There is no doubt (read: ZERO DOUBT) in my humble opinion that this dial is
100% original to that watch.
If the records in Schaffhausen reflect that the movement in this Watch was
sold as a bare movement, then I'm also pretty convinced that the movement
shipped with that dial on it!
Type 1 ?
Mark
Type I has a different disc system connection just like the Type II does. This
Looking refers to either the TYPE III or the Lady's Pallweber. This one is a
Lady's Pallweber.
The dial is original, and quite rare. I had chance to check it and my opinion
is that its surface is original too.
Áron
Mark,
If I had seen only this picture, without knowing the size of the Watch, I
would have made a guess it is a Pallweber IIIB regarding the separated minute-
Window, so it is a quite interesting dial.
Best regards
Áron
That one HAS to stay in the Belgium-Dutch region Tonny, magnificent watch and
even better story!
Pallweber I. hunter case, case number: 194, movt.
number:166.
what a clean movement.
Thanks Mark, the entire watch is in outstanding condition, even the surface of
the case is like it has never been worn. The second earliest Pallweber I.
known up to 2018. It works fine.
P.S.
I think this is a pallweber type II.
a) no more the flat spring (just the hole for the screw) for the wheel with
the missing teeth with the star .
b) not a star but a pinion on the wheel on the axe with the wheel with the
missing teeth.
regards
watch77
Dear Ralph,
Pallweber type II. has the movement number stamped right next to the
"Pallweber
patent" inscription on the plate and does not have the hole for that screw at
all. Visible "Star-wheel" for the "jumping-wheel" is a feature of the type
IIIA and IIIB, type I. and II. both have "star-wheel" at the dial-side which
has
a constant connection with the gear placed on the missing-teeth wheel's stem.
The hole you mentioned does not exist in the case of Pallweber II.
After all (as we have experienced several times already),
sometimes "new piece" appears from the past that writes new evolution-line for
Pallwebers, and that's why we can (or must) name differently the different
types (using
I.II.... IIIA,IIIB, etc.) depending on how significant difference we keep
enough for giving an individual, distinctive name to a type. In my opinion,
this type
belongs to the first type of Pallwebers, although there could be earlier
examples with minor differences but not major.
Pallweber type
II.
(at least I keep being a type II)
Best regards.
Áron
Aron and Ralph, many thanks for conducting this discussion.
To me, the different type and continued development effort that IWC put into
the Pallweber movement over such a short period of time is quite amazing.
Clearly though, "Digital" had arrived long before its time - the world would
not ready for this digital time telling for another 100 years!
Having said that it's clear to me too, that the differences between the
different types given the discussion here, is quite technical (read:
watchmaker talk) and probably hard for non horological savvy folk to
understand.
What we ideally need at the end of the discussion is a single A4 " Pallweber
Type Identificantion Worksheet " which hopefully would have clear photos
like above on it for each type with arrows & circles pointing to the crucial
identification points, plus short descriptions pointing out to us lay folk
what to look for to identify the various Types.
Dear Mark,
We have been researching this field for decades and still meet new things
regarding the differences that can identify the main types. So I would be
really happy to create an A4 sheet for introducing the features of the types
known up to now, but (as you can see from the discussion between Ralph and me)
there are so many small details (mainly technical ones which could be boring
for the enthusiasts) that even we see differently, so it is impossible to
make an educated, responsible description of this line of IWC pocket watches
on an A4 sheet.
After all, many thanks for your request.
Best regards.
Áron
For me, and maybe I have a different Naming of the Pallweber type I and II and
III but I think, I reproduce, what I understood, what is written in the books
of Meis and Tolke/King is the following:
The type I ist the first Pallweber from IWC. It has two characteristics
visible from the back:
- There is a flat spring to push down the wheel with the missing teeth. This
spring is mandativ for the type I, as the axle of this wheel has no fixed end
under the dial, becaus there is a star to move the minute directly rotating it
in clockwise direction. You can see nothing but the plate under the wheel with
the missing teeth (intermediate or 3rd wheel =Kleinbodenrad in German) ->
upper part of the picture below.
In the type II Pallweber they wanted to get rid of the spring and have a
"watchmaker" solution to have well positioned axles with the wheels. Here just
under the 3rd wheel an additional pinion to drive an otherpinion under the
dial with a "star" to drive the minutes disk (in the other direction than for
type I).
So there is no spring (maybe a hole for the spring is there but not used,
because the type I plates with drilled holes where finished als type II,
becaus the type I movement was most probably not working properly) and there
is a visible pinion. -> lower part of the picture below.
Finally the type III then got the quite big and well known star underneath the
3rd wheel. (and here the minutes wheel is also driven counterclock wise via a
pinion the discs)
Kindest Regards watch77
Ralph,
I understand your arguement, and that's why I wrote previously we can group
differently according to what we keep significant differences in the Pallweber
evolution and where we draw the border-line between the types that follow
each-other. If we keep justifiable rename the type (in my opinion Pallweber I)
because of the modification of the method of positioning the missing-teeth
wheel, we can do it of course, but - from my point of view- it is more
justifiable to change name between two types that have been changed in more
details, so if we accept your allocation, the following version (in my opinion
Pallweber II) can't be type II too, since it much differs. We should
definitaly distinguish it from the previous one and it should be the type III
which is reserved already by the next version. I think there are so many small
changings were made during the Pallweber evolution that it is more justifiable
to use sometimes subdivisions like "A, B... so on" as we do in the case of
type III. All in one, in this case I would rather use Pallweber IA and IB than
create the next main division. But of course it is my opinion. Let's continue
this discuss in privat in order to avoid killing this topic making it boring
to enthusiasts.
Best regards
Áron
But continue Gents, you must. One cannot change history, but Ralph's valid
point-out here, and your clear opinion Aron as to why it's a sub division
(A,B,C) of a type, makes it clear to me, that the Meis & King chapter, needs
to be re-written.
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your words. We just hope that we have seen (or know at least) each
variant of the Pallweber movement, but it is not true, all of us are aware of
the existence of
pieces that haven't appeared yet and those which will never do (because they
are no more exist). Writing about a topic that is still not 100% uncovered is
a very brave and hard task (although the researching part of the job is very
exciting). This hides the chance that the work becomes out of date very soon
and it needs to be "updated", by re-writing it from a new perspective.
Presumably,
we don't know the complete row of diversifications of this type of IWC
movement, but we should take the opportunity and create a classification
somehow. There are more possibilities, of course, depending on how differently
we see and judge it from our point of view.
Regards.
Áron
Thank you for all hints. There are better experts to make the new subdivision
of the Type II.
The only thing I initially wanted to state is, that the show movement cannot
by the earliest version (let us call it the used term of the title "Type I")
of the Pallweber movement.
The experts are actually working and rewriting the Pallweber chapter of
History, thats good.
Kindest regards and happy Easter.
watch77
Indeed Ralph.
Will the Forum Modurator please edit the " 1 " out the title / post :-)
