I found a strange one at Portobello today. It has an irregular bezel insert. It is a countdown insert rather than the usual (useless) dot insert. In addition, it also has BOTH a white triangle AND a radium hash at 12 -- visible, I suppose, in both daylight and darkness. Very very useful insert as inserts go. The steel bezel itself is 100% original and correct. The insert is very old and seemingly original to the bezel (no way you could pry it out and reinsert it). It sits perfectly in the bezel and has exactly the same profiles as the standard insert. It is milled bakelite and very clearly factory (or professionally) made. If this insert has appeared before, I sure couldn't find any examples on the web. It could be a special order of some sort. Knowing how people here think, I am sure there will be suggestions of aftermarket or (not implausibly) borrowed from another watch. It just doesn't seem like that is the case. It's obviously very old and a perfect fit in every way (and note how insert font matches dial font). At the time this insert would have been produced (if it hasn't always been on the watch it's been there for decades), this would have been a very cheap watch to replace. Does this odd insert tie into the mysterious history of the S.58. At the time the S.58 was in the Zenith catalog, Zenith was selling lots of watched to Carelli and other military suppliers. Did they want to see a watch with a practical (rather than vestigial) bezel. Any thoughts? Best, Hurley. PS. The lume in the hands is much darker in person; flash issues. H

 

Have never seen it before. I hope someone here has more info on it. Great catch

 

Thank you, Nobel!

Ok. Getting somewhere. After posting on an Italian forum -- I suspected that Cairelli might be involved for the reasons noted above -- I got some useful info. I did not realize that Cairelli produced a number of its own dive watches for the Marina Militare (in addition to sourcing watches from zenith, UG, triton, etc). So they had the capacity to do a special order insert themselves. In fact, they made a custom bakelite insert for a Triton dive watch apparently. Beyond that, however, I found several examples of Cairelli dive watches with the same odd configuration at 12 as this watch -- a glow in the dark slash and a painted triangle. Not dispositive, of course, but interesting.

here is URL: https://www.kijiji.it/annunci/orolog...elli/103746958

Best, H

 

I very much doubt that there is any Cairelli connection, and suspect that the original bezel was either damaged or missing, and that a replacement was found. I wonder about the originality of the hand lume, as well.

Having said all of that, it was certainly a great catch for short money.

Cheers,

Tony C.

 

I agree that positing a Cairelli connection is speculative (except that they were indisputably hawking Zeniths to the AMI during this period, specialized in dive watches, and had the capacity to make/source high grade parts themselves0. And while replacing a lost bezel may seem like the easy answer, there are a few things to reckon with: (1) this is an ultra high quality MILLED and filled bakelite and radium insert that conforms precisely to the contours of the original and fits exactly into the bezel; (2) it is obviously very old given the extent and type of wear that it shows; and (3) would have been very expensive (if not impossible) to have custom made -- all for a relatively cheap watch that could just be replaced (not to mention that it would have been easy enough to source a spare part from Zenith at the time). In view of all the jockeying for dive watch contracts at the time (testing by the USN, MN and others of Enicar Sea Pearls, TR900s, Tudors, Bulovas and Rolexes), my guess is that Zenith or someone like Cairelli produced this as a sample. The original insert on the S58 was completely useless for diving; it would have needed an upgrade to get a military contract (and all the companies, including Zenith, were desperate for military contracts then). Again, think of what it would have taken to produce a milled and filled bakelite and radium bezel back in the 60s that conformed exactly to the size and shape of the original bezel (and that replicates the fonts of the dial). And who would have gone to that trouble for a cheapish watch -- especially when spare parts were plentiful.

PS. the flash has made the fill seem much whiter than it is, but I have no doubt the watch was relumed at some point (it does not glow at all, however -- except the radium hash, slightly).

 

I would also suggest that the uncertain history of the S.58 is worth considering, too. The fact that the strange font of the S in S.58 is nearly identical to the Sikorsky flying "S" logo, combined with the fact that Zenith was supplying AMI helo pilots with chronographs at the same time -- all in an environment when all the big watchmakers were trying to find new ways to sell watches to militaries that were dramatically decreasing their 40s and early 50s era watch purchasing levels (the S.58/H-34 was being sold to no less than 17 militaries in the 50s and 60s) -- suggests to me that the S.58 may have been intended to be appealing to military procurement officers. Indeed, I think Manfred R has confirmed as much. Anyway, I've been at this for many years. I am very familiar with the "odd watches must be frankened" instinct -- I've evinced it myself. However, I've come to realize that strange stuff happened over the years....

 

I can put this line of speculation the rest. From a much earlier post that I made on the topic:

Dear Sir,

Many thanks for your interest in ZENITH watches.

The collection " S 58 " means S = Super water-resistant up to 150 meters and 58 for the year of launching the model.
So nothing to do with helicopter Sikorsky S 58.

With my best regards.

Marc Roethlisberger

ZENITH INTERNATIONAL SA

Customer Service

Really? Can you provide some supporting photos of examples of S.58 with military markings on the cases?

 

yes, I have read that thread before (I have about a half dozen S58s). I have zero confidence in anything the current company says about its history in the 1950s. ("Zenith was purchased by LVMH in November 1999, becoming one of several brands in their watch and jewellery division.") For one thing, Zenith collectors have documented S.58s before 1958, even accounting for the variabilities in serial number charts. For another, there is no logical reason that Zenith would tout the random year of introduction of a watch on BOTH the dial and in an elaborate casebook engraving. Frankly, it was arguably a (Sikorsky) trademark violation. Perhaps that's why it was never publicly documented. Who knows? But I don't think the modern incarnation of Zenith has the slightest idea about what was going on at Zenith 60 years ago.

