Kind of tempted to comment on this asking him about his source for a manufacture date. Also the information about Milus losing their records seems to be convenient if they actually lost it in the 1950s and not later. It seems pretty unequivocal that the watch dates from the 1960s.

 

Not to throw fuel on the fire but the incabloc balance wasn't popular until the '50s although invented in the mid '30s. Could be an ETA 1080 (my first guess at a glance) also still not available until the '50s. Also the fact that it is a center second...........
Add everything up: design, layout, calendar feature, movement - points to a watch from the mid '60s......... in my opinion.

 

That is not an incabloc, or an ETA 1080, but it's an ETA 2408 which has two advanced features that didn't exist before the 1960s: movable stud carrier and direct centre second. The instant date is also a later feature as well.

Here's the contemporary automatic counterpart of the 2408: http://www.watch-wiki.net/index.php?title=ETA_2472

 

by Incabloc, I meant shock protected, sorry if there are any terms mixed. Balance jewel seems to be floating under spring protection.

 

I suspect the story of the subject barter watch as being from WW2 is the result of "Chinese whispers".

That watch design is not from the 1940s for many reasons stated, and the WW2 factor has only been put out by journalists.

I do believe that there were two types of EEKs, I don't believe that they are from WW2 era. More likely Cold War era for the coins, Vietnam era for the watch as noted below.

A most interesting thread. I'd like to see a definitive conclusion.

 

Gotta love bullshit militaria.

Is it me, or does all of the crap in that kit look like it came out of a candy machine?

 

It appears to be the "historian" who purported to have introduced Milus to these "1942 E&E kits".

 

Jim, interestingly that you're here, have you heard/known of such kits for the RAAF during the VN era?

 

Yes it's odd I never really questioned it at the time, I picked the set up at auction about 5 years ago knowing nothing of the Milus Heritage kits, I put a post on a FB group & was contacted by JV & Milus ..... I knew the watch looked late in design although know of other centre seconds from the same date & just fed into all the stories & put it away in the safe as I knew I was never going to wear it

Found one more set in the US Naval History & Heritage Command Washington DC
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...n_Barter_Kit_South_East_Asia_(5355238650).jpg

Also found reference to the ETA 2450 series (the 2408 being the manual date model) as early as the 1950's but not the 40's

Regards
Mr.H

 

No, the standard kits were based on survival and included signal mirror, matches, fishing line/hooks, whistle, compass, pencil, paper etc.
I can't remember all of the contents but when the time expired ones had to be disposed of I remember the lollies (candy) like barley sugar still tasted fine.

I was closely associated with the RAAF escape and survival systems for some time and never heard a whisper of anything like that.

 

Sorry, I should have said the coins were for use in the Cold War era (well, probably, just my guess).

 

Well, I poked the bear yesterday and commented on that post of John Vargas' to the Milus Facebook page. He replied this morning and has since deleted his reply. I had posted the following:

"Perhaps Vietnam era? That watch was not made in the 1940s - it's definitely from the mid 1960s."

to which he replied, and I am paraphrasing a bit since I didn't do a screen capture:

"when you are a professional historian maybe you will post things that aren't unfounded and uninformed opinion" - that's the gist, but not really exactly what he said. The "professional historian" part was definitely in there, and he was basically stating that I had no idea what I was talking about.

 

But J.Vargas seems far from dishonest or being a fool, just take a look at his Allexperts.com rating & the time he gives for free to answer questions ..
http://www.allexperts.com/expert.cgi?m=12&catID=669&expID=85531
You don't usually find replies so in depth & knowledgeable ..

Regards
Mr.H

 

Ad hominem attack is not that professional. A true historian would also cite the sources for his assertion. He may be helpful and knowledgeable in his field of interest, but he doesn't sound like an academic so what he says is most likely not always true.

 

My feeling is that he is biased with skin in the game somewhere. That can easily obscure someone's views.

The fact he removed it afterwards might show he looked up the movement and realized he is wrong. As he might have skin in the game most likely from Milus he might be in a legal quandary.