oris pocket watch

[simplejeep]

thinking about picking up an Oris centennial pocket watch from an AD, dealer has had since 2004 any thoughts?

[JohnF]

Hi -

Well, if he's had it since 2004, then I certainly hope you get a huge discount: things like this really aren't in much demand.

Seriously, modern pocket watches are a bit of an oddity, given that there is very, very little demand for them. While Oris is certainly a company with a good reputation, they weren't known for their pocket watches. Further, while that extension on the back is nice, it's missing, for instance, an alarm function that would make it useful as a travel watch or something along those lines.

And for the price - $425 at his online shop - you could pick up a rather nice Hamilton or Elgin.

Just my 2 cents: while it looks nice, is it worth the money to you? If so, then he's got the right price for you. For me, too much money for not enough utility in a watch. Gotta have an alarm for it to work for me...

JohnF

[Ray MacDonald]

You'd get a relatively new watch with shock protection, dust and water resistance. Parts will be readily available. However...
As someone whose newest pocket watch was made when Oris had been in business for 5 years, (and Elgin for 43) I don't see the logic. The most pedestrian Elgin or Waltham made in 1904 will have superior workmanship to the Oris and a Hamilton or Howard from then will blow it away. And they are the real deal.
The Oris is simply a wristwatch in a pocket watch case and doesn't really look like a standard wristwatch anyway. Most of these do not have center seconds dials.
My advice if you want a new pocket watch is to look for a Unitas based model or a Russian made Molniya. These are at least pocket watches in substance.
Better still go over to:
http://www.darlor-watch.com
and see what you can get fully serviced and running for the price you'll pay for the Oris.
My $0.02 anyway.

[simplejeep]

Hi -

Well, if he's had it since 2004, then I certainly hope you get a huge discount: things like this really aren't in much demand.

Seriously, modern pocket watches are a bit of an oddity, given that there is very, very little demand for them. While Oris is certainly a company with a good reputation, they weren't known for their pocket watches. Further, while that extension on the back is nice, it's missing, for instance, an alarm function that would make it useful as a travel watch or something along those lines.

And for the price - $425 at his online shop - you could pick up a rather nice Hamilton or Elgin.

Just my 2 cents: while it looks nice, is it worth the money to you? If so, then he's got the right price for you. For me, too much money for not enough utility in a watch. Gotta have an alarm for it to work for me...

JohnF
thanks for the info, for me i liked the idea of a new watch for my first pocket watch, since i am still learning about Pocket watches and it will just be used on my desk. also i really like that it was made to mark there 100 year anv. also not buying online just got the photo's from that site, again thanks for the info john and i will be asking more questions as the collection grows.

[simplejeep]

for me it is just one of the things that when you see it you know it has to be yours, also just learning about Pw's so it seems like a good way to be introduced to them and i know that they are not PW company but it just seems like it fits me. anyways always love feed back and since i kind of have a taste for stuff alittle strange (see tissot ball clock) i love to hear what people who really have a great deal of info have to say. thanks again Ray will be posting more questions.

[Watchbreath]

This is one of the !00th Anniversary issues and there're not that easy to
find. It has an ETA 6497/98, it's NOT like a Bedat or UTS, it's a real pocket
watch.

[Ray MacDonald]

OK it must have been modified for a center second then. Most Unitas 6497/8s I've seen have a subsecond either at the 6 or 3 position, depending on the model.

[Ray MacDonald]

It is of course your choice and your money so if it works for you that is great. It sounds as if it's an actual pocket watch movement after all. The Unitas movements are very good quality.

[simplejeep]

This is one of the !00th Anniversary issues and there're not that easy to
find. It has an ETA 6497/98, it's NOT like a Bedat or UTS, it's a real pocket
watch. thanks for the info watchbreath

[Watchbreath]

b-) What's really cool is when it's fitted with a self-winding module.OK it must have been modified for a center second then. Most Unitas 6497/8s I've seen have a subsecond either at the 6 or 3 position, depending on the model.

[simplejeep]

b-) What's really cool is when it's fitted with a self-winding module. such as..........

[Watchbreath]

b-) Erbe by Richard Bethge. It's not a pocket watch.:-d such as..........

[WX1]

thinking about picking up an Oris centennial pocket watch from an AD, dealer has had since 2004 any thoughts?