 

My only question is how Marc is related to Ben...? (;

 

Sorry. Missed the last line of your reply. Will provide cite to Manfred's book or article (I forget which) when I get home. But, to be clear, I merely said it was designed to be appealing, never that it was issued. But the Cairelli AMIs are a strong indication of Zenith's interest in such buyers -- 2500 units to Cairelli (the Italian version of G&S) was substantial for them at the time.

And, as for the insert, the small radium hash may be the best clue. The average (or even the above average) person did not have ready access to radium in 1960. It was not impossible to get then, but it was not lying around.

 

Ridiculous. You really expect people to believe that a major watch manufacturer created a model as a tie-in to an aircraft manufactured by a separate company, with the same model designation, and never advertised is as such? Please.

The response from Roethlisberger is by far the most logical. And to argue that he is lying to protect the company is equally ridiculous, as if Sikorsky had ever had a problem with trademark infringement, they would have acted decades ago.

 

Yes, but there are many Zenith Cairelli chronographs that have been seen, and circulate in the market. The claim that this (S.58) could be an aborted (or small run) example of the same relationship has no serious support, that I can see.

 

I agree that it is strange, and may not be true. But it is also odd that they would have randomly decided to tout the year 1958 on the front and back of the watch. The fact is, they were, like their peer firms, interested in military buyers (and, indeed, had been selling to the military since 1903 or earlier; I have a nice Zenith imperial Russian navy engraved piece from 1903, a signal corps from a bit later, and an AMI). The extraordinary coincidence of the apparent use of the Sikorsky logo in that configuration (the S58 was among Sikorsky's best-selling military aircraft at the time) combined with the fact that they were already selling chronos to S58 pilots in Italy then, in my mind, makes it a much better theory than the notion that Zenith suddenly had some inexplicable desire to celebrate the birth year of a watch of no real distinction, both on the dial and on the casebook. With all due respect, that is the unlikely theory. My guess is that they never got permission to use the Sikorsky mark and so could not advertise it. (Rolex had a similar incident with the Submariner name if you recall.) Or perhaps they just wanted a subtle design cue and not an express connection to Sikorsky. Now, none of that may be true. But the "Happy birthday 1958" theory is even less likely in my book. And Zenith does have a rich aviation instrument history that extends to 1960 according to its website....

 

Needless to say, I'm not trying to prove anything and have gotten quite off track. No-one can be sure of the origin of the Flying S.58 logo at this point. However, the Zenith letter certainly does not resolve it.

I was only really interested in figuring out where that bizarre but seemingly original insert came from. It was not "found" but meticulously machined out of bakelite by someone with access to radium and the exact contours and dimensions of the original insert -- and shows every sign of being either very old or contemporaneous with the watch. That's the real mystery!

PS I don't think Marc R was lying. I think they have no idea about the history of the company at that time.

 

This is interesting. Hopefully more zen-masters will come in with ideas. One thing I've picked up through members on this forum in regards to vintage is when you get through all the countless franken & fake, there's always possibilty of the exception to the rule and so nothing is absolute.

 

No, Roethlisberger has provided a perfectly clear and reasonable explanation for the designation. You, on the other hand, have provided no actual contrary evidence whatsoever.

Unsupportable nonsense. Again, the notion that a major manufacturer would create a tie-in of the type you suggest without marketing the watch as such is laughable. Please try to name another serial production watch from that era that featured a tie-in to another product that was not marketed as such.

Yeah, sure thing. Zenith requested permission from Sikorsky to use the name, the request was denied, and, after internal deliberation at the highest level, they decided: "Fuck it – we'll use it anyway. Oh, and we won't advertise the connection, so our customers will have to guess why we used the designation."

Quite a hypothesis.

 

PLOT THICKENS!

Just got an email from a fellow whose club owns and S-53 with a Zenith cockpit clock. Perhaps a one-off or perhaps Zenith was a Sikorsky supplier at one time. Trying to get photos. Sikorsky is only 2 hours from NYC. Maybe I could see someone when next I'm there.

 

Sort of like: Hey, 1958 is a really cool year!! Let's put it on the front of our new watch and REALLY BIG on the back. Forget about the fact that the watch was actually introduced in 1956. Oh yeah, and we will use the logo of a company we used to supply cockpit clocks to, but don't read anything into that. And forget about the fact that the Italian pilots who are wearing our chronos fly S58s. There is nothing to see here, look the the other way, "these aren't the droids you're looking for...." Maybe.

 

The desperation is palpable. Why don't you spare everyone your hopeful hypotheses, and as of yet completely unsupported anecdotes, and come back when you actually have some solid, supporting evidence.

You can begin by providing evidence that the model was introduced in 1956, as I suspect you and/or your source are arriving at the conclusion by movement serial numbers, and any modestly sophisticated collector could explain the potential problem with that.

Oh, and by the way, as you are apparently ignorant of the fact that 1958 was a rather important year for watch manufacturers, and a number of them created special models in honor of it. So, it may well be that Zenith wanted to introduce a notable new model, highly resistant to various elements, as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year

 

Not to take any side here but why would Zenith create a Sub for pilots? Pilot watches have always been desirable on their own right and it would make more sense.

Big crown for time adjustment with gloves, anti- magnetic quality, tachymeter... why a sub?