Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DS 0,1 and 1E. All in one spreadsheet.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tim. View Post
    Thanks, clearly the movements weren't used in order, no doubt they came back from the COSC in a batch that was just used randomly. Either that or they cased up a COSC movement at the ratio of 1/25,000, which I doubt. Most likely both movements and cases were produced in large batches so the correlation between movement date and case number will never be precise, rather more of a general trend whereby a given set of case numbers won't occur before or after a certain date, impossible to know those dates without a much larger data set than we have access to. The spreadsheet has however thrown up a few watches that are clearly anomalous or outside of the general trend.
    I suspect that the case backs were made in large numbers, and could fit more than one style of case (TC or otherwise). The engraving of the case number is different than the engraving of the model name or reference number. My guess is: there was probably a huge supply of case backs, from which the necessary number was pulled for the production of a new model, without need to keep the case numbers sequential.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
      I suspect that the case backs were made in large numbers, and could fit more than one style of case (TC or otherwise). The engraving of the case number is different than the engraving of the model name or reference number. My guess is: there was probably a huge supply of case backs, from which the necessary number was pulled for the production of a new model, without need to keep the case numbers sequential.
      Maybe but for the most part they are sequential, although I would agreed there are gaps and anomalies. Also there are different case back designs being produced at the same time, the case numbers on the 2824 spreadsheet don't intersect with the numbers on the DS 1/E spreadsheet, except of course, for those DS's with the 2824 movement, but the 2824 Alpine case numbers for instance, are a world apart. As I said, the data set is too small to reach any concrete conclusions, as always, more questions than answers.
      Last edited by Tim.; 02-28-2018, 06:38 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Atfter a long wait, a Diastar 1 Chronometer is on its way to me to join my others.

        I was cautious while looking at it, especially with the "chronometer" text below the "officially certified". The picture in the black and white image from Brad gave me sufficient confidence to buy, along with the visible numbers on the movement:
        • AS 1858
        • 903 date code
        • partially visible chronometer number
        I think the date code (March 1969?) may make this the earliest Diastar 1 Chronometer on Tim's spreadsheet.

        Some marks on the rotor but doesnt look too bad internally.

        Here are some sellers photos, I will put some better quality pics up after it arrives.

        Mick
        Last edited by Mick; 05-15-2019, 02:12 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mickhannam View Post
          [*]902 date code
          Mick, it appears to be 903 to my eyes...maybe my monitor resolution is off.
          Congrats on a cool find!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post

            Mick, it appears to be 903 to my eyes...maybe my monitor resolution is off.
            Congrats on a cool find!!
            Brad,

            Your eyes and monitor are fine, my typing less so :-)

            Definately March 1969, "903" - i will go back and edit.

            Thanks, for the compliment on the find.

            Mick

            Comment


            • #21
              Congratulations Mick and welcome to the vintage Diastar chronometer club. They are one of my favourite early Diastars.

              Originally posted by mickhannam View Post
              After a long wait, a Diastar 1 Chronometer is on its way to me to join my others.


              Mick
              Solve all your doubts through question mode.

              Comment


              • #22
                Wow, a dated AS chronometer, that's a rarity right there, congratulations Mick. It appears the COSC# is either 8 or 3 134, if so, it will mean, as one might expect, that you and Marcus have movements that were assembled and dated by Rado in March and November of '69 and submitted for testing in a batch lot, as Marcus' COSC# is 1551. This gap in manufacture dates and out of order COSC numbers leads to the idea that Rado did some preliminary testing of their own and put aside the movements they expected to pass, over an extended period, before submitting them for testing. Please confirm the COSC and case numbers when you get a chance. I'll have to try and find that spreadsheet and add it in.
                Last edited by Tim.; 05-16-2019, 07:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It's arrived!

                  Here are some photos, which I think will cause some head scratching with regard to the Chronometer number.

                  Case No: 165911
                  Date No: 903
                  Movement: AS 1858
                  Chronometer #: 58 134 (is that a deliberate gap between 58 and 134, or is it just the typeface?)
                  Stamp inside case back: S followed by 61.1.17

                  So everything looks fine, but the chronometer number is not in sequence with the ones from Marcus. The case number does however seem to be in sequence.
                  Is it possible the case back was manufactured on the 17 Jan 1961? Is the S for Schild?

                  There are no marks from watchmakers inside the case back, so it may have never had a serious service. But there are small scratch marks on the rotor and one of the movement securing screws and clamp are missing. The gasket was long gone.

                  The anchor moves

                  Crown movement became stiffer and stiffer when setting the date, so stopped doing it. I also notice the hour hand seems slightly in front of its correct position. Will need to send it for a service I think. Timekeeping looks good and I found a gasket in my box already. Will wear her for a day and see how things go.

