- Posts
- 158
- Likes
- 688
J_pilot
·Hi all,
It’s been a while since I did a writeup here on one of my pieces, but my most recent pickup warrants one, so here goes:
{Before I get into the details I’d like to thank all of you on OF and in the collector community who helped me diligence and research this example - you know who you are!}
Some weeks back I took a bit of a gamble on a watch lot including a 14k pink gold 13.33z from a German auction house. The pictures indicated that it was a clean first gen, pin-set watch, but images of the inner caseback and serial were lacking. Of particular interest to me was the rather unusual non-script Longines signature on the Roman numeral/red “XII” dial, as well as the rather unusual hinged case lugs and crown. Although I could not find another identical dial, the print and numeral style was very similar to some of the earliest 13.33z examples I could find (including the “Aug. Ericsson”-signed example on the Longines museum):
While the case lugs are also very atypical, it was clear from the lot photos that the midcase was constructed and hallmarked identically to other early double-hinged 13.33z cases, offering some reassurance that the very clean watch was unlikely to be a modern assemblage of loose parts. While the movement had no visible serial number, this is to be expected on some earlier 13.33zs, and at first glance it appeared identical to the other very early 13.33z movements I had reference photos for. I was still very curious to see the inner caseback, but the auction house did not provide them upon request, stating that for lots the provided listing pictures and condition report were all they could share. They did, however, warrant that the case was original to the watch. After considering the risk associated with this, I decided to bid, and to my surprise, my max absentee bid won!
Immediately upon winning, I attempted for a second time to get an inner caseback picture for the purposes of starting an extract. The auction house obliged, and I received the below image:
I was quite pleased to see the familiar “EFCo”stamp and squirrel hallmark indicating Swiss manufacture in 14k. Two other things were immediately of interest to me - the first, a mystery quickly solved, was the “56” above the 14k stamp. Some internet research revealed that this is a so called “zolotnik number”, indicating 14k purity under a now-obsolete imperial Russian weight standard. Before receiving the watch I had suspected the watch went to Russia in the pre-revolution days (most other 14k pink gold Longines cases, both Swiss and domestically produced, seemed associated with that market, as did this lug construction) - and this seemingly confirmed that lead. More interesting still was the serial, 9’961’584, which was by far the earliest I had seen.
The same day, while staring at the movement photo and comparing it to other very early examples, I noticed a subtle but definite difference in the layout of springs and levers around the minute register (circled in white):
[photo credit Hodinkee: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/longines-13zn-history]
It appears to me, and others that I’ve consulted with, that the additional complication on my example is related to the mechanism that advances the minute counter, and may provide a fine adjustment of the mechanism that advances it via. an eccentric screw. Given the novelty of this movement at the time, it is totally plausible to me that where was some early refinement, and perhaps this particular design choice was deemed redundant or unnecessary in the weeks and months following this example’s manufacture. Similar refinements to the 13.33z are known and well-documented in the years following his example’s production.
I started the extract process immediately, explicitly noting this aspect of the movement. While I waited for the watch to arrive, and for word back from Longines, I created a spreadsheet to track and record details on as many of the earliest 13.33z examples as I could find online, including serial, delivery date, delivery location, and whether the movement distinction shown above is present. With the help of the collector community, we’ve so far been able to account for 24 of these earliest pin-set examples.
It’s been an interesting exercise, but has failed to identify another 13.33z example with an earlier serial, or that has this same interesting movement difference. Equally interesting has been Longines’ response to my extract request. They confirmed that the serial corresponds to a 14k 13.33z delivered on 29 November, 1913, to Schwob & Fils, agent for Russia. Adding to the mystery, they stated that “currently they are not sure how to interpret certain information found in the archives” but that they are working with their watchmakers to continue researching the example. I have shared all of my own research with them, including high-resolution photos of the example. When my watchmaker has bandwidth in the new year, I hope he can assist me in removing the dial and confirming that the movement serial matches the case (which will be required for formal issuance of an Extract). I hope to continue updating this thread as I learn more.
Anyhow, all of this has made for a fascinating ride - regardless of final conclusions, it is clearly a beautiful watch that has been well-cared for in its 110+ year life. I am hoping others in the community can come forward to share more about these fascinating earliest 13.33z examples, considering their horological importance. If you have, or know of, a contemporary or earlier example, I’d love to hear more about it!
Thanks all for reading, and now the photos you’ve earned for making it this far!
