Hello my friends Collectors of vintage IWCs.
Who can give me some information about this distributer Welsh?
The case was made by Henry Blank, N.Y. (Cress) and inside is a real IWC move.
I would like to emphasize again that I´m of the opinion that the Cressarrow watches should be accepted as being authentic IWC watches.
Kind regards
Friedrich Wagener
PS: I´ll sent an image of the movement afterwards
and here is the "huge" movement
really interesting, but a quibble....
Hallo earlyiwc,
A fascinating example and I appreciate your showing it. But, with respect, I must take exception about Cress Arrow-cased IWCs.
I know you and many others here believe they are authentic, but to me they are authentic Cress-Arrow cased watches. To my provincial thinking, if the watch was not cased by IWC in Schaffhausen, with a case made by/for IWC , with IWC's signature and and with a number recorded in IWC's ledger, it is only an IWC-movement in someone else's case. I have found a difference in quality, so to me the issue is not one of definition.
I understand that contrary arguments can be made: the movcement was made for the watch, IWC didn't make cases for decades, etc. But to me if the watch wasn't made in Schaffhausen, it's like U.S. cased-LeCoultres vs. LeSentier-made Jaeger LeCoultres --a huge difference usually in quality, market price, and for a reason. One is a fine Swiss watch and the other a hybrid.
Regards,
Michael
(retro-grouch)
My opinion...
to this critical question is different.
Taking a look in IWC's history you see that there is quite a long time (approx .1917-1937),where IWC's does not exists for the US-Market. Why?
To protect the US-watch-industry the gouverment took incredibly high import taxes (still a common way to influence the market...) on watches . IWC had the chance to keep a portion of the market, just selling movements to the Company Henry Blanc & co. in Newark. They installed the movements in US-cases with "fantasy" brand name "Cresarrow".
This was ok for the production, but the brand IWC went completly lost in the US market. In the mid of the 30's, when the import taxes was reduced, IWC started together with "Patek Philippe & Co." do sell directly in th US market.
To come back to the discussion if "Cresarrow waches" are IWC or not, I'd say :
YES THEY ARE!
During quite a while this was the only representation of IWC in the US market, and just a (the only?) way to take a portion of the market. I think the cases was "US state of the art" what the US-customer wantet that time. (probably not IWC-standard)
So the dicussion is open. Other statements ?
Best regards
Ralph Ehrismann
Respectfully disagree...
Hi Ralph,
I don't have the time now for all the necessary research, but to my best knowledge the high tariffs on assembled watches commenced with protectionist legislation that occurred much-- later, and doesn't explain the phenomenon you describe --in the late 1930s and continued until about 1950.
If you look at other companies you will see that they were active in the 1940s in having their watches assembled in the U.S.. to minimize the taxes. The primary example in LeCoultre, but several other companies also engaed in US fabrication then --and not earlier-- including Longines.
In all events, I consider the tax issue, with respect, a red herring. Other companies imported fully-assembled watches into the the US market during this high tariff period and IWC could have done so if they wanted. But IWC chose not to do so which to me means that the issue you raise is a gracious excuse but not a reason. Moreover, to my knowledge during much of this time period the tariff did not exist which means that it is not even an excuse but at best a rationalization.
I will be stubborn and stand by these propositions, tariff or no tariff:
There's no right or wrong here, but I can't see how these products are more than second-class items of dubious parentage.
Regards,
Michael
My opinion
Dear M.F.
I have not the superb knowledge like Ralph Ehrismann, but as a simple collector of IWC-pocketwatches I ask you: What about Peerless-watches? I think everyone agrees, that these are IWC-watches, although most of the cases are not made in Switzerland by IWC, but in England. You wo'nt even find the IWC-initials in the watch, but you will find them in the IWC-ledger. If the item in the IWC ledger is a "must" for you, then you are right, but beside of that i can't see the definite difference. And whether the cases of Cressarow are "worse" than the IWC-made, I can not decide, but I have seen a lot of IWC cases, which are not so superb and on the other hand a lot of CR-watches are sold by famous Tiffany. The watch I have is wonderful with the fantastic IWC-Cal. 77, which is typical for CR-watches and rare to find in "genuine" IWC-watches, and it is one of the finest pocket-watches I have. And what about Cal.-Jones? Of course it is an IWC-watch, but most of the cases and a lot of the dials are not made in Switzerland, but nobody woud dare to maintain that these are not IWC-watches
Best regards!
Yours Hans
1930's US tariff
When researching the article on Henry Blank and Cresarrow (not "Cress Arrow") I also chased up the US tariff during the 1930's.
There is a link in the original article on Henry Blank and Cresarrow but I have included it below.
Cheer from the cellar
[url=www.netspace.net.au/%7Egregsteer/Cresarrow/The%201930's%20and%20tariff%20increases.html]The 1930's and tariff increases
Well said, but about legitimate children
Dear Hans-Georg,
I really appreciate your contribution. I had thought about Peerless and even Huber Urania, but hadn't considered Jones (nor, for that matter, my Elgin I, which may not be SH-cased, or my Pallweber, where there was a problem locating the archive records).
