Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mick View Post

    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
    I'm curious what scheme was followed also. I have these 3 vintage Rado chronometer movements:
    Date code 008, ETA 2782 with 18XX chronometer number, from a Diastar 1E
    Ca. 1965 56-H with a Schild 1701 and what appears to be 2,051,XXX number
    Ca. 1958-62 56-H with a Schild 1361M and 294,XXX number.

    Three different calibers, four different lengths of chronometer number.

    Here is an image borrowed form the web which shows a 5-digit chronom. #:



    It seems kinds random, but I suspect there was a numbering scheme yearly--maybe the company submitting movements for testing had to reserve/receive registration numbers from the testing body. Maybe different observatories had different number lengths...
    Lots of questions.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post

      I'm curious what scheme was followed also. I have these 3 vintage Rado chronometer movements:
      Date code 008, ETA 2782 with 18XX chronometer number, from a Diastar 1E
      Ca. 1965 56-H with a Schild 1701 and what appears to be 2,051,XXX number
      Ca. 1958-62 56-H with a Schild 1361M and 294,XXX number.

      Three different calibers, four different lengths of chronometer number.

      It seems kinds random, but I suspect there was a numbering scheme yearly--maybe the company submitting movements for testing had to reserve/receive registration numbers from the testing body. Maybe different observatories had different number lengths...
      Lots of questions.
      Brad,

      Thanks for the info, there must be an old guy in Switzerland that has the answer to all this. Maybe one day we will find him, before its too late.

      I won't post any more on this as I think I risk hijacking a DS 0,1 1E thread as a chronometer thread.

      Thanks for all the comments.

      Mick

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi!


        Standardised registration numbers for chronometer movements came with the COSC, so not before 1973.
        Before, each observatory and later each officiary office had itīs own ones.
        So IMHO the differences in those numbers come from different offices, e.g. one from Biel/Bienne, another one from Neuenburg/Neufchatel.

        At that time, Rado bought just ebauches, movements in parts, from the movement producers - they finished the parts, assembled them to movements and regulated them themselves. That explains the high quality of AS or ETA movements in Rado watches in compare to the same movements in other watches. No problem for a former movement company.
        So the certifying of their chronometer movements was ordered by Rado.
        Last edited by mike184; 05-25-2019, 08:18 PM.
        Best regards, Mike
        vintage-rado.de

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mike184 View Post
          Hi!


          Standardised registration numbers for chronometer movements came with the COSC, so not before 1973.
          Before, each observatory and later each officiary office had itīs own ones.
          So IMHO the differences in those numbers come from different offices, e.g. one from Biel/Bienne, another one from Neuenburg/Neufchatel.

          At that time, Rado bought just ebauches, movements in parts, from the movement producers - they finished the parts, assembled them to movements and regulated them themselves. That explains the high quality of AS or ETA movements in Rado watches in compare to the same movements in other watches. No problem for a former movement company.
          So the certifying of their chronometer movements was ordered by Rado.
          Mike,

          Thanks for the explanation.

          Mick

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post

            I'm curious what scheme was followed also. I have these 3 vintage Rado chronometer movements:
            Date code 008, ETA 2782 with 18XX chronometer number, from a Diastar 1E
            Ca. 1965 56-H with a Schild 1701 and what appears to be 2,051,XXX number
            Ca. 1958-62 56-H with a Schild 1361M and 294,XXX number.
            My AS 1361N has 294024 - if itīs a 9.

            AS 1361N 56-H Chronometer 0.jpg
            Best regards, Mike
            vintage-rado.de

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mike184 View Post

              My AS 1361N has 294024 - if itīs a 9.

              AS 1361N 56-H Chronometer 0.jpg
              Mine appears to be 294438



              BIGGER image:
              http://www.fototime.com/E2A6E56B62C7FA5/orig.jpg

              Comment

              Working...
              X