Illinois Bunn Special

[Robert Sweet]

Originally Posted by Fred Hansen

Robert -

As far as casing of the 161B, examples I've seen and heard of seem to usually show up in the "pyramid bow" case by Star that was also used on 161A and 163A movements.

Fred

Fred,

Thank you. Ths case you mentioned is the #118 shown below. It was the last of the Bunn Special factory cases. Since it was the last to be introduced (1935), it would be the case most likely to be used.

Robert

[Larry Treiman]

I hesitate to open this "can of worms" re the 161B, and will probably regret it, but I have been sitting on it for over 25-years, so here goes. Remember that this is all, shall we say, "educated speculation" and is as yet undocumented. Maybe some day something will show up in the Hamilton papers at the NAWCC library to reveal the actual story.

I always doubted the 1948 date for the 161B for various reasons. I asked Bill Meggers how they came up with that date, and he said that because they were the highest serial numbers and the Halligan report showed that the group of 809 Bunn Specials had been finished up in 1948, they just came to the conclusion that the 161B's had been finished then. There was no other documentation. I think I convinced him that a more likely date would have been sometime around perhaps 1935 or slightly later, and he said he would note that in any later edition of the Illinois Encyclopedia, vol. 2.

The main reasons the watch was not likely to have been made in 1948:

1. Most of the noted examples have the blue-dyed old Swiss Elinvar which was a flawed product and had been discontinued when Elinvar Extra was introduced. Why would Hamilton use a clearly inferior product on what some assume was a new model watch in 1948?

2. Why would Hamilton even introduce a new grade/model as late as 1948 when they knew by the late 1930's that they would not be able to continue making the Illinois version of the Bunn Special? It was not compatible with new manufacturing techniques Hamilton was introducing during the 1930's. That is why in the late 1930's the "B model" design team made a prototype for a 161B based on the 992B, but Hamilton management decided not to continue with it. That prototype went to Ernest Drescher, who I believe was the head of the design team, and was sold on eBay as part of his estate a few years ago.

I have to take a break now. For one thing, if I spend more than an hour writing a reply to a post (or a new thread or even a PM, I'm regarded as "inactive" and then cannot post whatever I have been working on. I'll try to get back to this ASAP. In the meanwhile, any questions? And if I don't get back, it's because my compuker conked out permanently. It has been misbehaving for months. Or maybe I conked out; I've been acting up for even longer.

Besides, it's lunch time!

Larry Treiman

[Fred Hansen]

Excellent post Larry and sounds like we really do need some documentation that helps date the 161B.

Going from memory I believe 161B serial 5610599 does have a white hairspring, but its been a while since I've seen the watch. Others I recall (including the 2 pictured in Russ Snyder's database) do have dyed blue hairsprings.

Fred

[Larry Treiman]

Thanks for your comments, Fred,

Right now I am looking at a photo of 161B S.N. 5610600, and as far as I can tell it appears to have a blued Elinvar hspg. I wish I had a larger photo so I could be certain. Actually, I don't give much weight to the presence of a white (Elinvar Extra) hairspring on any watch that would be expected to have the old blued Swiss Elinvar hspg. There were various reasons they might have been changed at some time or other. For one thing, they were very soft (compared to steel or Elinvar Extra) and could easily be damaged while the watch was being serviced. I have heard that quite a few were changed after the development of Elinvar Extra because of problems timing the old Elinvar. A Santa Fe Ry. local watch inspector once told me that the railroad had a policy that if the inspector had any problem with the old Elinvar (timekeeping or otherwise) they were not supposed to waste time on it but were to send it to the office of the General Watch Inspector in Topeka, Ks., to be changed over to an Elinvar Extra hspg. If the Santa Fe had such a policy, it would seem to follow that other railroads might have had a similar policy. I also heard of suspicion that the Elinvar changed over time, and recall someone mentioned those ugly words, "metal fatigue." Of course this is all just unsubstantiated "talk". I even heard speculation that the blue dye used to color the Elinvar might be related to the problems!

Of course, there is no doubt that Elinvar offered advantages to the watch owner, particularly in its non-rusting and anti-magnetic properties. However, the self-compensating property was probably a greater advantage to the manufacturer in that they didn't have the expense of making bimetallic balance wheels and of the labor-intensive process of adjusting each watch to heat and cold. Also, it is significant that Hamilton didn't use Elinvar on their best railroad watch, the 950, until they changed over to the 950E in 1937; maybe they were running low on bimetallic balances, or maybe they thought they had tamed the problems sufficiently. I won't go into Ball.

Alas, I have digressed, and haven't gotten to the pertinent questions: What was the reason for making the Illinois 161B, with its friction jeweling? And, when was it actually made? I can only speculate on those questions, and I would welcome any comments that anyone on this MB would care to make. In the meanwhile, I had better post what I have so far. As has happened about ten times, I have taken over an hour to write a post, and the "system" apparently considers that to be inactivity, so my sign-in lapsed and I wasn't allowed to post it. Oh well, at least the readers were spared a long dissertation!