What I think is that there are degrees of legitimacy. Certainly, all these watches have a common parent, but some of them really are far removed from being natural descendants. Clearly, the Huber Urania --with just a different name on the dial-- is a rightful issue. On Peerless I need to think more but I'm on the fence. Some, like the Borgel-cased examples, seem to me to be slightly far afield.
I think my problem with Cress Arrow models is that they are not usually very good watches, but probably rare enough in Europe (essentially being re-imported) to command some value. On the whole, to me they are much less watch than some of the flimsier-Peerless examples. When I go to watch shows in the U.S., they are loaded with Bulovas and Wittenauers, with Hamilton and Elgin just a fraction above. I consider Cress Arrows in the Bulova league and, frankly, wouldn't bother to collect to them. But then again, it's rare for me to buy a "regular" IWC Cal. 89 or 85x. automatic --I guess that I might be considered a purist by some, but a snob by others ;)
I guess if I were curating an IWC-museum I would include them. But I also would add that to me the "real" criteria is "made in Schaffhausen" for the entire watch.
Probus Scafusia,
Michael
agreed, and....
The protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act was a product of the Depression and was enacted by the U.S. in 1930.
During the early 1930s, however, the output of many Swiss watch companies was very small. In the three years of 1932, 1933 and 1934, IWC produced a total of 2,400 watches, of which all but 600 from 1934 were pocketwatches. As a result, the tariff legislation had little or no affect on IWC's U.S. sales until the late 1930s when production and sales picked up.
While the tariff was not low, it was not high enough to discourage most other companies from exporting watches to the U.S.. The reason was the U.S. expertise in watch manufacture had declined in the 1930s. Landis, in his book Revolution in Time, mentioned that only Bulova among U.S. assemblers chose to manufcture then in the U.S. --and sent people to Switzerland to copy movements and smuggle out the machinery (see p. 464).
Regards,
Michael
Cresarrow
IWC began supplying movements to Henry Blank/Cresarrow at least in 1916 for wristwatch movements and certainly earlier for pocket watch movements.
I would suggest the IWC did not have the resources at the time to market watches in the United States. Henry Blank with his connections to "high end" jeweller's Raymond Yard; Shreve, Crump and Low; Black, Starr and Frost; Oscar Heyman & Co; Grant A Peacock; Neiman Marcus; and Tiffany & Co though the supply of jewellery was a perfect fit for IWC. Whether Henry Blank approached IWC or IWC approached Henry Blank will probably never be known but it was an arrangement that suited both parties at that time. It was only later when IWC wished to re-establish itself as a brand in the United States that it had to do so from scratch. IWC meant nothing to the buyers of either Cresarrow branded watches or those with IWC movements and Cresarrow cases and the dials marked with some of the jewellers above.
IWC production figures don't give us much of a picture of what uncased movements were sold. What is important is the sales figures, and in particular the break down.
1929 Sales 25,422; Gold 14,414; Silver 6050; Steel 1500; Uncased 3,457
1933 Sales 3,912; Gold 2,453; Silver 520; Steel 661; Uncased 278
1937 Sales 16,151; Gold 4,328; Silver 678; Steel 10,271; Uncased 856
These figures are from Tolke and King page 51 and it's unfortunate that these figures are not available for both earlier and later years to complete the picture. Uncased movements in 1929 accounted for 13.6% of IWC's sales falling to 5.3% in 1937.
I would guess that Henry Blank/Cresarrow were taking the majority of these movements given that IWC watches bearing the distributor's name, eg Stauffer & Co were made in Switzerland.
Prior to the First World War, IWC also supplied Unitas-Praezisionsuhren-Fabrik with a large number of movements.
The argument that IWC supplied movements of a lesser quality to these companies is irrelevant; IWC still made the movement.
While I accept that an "Extract from the Archives" can only reflect a watch that was manufactured and cased by IWC, I believe that IWC should acknowledge the movement they manufactured, and the movement only, contained in watches supplied to those firms that cased them. If IWC has records indicating which firm bought the uncased movement that should also be acknowledged, but with no recognition of the watchcase.
Cheers from the cellar.
I never said the mvts. were of lesser...
quality, but rather that in ,my opinion the watches generally were of lesser quality.
I've never seen a Cress Arrow case I've liked nor most of their dials, but I'll admit I haven't seen them all. I'll attribute paternity only to the movement.
But if other people want to buy or collect such watches, that's fine with me.
Regards,
Michael
Parernity
My suggestion is that IWC acknowledge the movement they manufactured and I'm please to see that you will "attribute paternity only to the movement". IWC cannot and nor should it, acknowledge the watch case made by another firm.
The question is would IWC be willing to issue a modified extract from the achives (or call it something else)that acknowledges the movement they manufactured, when it was sold and to whom?
Cheers from the cellar
What a wonderful discussion! Go on!!
