Wow. Someone mashed up a Zenith A3817 and a Movado version of the early El Primero Pilot, then threw in a generic case back. Funny to see such rare parts (A3817 dial and distinctive Pilot paddle second hand) together in the same Franken.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181159679702Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

Redialed Cairelli (not NOS, as claimed).

http://www.ebay.de/itm/161056692951Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

and I thought this was the "Recommended Zenith Watches On Ebay" thread ;-)

 

Good point. Sorry, my last couple of posts are NOT endorsements.

 

WARNING: NOT original dial in this Cairelli !!

 

Agree, and a bad redial (I did say "redialed," above). Why would a fighter pilot need those 3-minute telephone hash-marks on the minute subdial? Wrong lettering too.

 

Maybe he need to call mom at home during a battle.....

 

This "Captain chronometer" is neither a Captain nor a chronometer. Discuss.

http://bit.ly/Hkancz

 

We can't categorically say that it isn't a chronometre. At the time this one was made, Zenith marked "Chronometre" either on the dial or the movement (in the case of the 133.8, on the oscillating weight) and sometimes on both the dial and the movement.

Looking at the state of the watch as it currently stands, I wouldn't even buy it for parts.

 

This is all making me a little forclempt!

 

Yes. I should have started this post with "I'll give you a toawpic...". Now back to my coawfee.

 

I thought it was verklempt?

 

You could very well be correct, I don't know, was just trying to get close to make joke...

 

Das ist richtig, Dennis. Sie solten die deutsche Sprache oft verwenden

 

This discussion is beginning to give me shpilkis in my genechtagazoink. Back to the Zenith chronometer question... I too believe that Zenith chronometers from the late 40's and onward (Jobin and Martel-based calibers) should be marked as such on the movement, and that those without such markings have probably been mucked with. Hard to prove, of course. Maybe some day we'll come across an untouched, NOS 2532 with "chronometer" on the dial and not on the movement, but I haven't seen a convincing one yet... and would still consider it an exception. I agree that the acceptance of unmarked chronometer movements after the 30's-40's is another piece of Rössl-errata. If you disagree, we'll talk, no big whoop.

 

That's an interesting one Lou. Marking "Chronometre" on the oscillating weight was a really stupid move considering the 133/133.8's propensity for lunching its axle - the standard "20 Jewels" marking could be a service part or it could be the the original weight. The bumper's therefore are inconclusive.

I have not seen "Chronometre" marked on a 40T movement, neither in reality nor in photographs and we know that there were both rated and un-rated versions of this one.

From my point of view, I see no reason to doubt Rossler on this one.

 

Good point about the cal 40T. Not as much room inside for extra inscriptions as there is on movements with oscillating weights, but it forces me to limit my post-1950 chronometer-marking theory to automatics. The 40T also brings up what I consider to be more nonsense from Rössler, though... the supposition that the stylized "40T" on some dials was evidence of observatory testing.