Larry "I'll probably be back" Treiman

[Larry Treiman]

I'll try to get right to the point of why I think Hamilton made the 161B Bunn Special and not drag this out. I believe it was made so Hamilton could test the concept of friction jeweling on a railroad watch and, most importantly, get feedback from watch inspectors. At the time (1930's) friction jeweling was not a new idea. Hamilton used it on smaller movements and even on some 12-size grades, but they had never used it on a railroad-grade watch that I am aware of. The opinion of railroad watch inspectors was important because they not only serviced and repaired the watches, but they were also the primary sellers to railroaders. It was not unusual for watch manufacturers to seek feedback from inspectors. BTW, a Hamilton 992E with the same type of friction jeweling as the 161B turned up in the Hamilton factory collection back in the 1970's and I had an opportunity to study a photo of it. Except for the friction jeweling, it appeared to be a standard 992E, but it had no serial number. It was my impression that Hamilton wanted feedback to aid in the design of the planned "B" series of watches (992B, 950B, 974B, etc.).

If they wanted feedback, a comparison of the jeweling of the 161B and the eventual jeweling used on the 992B, etc., shows that they must have gotten an earful. With the 161B, in order to properly clean the hole jewels with endstones (cap jewels), as used on the balance, pallet arbor and escape wheel, it was necessary to push both jewels out together with pegwood or some other kind of jewel pusher, which would not have been popular with the watchmakers. With conventional jeweling held in the plate with screws, I think you would have the same problem. With the jeweling used in the 992B, etc., the cap jewels were held in place by one or two screws, and were removable without disturbing the hole-jewels, which were friction-fitted and remained in the cocks or bridges/plates, a fact that Hamilton boasted in a letter when they introduced the 992B. They also stated that the method of friction jeweling in the 992B had been developed over ten years earlier and had been thoroughly proven in service over that time. To read that letter, go to the Hamilton sticky threads at the beginning of this ( the American pocket watch) forum and go to the thread "992B Beginning to End" started by Robert Sweet and go to post #16 by Terry Hall. It is worth a read, especially the part on friction jeweling, but the entire letter is interesting. If I am correct, I believe the 161B played a part in the development of the friction jeweling, even if it was a negative example.

By the way, I believe Hamilton used the Bunn Special 161B as a test rather than the 992E was so that any criticism would not reflect directly on Hamilton.

I'll just remind the reader once again that all this is educated speculation, and I would enjoy hearing other opinions. But it might not be easy to convince me that I'm wrong about the purpose of the 161B Bunn Special. I feel kind of rushed and that I might not have expressed myself as well as I would have liked, and that I might have forgotten something that, at least to me, might seem important. But if this times out before I post, then it's back to Square One, and I've been there too often in the few months I have been posting. Oh, I realize that I can come back during the editing period, and I have! Did I say I wasn't going to drag this out? Oh, well!

Larry "almost timed-out on this post" Treiman

[John Cote]

I just looked at my high resolution images of 5610585 and it has a blue hairspring. This explanation sounds rational to me.

[Robert Sweet]

When Hamilton announced the sale of the 161A in the Hamilton No. 12 case in 1948, it was made clear that this would be a single lot of movments that had been in inventory for some years.

According to a Illinois letter (dated 1935) announcing the sale of the Bunn Special in the No. 118 case, it was also mentioned that all other grades and models had ceased being produced in the prior year (1934).

The two letters are attached below.

"Courtesy of the NAWCC Library and Research"

Robert

[Robert Smothers]

Blue Spring on this one-

[Larry Treiman]

G'morning all,

Robert Sweet, on that lot of 809 Bunn Specials finished up in 1948, the Halligan report reproduced by Roy Ehrhardt in his Hamilton book (pp. 4-12), footnote 8 on p. 10 states that the lot was from Springfield factory inventory. The Springfield Factory reference there, plus comments I have heard over the years from variious sources, have pretty much convinced me that Hamilton only finished all Bunn Specials in Lancaster, and that they never actually manufactured the plates and most other parts at Hamilton. I heard somewhere that before closing down the Springfield factory, they produced enough plates and other materials to meet their needs for the foreseeable future, so all the late Bunn Specials could really be attributed to the Springfield factory, though they may have been finished at Lancaster. Watch manufacturing methods were in a state of change during the 1930's and the machinery used to produce the old Illinois designs was considered obsolete, so they might not have gone to the expense of moving obsolete machinery and setting it up at the Hamilton factory. Again, all this is unsubstantiated by any documentation. FWIW.

If I recall correctly, I think Bill Meggers mentioned that he had seen one 161B that definitely had a white Elinvar Extra hspg. It is often said that it is the exception that proves the rule, though sometimes I think that it would be more accurate to say that it is the exception that raises some questions.

Thanks to those who have reported the hairspring color of their 161B. I was convinced long ago (1970's) that the 161B was NOT among the last of the Bunn Specials. I figured that they used the plates from Springfield with the highest ser. nos. for the 161B because those plates might have been the least finished, which would have allowed them to be used for friction jeweling (no jewel screw holes drilled. etc.).

Please keep the comments coming and share your thoughts on these enigmatic Bunn Specials.

Larry Treiman

[rrwatch]

Larry,
Don't let the "timeout" feature slow you down. Every couple of minutes highlight everything you have written in your current session and then hit "copy" (CTRL key + "C" key at the same time). Then, if your session times out and sends all you have written into cyberspace, reopen a new "reply" window and hit paste (CTRL key + "V" key at the same time). This will magically make everything that you had saved reappear in the new window and you can continue where you left off.
What you write is far too important and enjoyable to be lost. Keep it coming!