- Posts
- 2,510
- Likes
- 3,729
rcs914
·Just because one is a professional historian, doesn't make them an professional horologist. On the other hand, I don't think I would have attacked him directly like that on a public website without reference to some of the evidence posted here and elsewhere so he could see for himself.
It was not written as an attack on his character or professional credentials - it wasn't meant as an attack at all. But as you said, when someone has "skin in the game" it puts them in a much more defensive position. It also made me reconsider my reply that I was writing to his deleted comment. Essentially I wasn't trying to start an internet fight - I was surprised that he commented to me. But overall I find it fascinating that these kits have been discussed on an number of blogs, etc. in relationship to the re-issued timepiece, and no one even thought to raise the point "Ya know, that really doesn't look like a 1940s watch".
This is what I was going to reply, until I thought better of it:
"John - obviously you deleted your reply to me, and while I recognize that you are a professional historian, it doesn't mean that watches are your specialty. The Milus Snow Star that is included in this kit has a combination of features that simply didn't exist on any watch in 1942 - or even 1952, and didn't start to be common until the late 50s/early 60s. I'm not an expert myself, but the movement in this watch has been identified by others to likely be an ETA 2048, which wasn't produced until the late 1950s."
I didn't delete my original comment - but I did soften how I wrote it:
"Perhaps Vietnam era? That watch does not appear to be made in the 1940s - it has multiple features that were not common on watches till the 1960s."
