BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BRHSlist] Hamiltons vs. Balls

To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Hamiltons vs. Balls
From: "Mike Decker" <mdecker@g...>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:32:45 -0600
References: <991383428.342.14339.l10@yahoogroups.com>
Karl and folks:

My working watch is an Elgin "B. W. Raymond", 21 jewel, lever set. Keeps
good time. My back-up is a Walthem, 17-jewel stem-set....almost as accurate
as the Elgin. Most guys out here that wore pocket watches seemed to have
992B's.

BTW, did any of you workin' Engineers see the Cab Committee's "Control Stand
Questionaire"? Needless to say, I voted for Number 2 (the AAR Standard
Control Stand...referred to as the "SD-40" stand). I gave Number 1 (the
desk) all 1's (out of 10), and two pages of reasons. I'm amazed that they
even bothered to ask our opinion about stands in new motors, they never did
before.

Mike

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:24:12 -0600
From: "Karl L Rethwisch" <karlre@r...>
Subject: Re: Hamiltons vs. Balls

As a user, rather than a collector, of RR watches I can make an absolute
statement concerning the Hamilton, it was (it's retired) the most rugged,
reliable keeper of time that I've ever owned. "It" is a 992B double roller,
21 jewel instrument.

I did not know too many railroaders that carried Ball timepieces so I cannot
weigh their relative merits.

Karl



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>