am looking for a dial so I can inprove the looks of it and would appreciate any help from this great forum. Is this Country Great or What sonny | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3692 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I don't have one sorry. |