I'm beginning to REALLY like pocket watches myself. I have a newer version (which i prefer) -- a Tissot Savonette (tha's w/a cover) stainless steel number. Perfect. No lume to worry about fading. No bracelet sizing, ever. No need to worry about date changing. And I've gotten more complements about it than I do my much higher-priced wristwatches, even when I add the "you don't think it's a little too 'old foggie?'" the amalgamatic response is, no, no, it's REALLY classic. And in the world of watches, the pocket watch is CERTAINLY classic in looks and design.

I personally'd rather have a newer pocket watch than a vintage; least with the former, I'm not reluctant to take the thing out of the house. And that the current UNITAS movement (and other great wind-up movements) are cool and competent. A mech' that you need to wind? THAT's relevant in this or any other era of watches.

Not really a fan, but, as Sheryl Crow says, "if it MAKES YOU HAPPY" (the caveat I'd add is "and legal"), heck pick it up.

Good hunting (pardon the pun; "savonette"? Hunting? OK, there you go. By the way, one more note . . . few friends of friends I recently met at a real nice sit-down drinks and appetizer gathering starting, without knowing the respective interests, comparing watches. One guys starts, puts his wrist up, "diver." Nice Seiko, the Sumo, I believe. Next guy, goes, "diver, too." Oooh, Submariner. Etc., etc., one "Pilot." Comes to me? I pull out the Tissot from my front pocket [where I live, short sleeved, buttoned-down, collared shirts are the norm], "hunter." Some laughs. I had to explain. They understood, and I thought it was cool I was the only hunter there. End of story).

[Ray MacDonald]

b-) What's really cool is when it's fitted with a self-winding module.
Not for me. A wind-up should be a wind-up. Besides, who wants to look at a rotor through a display back when you can see the movement instead. JMHO.

[Ray MacDonald]

Agreed the modern pocket watches offer better shock, dust and water protection. However the old ones are solidly built and more robust than one might think. I mean people wore them and drove steam engines, worked in factories, built houses, and so on.
One of my grandfathers was a carter all his working life. The other was a stationary engineer and steam pump mechanic. Both of their watches are still running today.
The 12S slimline models made by Gruen and Elgin in the 1920s/30s have sturdy metal dials and fit into a watch pocket or shirt pocket quite easily. You can get a small fob with a leather loop to hold the watch by and that is very cool. I've got one with an Erie shovel medallion on it.
It's another matter with an 18S monster from 1883 though. That one likely needs a key so you'll want a heavy chain and key fob. The only way to wear something like that is with a waistcoat, and I don't see the three piece suit making a comeback any time soon. Maybe wear it with a tux I guess - or bib overalls.
The reason I prefer the old stuff is I don't see any reason to have a mechanical watch unless it's old. A modern quartz timepiece is far better for accuracy and durability.
Also once you see the kind of workmanship that went into a 1905 Hamilton or Howard
railroad model, you'll be convinced the antique watches are the best ever made.

[JohnF]

Hi -

I've got 4 three-piece suits in my closet (of the 8 in there, got 2 double-breasted ones as well...), and while I don't wear them every day, they do get pulled out on a regular basis. The pockets, though, in the vests are generally too small for a serious 18S watch with complications, 16S with no complications at best... and yes, I did check. :-)

At least that's the case (pun intended) with 3-piece suits from Boss and Ralph Lauren: their vest pockets are sized identically. Don't know about other brands...of suits...

JohnF

[simplejeep]

I'm beginning to REALLY like pocket watches myself. I have a newer version (which i prefer) -- a Tissot Savonette (tha's w/a cover) stainless steel number. Perfect. No lume to worry about fading. No bracelet sizing, ever. No need to worry about date changing. And I've gotten more complements about it than I do my much higher-priced wristwatches, even when I add the "you don't think it's a little too 'old foggie.'" The amalgamatic response is, no, no, it's REALLY classic. And in the world of watches, the pocket watch is CERTAINLY classic in looks and design.

I personally'd rather have a newer pocket watch than a vintage; least with the former, I'm not reluctant to take the thing out of the house. And that the current UNITAS movement (and other great wind-up movements) are cool and competent. A mech' that you need to wind? THAT's relevant in this or any other era of watches.

Not really a fan, but, as Sheryl Crow says, "if it MAKES YOU HAPPY" (the caveat I'd add is "and legal"), heck pick it up.