It’s been a while since I did a writeup here on one of my pieces, but my most recent pickup warrants one, so here goes:
{Before I get into the details I’d like to thank all of you on OF and in the collector community who helped me diligence and research this example - you know who you are!}
Some weeks back I took a bit of a gamble on a watch lot including a 14k pink gold 13.33z from a German auction house. The pictures indicated that it was a clean first gen, pin-set watch, but images of the inner caseback and serial were lacking. Of particular interest to me was the rather unusual non-script Longines signature on the Roman numeral/red “XII” dial, as well as the rather unusual hinged case lugs and crown. Although I could not find another identical dial, the print and numeral style was very similar to some of the earliest 13.33z examples I could find (including the “Aug. Ericsson”-signed example on the Longines museum):
While the case lugs are also very atypical, it was clear from the lot photos that the midcase was constructed and hallmarked identically to other early double-hinged 13.33z cases, offering some reassurance that the very clean watch was unlikely to be a modern assemblage of loose parts. While the movement had no visible serial number, this is to be expected on some earlier 13.33zs, and at first glance it appeared identical to the other very early 13.33z movements I had reference photos for. I was still very curious to see the inner caseback, but the auction house did not provide them upon request, stating that for lots the provided listing pictures and condition report were all they could share. They did, however, warrant that the case was original to the watch. After considering the risk associated with this, I decided to bid, and to my surprise, my max absentee bid won!
Immediately upon winning, I attempted for a second time to get an inner caseback picture for the purposes of starting an extract. The auction house obliged, and I received the below image:
I was quite pleased to see the familiar “EFCo”stamp and squirrel hallmark indicating Swiss manufacture in 14k. Two other things were immediately of interest to me - the first, a mystery quickly solved, was the “56” above the 14k stamp. Some internet research revealed that this is a so called “zolotnik number”, indicating 14k purity under a now-obsolete imperial Russian weight standard. Before receiving the watch I had suspected the watch went to Russia in the pre-revolution days (most other 14k pink gold Longines cases, both Swiss and domestically produced, seemed associated with that market, as did this lug construction) - and this seemingly confirmed that lead. More interesting still was the serial, 9’961’584, which was by far the earliest I had seen.
The same day, while staring at the movement photo and comparing it to other very early examples, I noticed a subtle but definite difference in the layout of springs and levers around the minute register (circled in white):
[photo credit Hodinkee: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/longines-13zn-history]
It appears to me, and others that I’ve consulted with, that the additional complication on my example is related to the mechanism that advances the minute counter, and may provide a fine adjustment of the mechanism that advances it via. an eccentric screw. Given the novelty of this movement at the time, it is totally plausible to me that where was some early refinement, and perhaps this particular design choice was deemed redundant or unnecessary in the weeks and months following this example’s manufacture. Similar refinements to the 13.33z are known and well-documented in the years following his example’s production.
I started the extract process immediately, explicitly noting this aspect of the movement. While I waited for the watch to arrive, and for word back from Longines, I created a spreadsheet to track and record details on as many of the earliest 13.33z examples as I could find online, including serial, delivery date, delivery location, and whether the movement distinction shown above is present. With the help of the collector community, we’ve so far been able to account for 24 of these earliest pin-set examples.
It’s been an interesting exercise, but has failed to identify another 13.33z example with an earlier serial, or that has this same interesting movement difference. Equally interesting has been Longines’ response to my extract request. They confirmed that the serial corresponds to a 14k 13.33z delivered on 29 November, 1913, to Schwob & Fils, agent for Russia. Adding to the mystery, they stated that “currently they are not sure how to interpret certain information found in the archives” but that they are working with their watchmakers to continue researching the example. I have shared all of my own research with them, including high-resolution photos of the example. When my watchmaker has bandwidth in the new year, I hope he can assist me in removing the dial and confirming that the movement serial matches the case (which will be required for formal issuance of an Extract). I hope to continue updating this thread as I learn more.
Anyhow, all of this has made for a fascinating ride - regardless of final conclusions, it is clearly a beautiful watch that has been well-cared for in its 110+ year life. I am hoping others in the community can come forward to share more about these fascinating earliest 13.33z examples, considering their horological importance. If you have, or know of, a contemporary or earlier example, I’d love to hear more about it!
Thanks all for reading, and now the photos you’ve earned for making it this far!
Edited:
