a piece of IWC history...

Nice find Tony. So what year does it tie into? Had to get a translation of erben vormals and then I am even more perplexed.
Does anyone know how long this was marked on the cases and whether IWC ever disappeared off any of the cases and dials to be Rauschenbach labelled?

Erben means "heirs" and vormals means "formerly".

There are Rauschenbach (only) signed dials. On this watch, which isn't so signed on the dial, I'd guess circa 1910 which was somewhat common for the "vormals" inscription on calibre 52's. Obviously the serial number will tell.

The screw at 1 o'clock on the pusher here is unusual, and I wonder if the case has been changed outside the factory.

That's a nice find Tonny. Any chance you know any of the history of this specific piece?

Dear Tonny

Thank you for sharing.
Personally I have some doubts concerning the originality of this piece.

The movement is from the 1890, the case from approx 1906.
Also the construction arround the pin is very special.

So some points needs to be checked.

Kind regards

Ralph

It's quite cool following a post like this and seeing pieces of the puzzle come together. The knowledge here is amazing.

I hadn't realized the large gap between the movement and case numbers, or that this Cal. 52 was so early an example. Difficult to see on an iPad.

I don't mean to be contentious, Tonny, but I disagree when you write that "Could be OK since in these years, lot's of calibers were made but stayed on the shelves unsold, to be used in watches some years later." It's theoretically possible as a one-off exception but I have not seen any movements from say 1890 to 1905 cased much later. I also have not seen any early (1890s) Calibre 52 with a dial with Arabics, let alone a dial of this color. These dials were from a later period than the early 1890s.

I didn't mean to imply that the case wasn't original (however, they weren't made then in Schaffhausen I believe) but only that the screw around the pusher shows a non-IWC factory, later revision to the case.

But given that, plus the incongruity of the dial to the movement, plus the differential of the dating movement to the case, I would think that there's been some transplanting here that amounts to a marriage. Sorry to say that!

TB -

Neat. Hope to see some more Followup on this watch.

But it is a marriage within the nuclear family. :-)

There is no doubt: all (most) pieces seems to from Schaffhausen.

But I still have doubts if they left the factory together.
It is very unusual to have such a big difference in the age (movement <50'000=1889 case 388'103 =1907) ->approx 17 years for the most common IWC-movement (c.49/c.52).
Also I think to know the reason for the uncommon pin. In 1907 the pin was sitting on the other side of the stem. It is not clearly visible, but on the picture it seems to be a "scrached" region at the position of the pin for a c.52 (Mod. 1904) on the other side of the stem, where a pin-hole was closed and the pin protection was removed.

As IWC ordered the cases exactl for a movement-version, I do not belive this was done in Schaffhausen. Sorry for my doubts.

Kind regards

Ralph

P.S: One of the exceptions for big differences are IWC-cased pocket watches with a c.77 movement. The c.77 was normally case un Cresarrow cases in USA. only some remaining c.77 movements (build 1920/21) were cased in Schaffhausen end of the 1930's. Also late pocket watches can have bigger differences in case and movement production date.

+1!!!

Since there is a 17 year gap, just wonder if the first case was damaged and a second case was used to replace original. Wonder if the archives actually show any movement serial number with two case numbers for any watch where the original case was damaged beyond salvation.

Tonny,
You've got to put the master detective Mark Levinsohn on this mystery.

I love pocket watches. One day I'll get a digital pocket watch. You know, the Pallweber watches (starting 1885) :-)

In 1885 IWC produced a small sensation: a digital pocket watch, the so-called Pallweber, inspired from the famous watch “Torre dell’Orologio” on well-known St. Mark's Square in Venice.

GUYS, look at the photos of this OUTSTANDING watch: www.iwcpocketwatch.com/pallweber.html

I concurr with Ralph Ehrismann.
The movement is a very early one, as it has the semi-circular punched out three quarter plate, while the cal. 52 series has a more smoothly curved "S" shaped three quarter plate. If I see it well the movement number has 5 digits ( which ones?), while the case has 6, meaning that the case is at least 15 years younger than the movement, as told by Ralph. This is unusual for this period in time. In IWC pocket watches from the 1930's, one can observe this difference now and than ( Hebe made a post on this).The device to set the time ( à pousser) has been molested and changed for an ugly screw.
Sorry but this is a marriage.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).