VIRTUAL POCKET WATCH MUSEUM DAY 24, Cal 52, sorry, cal 49

Cal. 52, sorry Cal. 49, sorry Cal. IWC ????

So I have in my collection, a very nice Cal. 52 timepiece, which is fully
restored and different from most in the fact that it has a metal guiloche
dial.

It has an extract stating that movement # 355148 is a Cal.52, 19 ligne
movement.

The movement looks like this -

Spot the difference in the movements? My movement on the right certainly has
the same shape main plate as the middele one.... or, not?

However, the watch I want to share with you today to complement Tonny's C.49
is one that caught my attention originally, as it looked pretty old.

The Watch

It's case is in pretty good shape.

The movement is special - I'm sure Tonny will agree.

The case back is stunning too.

And before Mountain Man asks, I can confirm the case is hallmarked 14k Gold
(serial # photoshopped out to protect the innocent)

The issue cal 52/53 or a forerunner remains a subject of discusion.

One collector, Ralph Ehrismann, studied all of these watches meticulously and
concluded that in the reference book by Toelke and King a calibre list has
been used, which is not in agreement with the construcion details present in
the large series of different cal 52/53 models and its fore runners. From 1923
onwards a new classification was adopted and many cailbres were renamed. Names
such as calibre Schaffhouse, calibre Boston, Calibre Elgin etc disappeared.
Each calibre was named calibre IWC XX, where XX stands for a figure of 2
arabic numbers, until 99.

For instance calbre IWC cal. 32, 33, 34, 35, 59, 60 were now identifiable
watches, while in Toelke and King these were all characterised as one group :
cal. Elgin 1. The fork bridge calbres as seen in the Pallweber digital
watches were all mentioned cal. Elgin II and got in the 1923 classification
there own calibbre number.

But what about cal.52/53? Toelke and King grouped the forerunners cal. 47, 48,
49 and 50 into one group : cal. Elgin III.

Although at first sight construction differences may be missed by the
unexperienced collector, there were for sure differences , which were the
consequence of developing the movements step by step to make them better and
more reliable. The forerunners can be distinguished by 3 construction details
of which the most important has been mentioned and depicted by Tonny :

1. The shape of the three quarter plate. In the forerunners the three quarter
bridge has been punched out as a semi- circle around the balance wheel. In all
cal. 52/53 movements the three quarter plate has been punched out as a
smoothly curved 'S' shape.

2. The winding and rachet wheel were fixed in different ways by one large or
several smaller screws.

3..The ancre was fixed either on a cock or a small bridge.

Of these construction details the shape of the three quarter bridge is
immediately recognisable, also by the unexperienced observer.

If you are not a collector freak these differences are less important. However
it has certailny consequences for the collector. If a foreunner is offered by
an auction or by a dealer, nearly always the old classification of Toelke and
King is used to describe the watch. Also on extracts of the archives, IWC has
used the 'pooled' or at least not 'precise' classification of the cal. 52/53
forerunners. So if you buy one of these fore runners, you don't own a cal.
52/53 nor a cal Elgin III.

The classification by Ralph Ehrismann et al. has been published in 2014 but
unfortunately little response has been received. Or to phrase it differently
there are few collectors who have studied the subject and consider it
noteworthy. Historically this detailed classification is important, especially
for a brand as IWC which uses its rich history until this very day in their
promotion material and new watches.

Regards,

Adrian,

(alwaysiwc).

It is really difficult to distinguish the different versions of the c.49/c.52
group. (May be even more complicated) than for the Pallweber movements. From
there we know, the caliber numbers where given later, before they had just
names.

The earlist one with the hidden winding wheels. It is the Elgin III. (Later it
got the number c.47) (There there also 2 versions with flat and with "Breguet"
hairspring).

Then we have the "Elgin III transforme" the first Cal.49 /starting at 25'851.
This version has the back plate as described with a round (not shaped) cut out
for the balance. In addition over the barrel there is a screw
with 2 holes and on the crown wheel a plate fixed by 2 screws. Above the #
32'150 the movement changed the name and became "caliber IWC" without any
modification (see picture). (This version was, wrongly for me, sometimes also
called c.52 Mod 1888)

Soewhere between approx #48'000 (here I do not have enough movements to check)
the screw with the two holes and the plate with 2 screws where changed to a
small plate and 1 screew in the crwon and the barrel wheel.

Later from # 64'101 the movement got a feature and name c.IWC tr.
(transforme). The screws on the wheels with the small plate screws without
plates. (still c.49 but sometimes wrongly named as c.52 Mod 1890)

In the year 1893 the bridge changed the shape and got the well know nice
shape. Maybe this is the real first c.52. (c.52 Mod. 1893)

Just one year later a small but importent modification was done: the ancre
bridge became symmetrical (2 screws now). In this way the 18" and the 19"
versions had the same acre bridge, what was not the case with the assymetrical
acre cock (inside the ancre for lig. 19"; outside lig. 18)

Here the real first caliber 52 Mod.1894

Sorry for the long post

watch77

Adrian, thanks for this detailed responce. It's exactly what I was hoping to
evoke with my post.

I recall the discussion around the work Ralph put in those years ago, and
always regretted that there was no funding put forward to produce a full
publication.

The details are important and whilst not every collector is horological tech
savvy enough to understand the finer details (or has a desire to do so) - all
Collectors do wish to be able to accurately identify a particular movement.

Now, I'm sure Ralph will come to the table with some great information too.

Ralph, excellent and detailed information as we have come to expect from you.

i will now need to use this to reclassify all my Cal. IWC, Elgin abc Cal.52
watches.

However, I'm still perplexed as to why this movement

appears to be in mirror image (spiegelbeeld) to all the other movements shown.
It's not a savonette (Cal.53) Watch.

Are my eyes deceiving me? Or did my digital camera play games and produce a
negative imagine? Am I smoking something ? drunk?

What movement would you say this is?

How
complicated the old and 'new 1923'. classification are is shown in this table
published by Ralph Ehrismann in Horological Journal ,September 2014. Nearly
all the fore runners look 'the same'. All have the semi-circle cut out around
the balance wheel with the exception of the very first cal. 47 and 48. Here
the winding wheels are covered by the base plate, giving the watch a complete
other appearance bui built in the same construction way. It is the first image
shown by Ralph in this post.

Regards,

Adrian,

(alwaysiwc).

OK Mark, we are now in the middle of all these variations and thus your
question should be answered. First of all you have a Lepine cal. 52 having the
'S' shaped base three quarter plate.

The first real cal. 52 H7 was produced in 1893. But already one year later the
first modification was carried out .(winding wheels, ancre bridge).

The second modification was made in 1904. The fixing of the winding wheels was
altered once more ( screws) making the winding barrel more stable but at the
same time the movement was switched into its mirror image. The reason : 'a
better power flow'.

After that, considerable modifications took place over the years. First the
time setting was modified from a pressing device on the case ring ( a pousser)
into a system where the crown had to be pulled ( a tirette). Moreover the
height of the movement was reduced from H7,0, H6,5 H6,0 to finally H5,2 mm.

Several of these improvements were patented. The patent nummber was stamped on
the movement with or without the Swiss cross. Starting collectors sometimes
wrongly read the patent number as the movement number.

Regards,

Adrian,

(alwaysiwc).

Adrian, thanks for the explanation too, on the reasoning as to why / the logic
behind the mirroring of the movement (to provide better power).

i do believe I have a similar thing with Cal. 65 Finger Bridge movement in my
collection. I'll dig it out tomorrow.