Good hunting (pardon the pun; "savonette"? Hunting? OK, there you go. By the way, one more note . . . few friends of friends I recently met at a real nice sit-down drinks and appetizer gathering starting, without knowing the respective interests, comparing watches. One guys starts, puts his wrist up, "diver." Nice Seiko, the Sumo, I believe. Next guy, goes, "diver, too." Oooh, Submariner. Etc., etc., one "Pilot." Comes to me? I pull out the Tissot from my front pocket [where I live, short sleeved, buttoned-down, collared shirts are the norm], "hunter." Some laughs. I had to explain. They understood, and I thought it was cool I was the only hunter there. End of story).
would you buy the tissot again? i've looked at them pretty hard and there are two that i really like although one is not really a pocket watch at all. Tissot ball watch, really cool but i just can't see paying $800 for it, never had a tissot so was unsure about an $800 tissot. anythoughts???

[Hartmut Richter]

The watch does not have an Unitas 6497/6498, like many other modern pocket watches with centre second hand (plus a date at 6:00 if one looks sharply!!), it has an - unmodified - ETA 2804, the manual version of the ETA 2824. As such, I have to agree that it isn't really a PW, not even a modern one - it is a wrist watch in a different case. Probably the size isn't all that big either, judging by the position of the date window.

My advice would be to get a modern PW with an Unitas 6497/6498 or Molniya 3603 - as Ray MCDonald said, at least it's a PW in spirit! Better still, pick up a decent vintage one, even a seventies model will have a little more character than a PW with wristwatch movement.

Hartmut Richter

[Watchbreath]

:think: I have to concede, did some close checking and it's a 2804 with
a different date wheel. It's still a good deal, even at 895 USD.The watch does not have an Unitas 6497/6498, like many other modern pocket watches with centre second hand (plus a date at 6:00 if one looks sharply!!), it has an - unmodified - ETA 2804, the manual version of the ETA 2824. As such, I have to agree that it isn't really a PW, not even a modern one - it is a wrist watch in a different case. Probably the size isn't all that big either, judging by the position of the date window.

My advice would be to get a modern PW with an Unitas 6497/6498 or Molniya 3603 - as Ray MCDonald said, at least it's a PW in spirit! Better still, pick up a decent vintage one, even a seventies model will have a little more character than a PW with wristwatch movement.

Hartmut Richter

[simplejeep]

The watch does not have an Unitas 6497/6498, like many other modern pocket watches with centre second hand (plus a date at 6:00 if one looks sharply!!), it has an - unmodified - ETA 2804, the manual version of the ETA 2824. As such, I have to agree that it isn't really a PW, not even a modern one - it is a wrist watch in a different case. Probably the size isn't all that big either, judging by the position of the date window.

My advice would be to get a modern PW with an Unitas 6497/6498 or Molniya 3603 - as Ray MCDonald said, at least it's a PW in spirit! Better still, pick up a decent vintage one, even a seventies model will have a little more character than a PW with wristwatch movement.

Hartmut Richter not knowing alot about these so i have to ask, what is the disadvantage of have the movement that you spoke of, is a "real" pw movement more durable

[WX1]

not knowing alot about these so i have to ask, what is the disadvantage of have the movement that you spoke of, is a "real" pw movement more durable

Heh, I have ANOTHER Tissot pocket on order to answer your previous question, simplejeep -- another savonette pocket watch, this time in rhodium (plating, probably, over brass -- the Tissot 'site actually does characterize the case as made of brass and rhodium -- but, man, the photos I saw, tha's some shine; plus the AD, who I've trusted in my last 3 watch purchases, including the current Tissot pocket watch I have, mentioned he sold a few of those rhodiums and says, yeah, they're kinda' shiny. White dial this time).

I'm glad my Tissot pocket watch has an ETA movement (Tissot under the Swatch brand, who owns the ETA movements basically, yes?). I'm happy that I won't need to scramble around, looking for manual wind-up movements come, what, 2010, if something goes south with my -- would be two by then; MAYBE MORE? [!] -- Tissot pocket watches). In any case, I would HOPE a watch repairer/meister worth his or her weight in certification could handle a handwind repair. Something tells me ETA are proud of their few handwind movements, though.

I was looking for an excuse to buy a Tissot, and I'm glad that excuse was found in its pocket watch line -- one of the few "name" brands that still do manual wind pocket watches, yes? And, yes, they have a wide variety of pocket watches -- admittedly, I favor their their Savonette (of course) and Replica lines. I dunno 'bout their "Art Nouveau" or "Ball Watch" pocket watch lines -- their respective designs are a bit too busy for me (that's what I like about pocket watch design -- their simpicity, save for the fine etched designs on the casing, which is basically obligatory for pocket watches. But, hey, at least they aren't colored in or something).

