Forums Latest Members

Chronometer Certification 1948-1956

  1. Rumar89 Apr 22, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Wuza72 likes this.
  2. Rumar89 Apr 22, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
  3. Rumar89 Apr 23, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Tony C. and Vitezi like this.
  4. Rumar89 Apr 23, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Vitezi and KingCrouchy like this.
  5. Rumar89 Jun 16, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    First page from 1952 is missing.

    980FBE22-97DF-4979-93F9-0D6F669F9BA8.jpeg
    91373BC0-5C76-4406-8B64-64A1A344B50A.jpeg
    F217BDBB-F4A2-4905-85BF-DD52C8963907.jpeg
     
    Vitezi likes this.
  6. Rumar89 Jun 17, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
  7. Rumar89 Jun 25, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Vitezi likes this.
  8. Rumar89 Jun 25, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Vitezi likes this.
  9. Rumar89 Jun 25, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    valjoux72, Tony C. and Vitezi like this.
  10. Rumar89 Jun 29, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Some really interesting anomalies here:

    AP - 272 movements
    Patek - 1 movement in 1956
    Vacheron - 806 movements
    IWC - 217 movements (data missing 1952)
     
    Mark020 and Rman like this.
  11. Rumar89 Jul 8, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Edited Jul 8, 2020
    KingCrouchy and Vitezi like this.
  12. Rumar89 Jul 8, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Also, I wonder if the 1956 certification for Patek was the Caliber 34T documented by Fritz von Osterhausen in Wristwatch Chronometers.
     
  13. Vitezi Jul 8, 2020

    Posts
    3,089
    Likes
    13,369
    @Rumar89 Thank you for taking the time and effort to post this material.

    The opening paragraphs on the first pages are full of interesting notes. For example, in 1950 the Bureaux seemed quite proud of the fact that about 17% of the watches offered for testing could not pass their tests...this appeared to be offered as proof of the Bureau's stringent requirements that only robust and well-regulated watches could overcome. And yet the Bureaus noted that they had lower requirements for chronometer testing than the Observatories.

    Other than perhaps a red star on the dial of certain Omegas tested at Teddington or maybe some comments in period Longines advertising, I've never seen any marque make a distinction about where their chronometers were tested.

    It's also curious that some watches were tested 'avec mention' and some 'sans mention.' Do you think 'avec mention' means that the watch would have received a certificate?
     
    Edited Jul 8, 2020
    YYTIN, valjoux72 and Rumar89 like this.
  14. Rumar89 Jul 8, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    There were two systems, both of which are referred to as chronometer certification, which makes this somewhat confusing: the Observatory Chronometer competitions, which in the Swiss context were held at Neuchâtel and Geneva, and the B.O. certification process, which is the data listed above.

    The chronometers tested at the Observatory Chronometer competitions were never meant for sale to the general public and very few have come onto the market. These movements were highly regulated, often lacked shock protection, and were re-submitted year after year (after small refinements/improvements) in an attempt to log the best performance in their particular class, which could then be touted in advertising. (I’m not well versed in Omega, so I don’t know if the red star watches were created to highlight Omega’s achievement at Kew, or actually certified there.) Testing took 44 days in Geneva and 45 days at Neuchâtel. Ultimately, this was a competition between manufacturers to see who could produce and regulate their particular movement to the finest tolerances.

    The B.O. certification process, by contrast, was essentially a mark of quality that demonstrated to a purchaser that the particular watch they were buying performed to a certain standard; “a precision watch, which is regulated in different positions and at different temperatures and which had received a certificate.” Testing here was similar to what took place at the observatories, but was abbreviated, lasting 15 days.

    With regard to the avec mention and sans mention, the B.O. had two standards of performance. Meeting the higher standard, meant that the movement had especially good results (avec mention). Meeting the lower standard meant the movement was still chronometer certified, but without the higher distinction (sans mention).
     
    Edited Jul 8, 2020
  15. Rumar89 Aug 6, 2020

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    I forgot that the data for 1946 was included in Fritz von Osterhausen’s Wristwatch Chronometers.

    6BDE5244-D529-4398-9201-79240130A7DC.jpeg 4397DB31-E890-4937-A38F-7A5DA63128BB.jpeg
     
    KingCrouchy and Vitezi like this.
  16. imfagent449 Aug 2, 2021

    Posts
    372
    Likes
    342
  17. Rumar89 Jul 21, 2023

    Posts
    810
    Likes
    1,599
    Seems that we have some clarity with regard to the IWC chronometers. Cal 8521, which was introduced in 1953 according to WatchBase.

    https://www.thevintageur.com/product/iwc-favre-leuba/

    D4645870-1012-4D0F-8061-796D6071D091.jpeg 7D4E71E3-C374-4081-A3D4-E2FD9AAF4100.jpeg