The first digital LED wristwatch

[clockace]

so in my ignorance, the cell is the fuel tank, but the sc is what fills the tank. the fuel in the tank runs the car but w/o the sc the tank drains. is the watch running off the sc or the fuel it puts in the cells? i think to be truely solar powered it would not need the cells. the copies of ads howard has sent me call the watch solar powered, but the cells[tanks] are necessary to run the watch when it is not in the light. w/o the sc the cells[tanks] would run dry so in that sense the watch is solar powered. but then the car runs off the fuel pump at the gas[petrol] station. just my ignorant reasoning, but the watch is a marvelous piece off technology nonetheless. with my collection. peter[with the kraut spouse]

[Greg]

Howdy members,

I must say that things can get heated, in a good sort of way, over the history of new technology. I am really enjoying the forum and all the info that is has to offer.

My father was an early employee of Calcomp back in the late 1960's; and I remember him bringing home all sort of LED goodies to play with. I learned lots from him as well; wire wrapping, following wiring diagrams, and the like. He was the theorist that came up with the idea that a square pin has better conductivity then a round one, and less heat too. For his theory, that was put into practice, he received a patent, from what I remember. I still have have early Calcomp wristwatch, now not working, as a reminder of those early years.

I love digital watches, and I believe they will be a good investment, as the survival rate is rather low, given how the technology changed quickly over the years, and how well they were used by everyday folks.

[retroleds]

I ove digital watches, and I believe they will be a good investment, as the survival rate is rather low, given how the technology changed quickly over the years, and how well they were used by everyday folks.

I agree with you Greg that they will be a good to better investment, but I think(hope) we have seen the worst of the survival rate issues. I subscribe to a "purebreed dog" theory on digital watches as collectibles. That being: people will take better care of a dog they paid serious money for, than one they got for free or on the cheap. Similarly,fewer people will leave batteries in their vintage digital for months or years beyond the battery's point of death, as they did when the watches were cheap and the watches were becoming a bit passe in the early '80s. Ironically,some of the cheaper models that came later seem to be more robust than the high prices early ones - a TI is not as flashy as a Pulsar, but they have a survival rate I'd estimate at 4-6 times what we're seeing with Pulsars. And some of the later, cheap Hong Kong made modules were sealed very good and can withstand an incredible amount of battery acid. With proper care many will probably go well beyond the 100 year mark. Probably 200+ yrs. in some cases I'd guess.

[Greg]

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it very much. Its interesting that the cheaper digital watches often survived much more readily then the more expensive watches with regards to battery leakage and being bettered sealed. Information such as that is quite invaluable to me, as I go on my "quest" to find these watches at flea markets, antique stores, and the like. While I am also using my prior experience in watchmaking to assist me in my endeavors, all the extra info is appreciated.

What I find interesting also is that, just like the car business in the early 1900's, same goes for the early digital watch business; there were many manufacturer's out there, but as time went by, they all got widdled down to a few.

Thanks Ed; you are an invaluable resource to us alljavascript:emoticon(':-D')

Greg

[zeno333]

I had the honor many years ago of chatting with Mr. Riehl on the phone for about an hour, all about the history of his infamous watch. And from what he told me, he had a working model first before Pulsar did....so I have to vote for the Synchronar.

[bucko170]

I am not quite sure which watch was the first to be produced but I think Howard as the inventors son might be slightly biased towards the Synchronar

If you made another phone call you could spend longer than one hour speaking to another expert about how the Pulsar was the first watch to be produced.....would you then change your vote

It would be interesting to see a time line drawn up showing the development dates of the early LED watch using only the dates that can be collaborated with supporting documentary evidence.

Both ARE great watches IMHO and both merit a high standing in the LED watch world.

[zeno333]

I am not quite sure which watch was the first to be produced but I think Howard as the inventors son might be slightly biased towards the Synchronar

If you made another phone call you could spend longer than one hour speaking to another expert about how the Pulsar was the first watch to be produced.....would you then change your vote

It would be interesting to see a time line drawn up showing the development dates of the early LED watch using only the dates that can be collaborated with supporting documentary evidence.

Both ARE great watches IMHO and both merit a high standing in the LED watch world.

I am sure there is much debate about who first made a solid state proto-type watch....sort of like the on going debate on who made the first telephone. All i know is that the great phone call I had with him back then was pretty convincing to me of the 1968 and 1969 proto-types that his son mentions in this thread.

[etype2]

My two cents. I remember watching the Johny Carson show in color in the late 60's. Johny showed Ed McMahon, the audience and the viewers a working prototype of the Hamilton Pulsar. He loved to show new gadgets. After seeing that show, I knew I had to have one.

So, a working prototype in the late 60's. I can't remember for sure the exact year but I do remember it was a long wait before I bought my P2 in early 73. I read an article that said that show was telecast in 1968.

[rewolf]

My two cents. I remember watching the Johny Carson show in color in the late 60's. Johny showed Ed McMahon, the audience and the viewers a working prototype of the Hamilton Pulsar. He loved to show new gadgets. After seeing that show, I knew I had to have one.

So, a working prototype in the late 60's. I can't remember for sure the exact year but I do remember it was a long wait before I bought my P2 in early 73. I read an article that said that show was telecast in 1968.

VERY late 60s: June 6, 1970, to be exact.
http://www.ledwatch.net/
http://www.horology.info/pic_library/mpegs/Pulsar.WMV
http://www.ledwatches.net/articles/WatchTimeArticle.pdf
http://crazywatches.w.interia.pl/pulsar_led_watch.html

[J Thomas]

[rewolf]

... And it's so old, it was taken before I was born.
So there, you tossers! Beat that!

Sure - the oldest known picture showing a Nixie watch (part of it, that is) is this one:



The Nixie digit shown on the right image was revealed by using advanced magnification and contrast enhancement techniques after a recent restoration of this famous picture.

So Leonardo da Vinci did not only conceive of several flying machines, but also what is supposed to be a Nixie watch!

[retroleds]

Sorry guys, Egyptians had this technology 2 millennia earlier, crude nixie, in date mode.

[etype2]

I need to make a correction. I guess my memory is lacking. The Johnny Carson telecast was May 5, 1970.

Here is a link. http://www.oldpulsars.com/ElectroData-2.htm

... and according to this link Hamilton presented to the media in May,1970 at New York's Four Season Restaurant 5 or more working prototypes days before the Johnny Carson presentation.

http://www.ledwatches.net/articles/WatchTimeArticle.pdf

[LEDluvr]

Sorry guys, Egyptians had this technology 2 millennia earlier, crude nixie, in date mode.

I wonder how big those batteries had to be?

[retroleds]

Sorry guys, Egyptians had this technology 2 millennia earlier, crude nixie, in date mode.

I wonder how big those batteries had to be?

Look like a "B" cup to me.

[LEDluvr]

[Huertecilla]

Doesn´t this boil down to defining what the ´first´ would be?

A working protoype is not what Í would consider to be the first ´watch´.

Personally I can´t consider the few hundred P1 with a 100% return/failure rate as a production watch.
That is a field test.

A commercially available wristwatch that works as the buyer may expect seems the most reasonable to me.

[retroleds]

A commercially available wristwatch that works as the buyer may expect seems the most reasonable to me.

Using that criteria the Synchronar doesn't even qualify as a proper timepiece - Pulsar wins by default.

[clockace]

Hear, Hear! Blasphemy. peter

[retroleds]

Was just cracking wise Peter...I know you love your Synchronars.

[clockace]

i was wondering, since the pulsar and synchronar are the "firsts", why isn't there a synchronar on the dwf header? peter

[bruce wegmann]

Peter...there used to be. Just like there used to be Pulsar, Hamilton, and Omega section headers, too. Hanno may not have fully realized the consequences of lumping them all together under a single category of LED watches. With all due respect for our new Administrator, I think it has been a huge step backward, as far as collectors are concerned. Of course, everyone already knows where I stand on what watch marked the beginning of the Digital Age...