And yes, thank you moderator, Ray MacDonald, for mentioning, "Agreed the modern pocket watches offer better shock, dust and water protection. However the old ones are solidly built and more robust than one might think. I mean people wore them and drove steam engines, worked in factories, built houses, and so on." I’ll agree with all of that.

The only way I figure this Tissot can't be a pocket watch is if the thing disintegrates or breaks apart alla sudden; hasn't yet, and I don't anticipate it doing that (you'd think a pocket watch delicate -- well, yes, you wouldn't want to drop this, like any other pocket watch [hey, 'nother argument for this Tissot being a pocket watch b-) ] -- the one I currently have feels quite sturdy for "a pocket watch). I mean, the thing has a classic pocket watch cover, handwound, the dial has the features of a pocket watch. Fits snug in my pocket, has no band or bracelet anywhere -- it's a pocket watch [!] And no "smells like, walks like" at that. The one I have currenlty (and the one I have on order) even has a "ChsTissot&fils Depuis 1853" (trans. in English to "Charles Tissot & sons Since 1853," yes?) -- now if THAT ain't "pocket watch"-ish, just in terms of design and classic reminiscence, then . . . what?

I like, I like, I like. And it's from a good brand, and it hasn't let me down. 'Til it stops or breaks (and I'm objective enough to come back to this here board to let all ya'll know if it does end up that way any time soon or anytime far) I adore this watch, and maybe that's the main thing to its owner(s). :-!

The ONE problem with most pocket watches that bother me . . . no real water resistance (yet another link to the pocket watches of old). Ugh! Ha, minor issue -- the pouch I carry my Tissot in is quite underwater-style water proof; still, though, a pocket watch itself not having major water resistance factor is a minor issue. Nature of the beast, perhaps.

Classic, classic design, hand-wound mechanical. How can you go wrong? Is why me like pocket watches (albeit modern ones; maybe I'll gain a taste for vintage pocket watches someime soon), tha's for sure.

OT: anybody check out the Tissot 'site lately? Man, they got some funky music playing there. You can even change the channel, so to speak. I thought it was cool, and I don't even like music too much, heh.

[Hartmut Richter]

One of the points about having a PW as opposed to a wrist watch is that it's bigger. As such, it has space for a bigger movement. The bigger the movement, all other things being equal, the better the accuracy. If you go for the Oris, you will get a watch with a date, a bigger seconds hand feature, a hack feature (not found in many PW movements - even currently produced ones) - but also a small watch or a large watch with a small movement! If you are happy with that, go for it. As for the comparison of modern vs. old PWs (both with PW movements), the former will have shock proofing and better parts replacability if called for, but I personally feel that the older ones have a certain style that would be hard to catch in the modern ones. Remember also that there are old and there are very old PWs - inter-war or just post WWII is still old enough to have style but in some cases young enough for the positive features I have listed whereas a lot of the very old ones are "proletarian" cylindre escapement watches, not all that collectible and not worth all that much while they still need money spent on regular servicing. Good heirlooms to have if you own one but not necessarily the sort of thing you go hunting around on eBay or the likes for.

In the end, go for what YOU like!

Hartmut Richter

[simplejeep]

One of the points about having a PW as opposed to a wrist watch is that it's bigger. As such, it has space for a bigger movement. The bigger the movement, all other things being equal, the better the accuracy. If you go for the Oris, you will get a watch with a date, a bigger seconds hand feature, a hack feature (not found in many PW movements - even currently produced ones) - but also a small watch or a large watch with a small movement! If you are happy with that, go for it. As for the comparison of modern vs. old PWs (both with PW movements), the former will have shock proofing and better parts replacability if called for, but I personally feel that the older ones have a certain style that would be hard to catch in the modern ones. Remember also that there are old and there are very old PWs - inter-war or just post WWII is still old enough to have style but in some cases young enough for the positive features I have listed whereas a lot of the very old ones are "proletarian" cylindre escapement watches, not all that collectible and not worth all that much while they still need money spent on regular servicing. Good heirlooms to have if you own one but not necessarily the sort of thing you go hunting around on eBay or the likes for.

In the end, go for what YOU like!

Hartmut Richter bigger is more accurate is what i was looking for, thanks.

[WX1]

would you buy the tissot again? i've looked at them pretty hard and there are two that i really like although one is not really a pocket watch at all. Tissot ball watch, really cool but i just can't see paying $800 for it, never had a tissot so was unsure about an $800 tissot. anythoughts???

