This Longines watch was an early Ebay purchase and is the first vintage watch gift made to Mrs. noelekal. It was purchased off of Ebay in about 2002. The seller represented it as a "nurses' watch" from 1946. It features the 8LM movement in a 25mm 14kt yellow gold case. The movement's serial number (6419513) would seem to date to 1942. The case back features a different number, 60603038. I don't know if this number is an indication of when the case was manufactured or not.

Upon acquisition it was taken to a reputed vintage watch specialist in Arlington, Texas who made a right hash out of repairing it. It required corrective work by another watch maker. At the time I made no inquiry about what was required to put it right. It's just back from a simple scheduled service by a local fellow. Mrs noelekal only wore it two days and the second hand has become detached, just since the photos were taken. I think the watch is jinxed.

I carefully removed the back yesterday in order to photograph the movement. This is the first time I've seen the movement and it appears to have taken a whipping to my uneducated eye. The second hand fell off sometime after I removed and replaced the screw back. Could I have contributed to the detached second hand by removing the back?

The 8LM movement is obscure. I cannot find much mention of it on internet searches or in searches of Google Images. Ranfft's site makes no mention of it. I am assuming that this movement is not shock protected. I would love to know more about the movement which must have been only a cipher in the parade of Longines movement development.

 

This caliber does have shock protection. Notice how the cap jewel for the balance wheel is held. This caliber "8LM" is more likely a caliber 8.68NS. Longines stamped USA bound movements with modified caliber names.

I have encountered ladies-size sei tacches before and gold sei tacches but I do not recall encountering another gold, ladies sei tacche. Neither of the aforementioned varieties are particularly common either. Your watch still has the original crown, which is great.

The internal case markings look normal however the seven digit number on the outside of the case back is unexpected. I would suggest that you contact Longines; first with the movement serial number, and then a second time with the case serial number.

A very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing.

Edit: I should be clear that I do not recall encountering another Longines from this period with a seven digit number on the outside of the case back.

Edit of the Edit: On a gold tre tacche (very uncommon) that I have come across, the seven digit serial number is indeed on the outside of the case back. This is a very unusual practice for Longines of this era though.

Final Edit: The movement and case numbers of the aforementioned gold tre tacche match, as expected. The discrepancy in your watch is puzzling.

 

Thanks much, DirtyDozen for your facts and thoughts.

I appreciate your judgement on the crown. I had no idea whether or not it was original and was hoping a photo would generate comment.

Would that cap jewel normally be the only one with the shock protection?

This is the first I have heard of USA-bound Longines movements having different caliber names.
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&Longines_8_68N

Could the movement and case number discrepancy be simply attributed to a movement swap?

 

Nice... I wish Mrs S would be receptive to such a gift. Sadly she dislikes this hobby so much that in her mind acceptance is enabling! Looks like it will be a relatively straightforward visit to the spa.

 

Mrs. noelekal isn't a watch hobbyist, but she is delighted with any vintage ladies model watch I give her - as long as they aren't too large. This 25mm watch is the largest one she has. She has chosen some teeny-weenie ones that I feel are entirely too microscopic.

 

On this movement, there should be a cap jewel at either end of the balance. These jewels are held down by springy pieces that allow for some mobility. This helps to prevent the delicate ends of the balance staff from being damaged in the event of a shock.

If we assume that the dial and hands are original to the case (nothing overtly suggests otherwise), it is difficult to imagine why a movement swap would have taken place. However, a movement swap does seem more likely if we assume that the dial and hands are not original to the case. I will contact Longines and report back.

 

It's a really nice and interesting looking watch, thanks for sharing it with us.

 

Some Thoughts

I noticed this watch in the WRUW thread. The style and integration of the crown made me wonder if it could be a Sei Tacche. This would be noteworthy for three reasons. Firstly, ladies-size Sei Tacches are not particularly common. Secondly, gold Sei Tacches are even less common. Thirdly, I could not remember seeing another ladies-size, gold Sei Tacche.

As shown above, the watch is indeed a ladies-size, gold Sei Tacche. Upon seeing the caseback and movement, I noticed two more intriguing details. Firstly, a serial number was present on the outside of the case-back. This is atypical for Longines of this period. Secondly, the serial number on the case-back did not match the serial number on the movement. This is also atypical.

I then proceeded to consult the two other gold Sei Tacches that I knew of. Neither example had a serial number on the case-back. One of these Sei Tacches (6’433’825) was earlier than the ladies watch and the other (6’925’121) was later. It seemed that chronological order was of little significance in terms of case-back, marking consistency.


http://orologi.forumfree.it/?t=72476410

Running out of gold, screw-back Longines from the period, I checked an 18k Tre Tacche. It did in fact have a serial number (6’351’160) on the outside of the case-back. It also had the rest of its markings (hallmarks etc.) on the outside. This differed from the ladies watch, which only had its serial number on the outside. The other difference was that the case serial number matched the movement serial number.


http://longinespassion.com/oldlonginespassion/Longines_Passion/Tre_tacche.html

I began to look for other Longines from the 1930s and 1940s with serial numbers on the outside of the case-back. It turned out that some duo-dials from the 1930s also had this feature. The examples that I found were not gold but an unmarked white metal, possibly stainless steel. Like the gold Tre Tacche, the case and movement serial numbers matched.


http://auctions.lyonandturnbull.com/auction-lot-detail/LONGINES---A-gentlemans-super-solo-duo-dial-wrist-watch-Dial/366 493 / 159982

The mismatched serial numbers of the ladies watch seemed to suggest that something was not original. As these cases were highly uncommon, a replaced case-back did not seem likely. This left the movement. For an entire movement to be replaced, one would expect that it incurred some serious damage. Seeing as the case and dial were in decent condition, this seemed unlikely.

Due to the scarcity of gold cases, I suspected that an extract from Longines’ archive could clear things up to some extent. If the movement was not original to the case, it almost certainly would not have come from another gold watch. Maybe unsurprisingly, Longines’ extract indicated that the movement was originally housed in a stainless steel case.



How did this movement find its way into such a case? One possibility is that the original dial and movement suffered from enough degradation to merit a swap. Another faint possibility is that the steel watch returned to Saint-Imier in order to be re-cased in gold. A second extract (pending) using the case serial number should confirm or deny this.

Despite the mismatched components, this is a significant watch. It is one of very few ladies-size, gold Sei Tacches. Though small, the quality of the case is exceptional. I can only hope that it is cherished as a fine example of Longines’ commitment to case development, in the 1940s.

 

Really nice and interesting research @DirtyDozen12-- making me wish even more I could find a watch like this
(I should claim dibs, just for the record, even though I can readily guess Ms. Noelekal will never want to part with it).

 

Thank you @Syrte. It is neat piece and I felt that it deserved a bit more attention.

Was dibs not implied by my post? Alas, it might look better on your wrist anyway.

 

Kudos @DirtyDozen12. Not only a clinic on how to do research but a nice background on Mrs N's watch.

 

Okay, I agree we should recognize implied dibs whenever someone dedicates a meaningful amount of time and attention to somebody else's watch-- in all fairness they should have priority over the smart aleck barging in and saying dibs after all is said and done.
But for sure it would fit my wrist much better

 

Thanks @Larry S, I appreciate it.

@Syrte I was really kidding. Besides, you are the present overlord of all things small and (excuse my Latin) sex-notched.

 

Er.... not sure that's reallly Latin but one of those things better not asked
Let's say I'll take it as a compliment