When you are searching for a high end vintage dresswatch with a inhouse movement, soon or later you will end up looking for the beautiful vintage Patek Phillippe Calatravas. Well for sure that was what I did for quite a while.
The reference cal. 570 in 35mm has the right sight and the best or at least one of the most beautiful dial designs ever!
Unfortunately the prices are high so they are out of reach for me, especailly if you are looking for a stainless steel case and a central second. Is it a reason to give up, like a lot of us while looking for rare vintage chronographs from UG or Heuer in todays market?

One reason why I really love collecting vintage watches is that sometimes incredible things might happen and if you open minded, you can find really beautiful pieces you wouldn´t expect. Like this one...





That is my new Record Calatrava I just picked up some days ago from a local dealer here in Germany.
It just have everything I was looking for. The right size (35mm), case design and material (ss), a predistine dualtone dial in incredible condition (aka PP Calatrava 570), some of the nicest dauphin hands I have ever seen (with small and thin lume ), a signed crown (R), a nice signed waterproofed case back and last but not least a beautiful and rare Record inhouse movement.

The automatic movement is signed cal. 174 and has two rotors. I just went to my watchmaker to have a look at it, looks great. The amplitude was high and only around 10 sek. time difference for the day. No watchmaker sign inside the case back, so I guess it is all original.


I just found a awesome movement shot on the web in Japan that shows the real beauty of this rare automatic movement.


Here is a french advertisment from the 50´s.

 

That's a real beauty!
This brand is not often shown so here is mine... But not really the same style

 

...And Record a "high-end watch"

 

does this mean I can't call my Seiko diver a "submariner" any more?? (actually, because it has a red and blue bezel, one of the guys at work keeps calling my Seiko a "Pepsi".... and I really don't like Rolex watches so I wish he lay off)

And yes, I too am getting kind of sick of every plain & basic 1950s 35mm-ish men's stainless watch being called a Calatrava.

 

That has more to do with the bezel colors than the brand.

Or any watch from the 30's or 40's being called art deco.

 

You're mistaken if you don't believe that they made some high-end watches, and the OP's example is very interesting and uncommon. Some of their chronographs were also of very high quality.

 

The dual pawl automatic winding system alone puts this in a league with IWC's Pellaton. (see pic from OP below)

 

Well, I stand by my pot-stirring

"What constitutes a high-end watch" are really the lamest of watch debates and should be kept on WUS, so I'll just leave now

 

It's really not complicated. No one on this thread has suggested that Record was a "high-end" manufacturer, in the sense that PP, AP and V&C were. But as you surely know, many companies produced at least a few watches that were high-class by any reasonable definition.

No one would call Longines a "high-end" manufacturer, but who would argue that some of their chronographs and (rare) chronometers weren't at least comparable to the quailty of watches produced by the Big Three? The quality of Record (a mid-range company, broadly speaking) was typically below that of Longines (a mid-high company), but even in the case of the former, there were some exceptions, which is why your initial, dismissive implication is inaccurate.

To illustrate the point further, I'll use Gübelin as an example. Most collectors think of it as a retailer, which it was/is. But they also produced their own watches, and finished outsourced movements in-house. Most were of "mid-high" quality, but to celebrate their 100th anniversary, they produced a special "Jubilé" edition in very limited numbers. I have written extensively about one that I own, but the salient point is that the hand-wind versions of these models were in every sense as fine, or "high-end", as those produced by the Big Three. In fact, the superbly finished movements used were precisely the same base caliber as the one used by AP in its best HW watches of the '40s and '50s. It was also used by Patek and AP in competition chronometers and (by the former) in some perpetual calendars.

 

Nice watch, and pick up.

Even Bremont have been known to be calling their watches Calatrava style

 

Well, actually before I started this thread I wasn´t sure to post it here or in the "other watch brand forum".
But the watch design is so close to the original Big calatravas from the 40`ies & 50´ies that it can not be denied...


Foto: Bulang&Sons

Of course Record has not been a highend brand as PP in these days, but they were a well known and established swiss brand with interesting inhouse movements.
One reason to post the watch here were some interesting historic facts and overlaps towards PP. For example the waterproofed caseback. When I first looked at the Record I wasn´t sure if the case back was original, even if it is clearly signed. But if you look at PP reference 2508 you find the first time a (for sure more elegant) Taubert/Borgel waterproof case design by PP.


Foto: hqmilton

And in 1953, that means at the same time (!) the Record advertisment above was published, PP realeased with reference 2526 their first automatic movement. Ben Clymer has written an interesting article at Hodinkee that shows the beauty of the fantastic caliber 12-600AT.
Again, of course the finishing of the famous 12-600 AT movement is on a higher level, but both companies started with their own automatic rotor movement at nearly the same time (two years after Rolex patent for its perpetual mechanism run out).

But there are two things you will not find looking at PP. What I like about the Record is the central second, which gives the watch a more modern look in comparision to the 2526. I couldn´t find out at what time PP produced their first automatic movement with a central second? I would appreciate some further information here.
And last but not least the Record has a stainless steel case, which in these times was uncommon, at least if you look at PP.
So I hope some of you will agree that from a historic point of view this comparision is quite reasonable and interesting. Well it is at least for me.

 

Look at the wuality of the regulator, gooseneck like Patek !

 

I have collected vintage watches for forty years, with over 20 Gubelin. Why have they not got much respect for their quality and or appreciated ? UG has gained inteterest, my Pateks seem stagnant ! I value your opinion.
Im frustrated with my Gubelin collection !

 

Isn't record the less expensive sub brand of longines? Not saying it's a bad watch, I quite like it. Perhaps I am just instigating a bit. The difference between record and longines is most likely greater in most collectors minds than the tudor rolex gap.

 

Before 1961 Record and Longines operated separately. Longines acquired a major stake in Record after 1961 and so they shared movements/case designs, similar to the Zenith/Movado connection. Probably why you can pick up a Record/Movado for less and still get great quality. Wittnauer was also of a similar vein, having a connection with Longines as well.

It's like how you have companies back in the day, such as Mido, Certina and Cyma, who's watches came close to Rolex prices and were on par with them...and now, due to Swatch acquisition and ETA movements everywhere, are just brands. That's happened to Longines too.

 

I see your point I guess my thinking was it wouldn't have been a lower quality sub brand if it had been marketed as higher end when they acquired it. Just a thought...

 

Well there's plenty of reasons for that - you can make your own brand suffer, you might end up losing money because you don't make as much money; again, this comes down to financial reasons, as well as perceived views. It's unfortunate that a lot of excellent watches fall through the cracks simply because the brand isn't as well known/popular.

Case in point: I've recently started selling some watches that I find in lots/auctions/garage sales at vintage markets over the weekend. If I have an Omega, people will snap them up quite quickly. A TAG Heuer? Oh yes, people will get them. A Tissot? Not as fast.

 

FYI:

Wittnauer was receiving Longines dials / hands / movements to install into US made cases.

TAG (Techniques d'Avant Garde - a racing company) bought Heuer in 1985.

Tissot merged with Omega in the early 1930's and formed SSIH.

 

@ulackfocus - thank you for the quick history check! Just reiterating that some brands are more well known then others, even if they are more modern/older. This also probably goes back to that argument where fashion watches with big names and shocking quartz movements in them sell in far more excess than a good quality mechanical type...

Back to the main topic: the OP's watch is a stunner, and I particularly like how the bridges are set out!