Hi OF, According to this archival extract, the Longines in question is cased in stainless steel. However, according to its caseback and corroded case, the watch is likely composed of stainless steel and chrome-plated brass. Can anyone explain this discordance? Also, I possess a Longines bearing the same reference but mine is composed entirely of stainless steel. The two watches were invoiced within 12 months of each other and yet they are made of different materials. Does Longines' internal reference system simply indicate the style (rather than the material) of the case?
Hi, I think brass/chrome-cased Longines wristwatches have not been so rare during WW2. Steel was more expensive than brass... http://bit.ly/1LwrRiD rgds - h.u.
@minutenrohr I think you are correct about chrome plated brass cased Longines not being particularly rare. Now that you mention it, I seem to have forgotten a very similar Longines in a Hodinkee post. I suppose that I was especially intrigued by the different case materials of two Longines with the same reference and the incorrect information in the archival extract.
...in my opinion the guys from the Longines archive are not so reliable. For me the numbers 22405 and 22838 are the correct references. But i know, that they work with a second system using numbers like 5192. 1942 + 134 (also stamped in the lugs) are the individual numbers of the watches.
I also consider the numbers 22405 and 22838 the case references and wondered where Longines gets numbers like 5192 and what significance they have.
Perhaps they have a kind of generic term-system: f.e. "5415" seems to mean several types of 13zn waterproof chronos like the 23485, the 24432, eventually the 23332 or 23020 too, fly-back as well as non-fly-back.