Heh, yeah, I would get another (did actually :-) ); see this link (where I should have posted right under this sub-topic of this thread):

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=482318#poststop (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=482318#poststop)

[Ray MacDonald]

I've checked out the Tissot pocket watches currently being marketed and they do have the size and appearance of a traditional pocket watch, and with in all probablility a Unitas pocket watch movement. So they are indeed modern pocket watches. No doubt about it.
Good maker, with a long history of making fine products - and part of the Swatch conglomerate so you know you'll be able to get parts and service.
Let me point out once more - at the risk of being flamed I know - that the real deal in pocket watches resides in the American makers of the first half of the 20th century. Even Zenith and Omega had trouble competing with the great American makers a century ago. If you ever get really serious about pocket watches you'll get into the vintage and antique market. That's just the way it is.

[Ray MacDonald]

I should say that in general a bigger movement is more accurate, but we are not talking orders of magnitude the way we are if we compare quartz to any mechanical watch.
In 1907 an American pocket watch was assembled from standardized parts by semi-skilled factory labor, then a skilled watchmaker fitted the specially selected balance and hairspring, and made adjustments to the running watch. The more time spent on the watch and the more adjustments made, the more accurate a watch would be when it left the factory.
If the watch were to be used on the railroad it had to be cleaned and adjusted every two years at least. The best pocket watches ran within 30 seconds a week.
My most accurate mechanical watch is a keywind Hampden from 1883. It just runs better than anything else I have.

[simplejeep]

so what would be a good step into vintage or antique, i do like some of the hamiltons that i've seen, so would want something nice, but not so nice i would not carry it. also on a much more random note what is the deal with the new omega pocket watch (ref. 5110.20.00) when the new omega cat. came last week i almost fell out of my chair it was so beautiful, so i called my local AD and asked for a price quote only to find out the watch was a cool 86K.....now i know it is a limited ed. and it was "built using the original mechanical parts stored since 1932" per cat. but where they that good in 1932 that it could not be improved on 75 years later?????

[JohnF]

Hi -

The great advances in horology took place at the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th. Advances since then have largely been in productivity and in accuracy for wrist watches.

You can always improve on older movements, the question is at what price. Older movements, especially the higher-quality ones, saw an enormous amount of attention from very highly skilled watchmakers, who did their utmost to make the watch as good as possible. This can be done today as well, and is, but the cost of the watchmakers has skyrocketed - they'll deny that, but labor today is much more expensive than it was 100 years ago - and that would make the movement from 1932 that much more expensive to do the same thing with a modern movement.

That is why the older pocket watches are such attractive watches: the amount of time that was spent engraving, polishing, adjusting and finishing simply won't be paid for by the modern consumer, with the usual exceptions. A Hamilton that cost $200 back before WW1 would have to sell for around the same price as the Omega you quote today in order to support the watchmakers making the watches, which is why you don't see many made nowadays, with perhaps the exception of a George Daniels pocket watch or one of his many students (if you don't know who he is, google his name and look for the watchmaking links: probably the best living watchmaker around!).

It's not the parts, it's the person putting it together (ok, even the best watchmaker can't do much with a junk movement, but you get the idea)...

JohnF

[Ray MacDonald]

JohnF is correct. The advances in watchmaking since the 1920s have been primarily in antimagnetism, shockproofing, water and dust resistance and making small watches run better.
Remember a watch is supposed to keep time and the classic pocket watches were doing that within 3 seconds a day in 1904. The only way to improve on that is to go electronic.
A watch made with 1932 parts will give a modern mechanical Omega a run for its money. It would be totally hand made as well. No robotics to work with those parts I bet.
However 86K? You got to be kidding. For that money you could buy more than 100 vintage pocket watches in running condition.
Look here:
http://www.darlor-watch.com/pocket_watches_6.html
Consider some of the 1920s and 1930s Elgins, Hamiltons, Illinois and Walthams- even a Bulova. They were as good or not better than the Omega in their day.
12S and 16S size are probably what you want. 18S is really big and was considered old fashioned - even in 1920.
Darlor services what he sells so you know will get a good watch and he can fix it later on when it needs service. Otherwise check out eBay but that's when you'll need a good watch repair guy around to service what you buy.

[WX1]

Look here:
http://www.darlor-watch.com/pocket_watches_6.html



Hoo-eee! Just took a gander at the above 'site; man, if you like pocket watches (like, me I guess :) ), that 'site can't be recommended enough. I still REALLY like my Tissot, but, there were a bunch I REALLY liked at that 'site. Sigh. Where are those loan papers . . . :thanks for the info', Ray!