                  Mick
                  Last edited by Mick; 05-18-2019, 12:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mick View Post
                    I
                    Chronometer #: 58134 (is that a deliberate gap between 58 and 134, or is it just the typeface?)
                    Stamp inside case back: S followed by 61.1.17

                    So everything looks fine, but the chronometer number is not in sequence with the ones from Marcus. The case number does however seem to be in sequence.
                    Is it possible the case back was manufactured on the 17 Jan 1961? Is the S for Schild?
                    I think the chronometer number has a deliberate gap. I have seen this on some other chronometers, but not sure if they were all by Rado.

                    I'm really curious about that apparent date marking on the case back!
                    I strongly doubt it was made then...maybe it is a service person's mark with a reference number to an invoice?
                    Last edited by Watch Carefully; 05-17-2019, 10:27 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post


                      I'm really curious about that apparent date marking on the case back!
                      I strongly doubt it was made then...maybe it is a service person's mark with a reference number to an invoice?
                      Brad,

                      I agree with your thoughts, it didn't really make sense to have an American date format in the back of a Swiss watch. I guess I was clutching at straws, trying to come up with something.

                      Mick

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post

                        I think the chronometer number has a deliberate gap. I have seen this on some other chronometers, but not sure if they were all by Rado.
                        Brad,

                        Perhaps the 58 is a prefix and the 134 is the actual chronometer number. Do you recollect how many different "prefix" numbers you might have seen in the past? Maybe they refer to either batches submitted for testing, the watchmaker submitting for testing, or the actual test houses (unlikeley there were 58 test houses) - just guessing?

                        Certainly puzzling given the 4 digit chronometer number on Marcus's movements, which seem to be dated 8-9 months later.

                        Its going for a full service with a trusted individal. The lume has gone and the printed minute markers from 7 to 9 are missing. I dont intend to replace the dail though due to the unique reversal of the "officially certified" and "chronometer" wording. I doubt I would ever find that dial again even if I wanted to.

                        Mick
                        Last edited by Mick; 05-20-2019, 06:34 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi!


                          The chronometer test in Switzerland is a test of the movement, not of the completed watch like in Germany.
                          So the registration number of the chronometer test is always engraved in the movement.

                          The COSC with itīs standardised test procedure for chronometers came in 1973.
                          Older Swiss chronometer movements had been certified at the Swiss observatories Neuenburg/Neufchatel and Genf/Geneve up to 1967.
                          Then, seven officiary offices took over the chronometer certifying.The test procedures had been possibly different.
                          Biel/Bienne is the nearest to Lengnau/Longeau, so Rado chronometer movements were probably certified there.
                          1973, these officiary offices were merged to the COSC, which is sited in La Chaux-de-Fonds with additional offices in Biel/Bienne, Le Locle and Genf/Geneve.
                          Last edited by mike184; 05-20-2019, 08:56 AM.
                          Best regards, Mike
                          vintage-rado.de

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mike184 View Post
                            Hi!


                            The chronometer test in Switzerland is a test of the movement, not of the completed watch like in Germany.
                            So the registration number of the chronometer test is always engraved in the movement.
                            Hi Mike,

                            Thanks, I am still not clear if the movements were submitted in batches by watchmakers (i.e. Rado), or the maker of the movement themselves (A. Schild as its a AS1858 movement).

                            This particular chronometer from March 1969 has a number in two parts, they are separated by a deliberate and intentional gap "58 134". Marcus's later 1969 movement has a 4 digit chronometer number (1551).

                            http://www.equationoftime.com/forums...photoid=579128

                            I am trying to understand the significance of the "58", if indeed it is a prefix. It also is entirely possible that the numbering scheme just changed completely between March 69 and Nov 69 and that the "58" is not a prefix at all. However, the likleyhood of 58,134 chronometers having been produced by Mar 1969 is unknown to me.

                            When we look at Tim's spreadsheet the chronometer numbers seem to run in sequence with some anomolies, a 3 digit chronometer number for March 69 seems feasible given the 1551 number on Marcus's movement produced 8 months later. But that doesnt explain the "58" prefix, or whatever else the "58" signifies.

                            Hope that makes some sense.

                            Mick
                            Last edited by Mick; 05-20-2019, 09:45 AM. Reason: Change of statement on quantity of chronometers made before March 1969

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Mick,
                              I think the chronometer number is just a 5-digit sequence, not a 2+3.
                              Movements were submitted for testing by the brand, not the maker of the ebauche (Schild, ETC, etc).
                              B

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
                                Mick,
                                I think the chronometer number is just a 5-digit sequence, not a 2+3.
                                Movements were submitted for testing by the brand, not the maker of the ebauche (Schild, ETC, etc).
                                B
                                Brad,

                                Ok, I guess the numbering system must have changed somewhere between March and November 1969.

                                If we look at Tim's spreadsheet and ignore the anomolies (out of sequence dates, etc), the numbers start with Marcus's "1551" in November 1969 and rise to Tim's "9620 "by August 1974. Presumably thats an output that we would all consider appropriate for submission and certification.

                                The numbering on my chronometer must come from a completely different numbering scheme. I guess we will never know the answer.

                                BTW, I only realised that the Diastar 1E represents the change to ETA movement after looking at the spreadsheet. Not relavent to my watch but useful information.

                                Mick

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X