Little baffled by this one...



According to the B.O. data I posted: JLC certified 207 movements from 1949-1956, with 105 of those being certified in 1956. This is a little strange, as the first chronometer certified JLC’s that I know of were released in 1957-1958, although there is some evidence that the Master Mariner written about below could have been certified as early as 1949 based on the serial number.

https://www.watchprosite.com/jaeger...oultre-chronometre-history/2.1124186.8559416/

For those not familiar with the original Master Mariner, below is a great write up.

https://www.watchprosite.com/jaeger...he-jlc-chronometry-history-/2.917763.6316373/

Which leads us to this piece. No movement photos. No inside of the case back photos. Clearly appears to be mid 50’s based on the design. Dial appears to be legitimate, but doesn’t match the other Master Mariner examples, and the case is different as well. My guess is it’s a 476 bumper automatic.

Dial only signed LeCoultre would suggest a watch intended for the US market, but with the French spelling Chronometre rather than Chronometer?

Anyone who knows JLC better than I do have an opinion here? Tempted to buy it out of sheer curiosity but the price is steep for me and it’s a real shot in the dark without more photos.

 

I’ve heard this argument made a couple of times and I find it bizarre. The US may not have had chronometer standards at this time, but Switzerland did, having introduced the first chronometer standards in 1893 and updating them in 1925 to include wristwatches.

Until 1951, the guidelines were loose enough that to be a chronometer only required “a precision watch, which is regulated in several positions and at different temperatures, and which could have received a certificate [from the B.O.].

After 1951, however, the rules were tightened to “a precision watch, which is regulated in different positions and at different temperatures and which had received a certificate.”

For a Swiss manufacturer, post-1951, to put Chronometer on the dial without having the movement certified by the B.O. would have violated Swiss chronometer regulations and they would almost certainly have run afoul of the Association of Swiss Watch Manufactures.

But let’s assume, to be charitable to your argument, that some did it anyway for the export markets. (It’s a wonder why they didn’t all do it, if there would be no repercussions in export markets, but that is beside the point). By 1946 the US had passed the Lanham Act, which regulated truth in advertising in the US. For a Swiss manufacturer to label their product as a chronometer, without having met their nation’s standard of what a chronometer was, would almost certainly have violated that law. A legal, not to mention reputational risk, that I think few of them would have been willing to take.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

Additionally, in testimony discussing watch tariffs before the U.S. Senate in 1956, M. Fred Cartoun (Chairman of the Board of the Longines-Witttnauer Company), specifically referenced a chronometer as such: “Here is a watch which is a chronometer; namely, it has an observatory bulletin with it attesting to its accuracy. It has been painstakingly adjusted and keeps time to extremely close tolerances under various conditions.” Indeed, throughout the entire testimony chronometers are specifically differentiated from other clocks and watches.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/84th Congress/Defense Essentially and Foreign Economic Policy (89).pdf

All of that to say, regardless of the end market, any Swiss watch manufactured after 1951 and labeled a chronometer would have gone through B.O. certification. We don’t know if this particular example did, however, because we don’t have the serial number to determine the date of manufacture.