Theory for why we have DS1 and DS1/E

[Tim.]

When I recently received my DS1 Chronometer I remember a conversation in the post about why some were DS1 and others DS1/E and a similar conversation a while back when Jose bought his. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe we reached any conclusion on that question. It may have been asked and answered long ago on this forum somewhere, if so forgive my musings.
Today I received, among other treasures from Scott a DS1/E project watch, it’s mostly all there just needs a crown and stem and a tidy up, oh and a 7 row. This is my first DS1/E, so it got me to thinking on this question again, since I now had 2 identical watches to compare, but are they identical?

Both have the same shaped TC bezel, both have flat crystals and ok one has a white dial and one black but other than that even the dials are the same.
20170510_120212 (1).jpg

The cases both look the same at the back too. Both case backs have the same shape and design with the exception that one is inscribed 1 and the other 1/E
20170510_110908 (1).jpg

Once opened up however the difference between the 2 becomes obvious, the DS1 has an AS 1858 and the 1/E an ETA 2782. Ah, but there are plenty of DS1’s that also have ETA movements including my chronometer, so what does this prove?
You will remember recently Mike posted quite a bit of information for us regarding the evolution of the Swatch group and the part played by both Rado and ETA in that process, from memory Rado officially made the change to ETA movements in 1968, but as discussed, there was a transition period of some years.
Basically the theory is this. During the change over period there was a need to note the difference between AS powered and ETA powered Diastars, hence the E for ETA. Once the changeover was complete the E was no longer required and so was dropped. If this holds true it should mean that DS 1/E’s predate DS1’s that have ETA movements fitted.
20170510_110434 (1).jpg

[mike184]

Hi!


Makes sense.
So the question is:
Owns or has seen anybody here a DS 1/E with AS-movement?

And we still have the question about a reasonable difference between a DS 8 and a DS 8/1.

[Watch Carefully]

I like it. If it holds, it could be very useful. Some additional questions...
Can we assume the DS1/E was made between 1968 and 1972/73?
If so, should the post-1972 DS1s (sans E) exhibit an 8-digit reference number as well as the DS1 designation?

And an observation...
In the first image you posted, it appears the flat portion of the T-C bezel is wider on the righthand watch.
Is this more than just an optical illusion?:

[Woodlands1]

I like it. If it holds, it could be very useful. Some additional questions...
Can we assume the DS1/E was made between 1968 and 1972/73?
If so, should the post-1972 DS1s (sans E) exhibit an 8-digit reference number as well as the DS1 designation?

And an observation...
In the first image you posted, it appears the flat portion of the T-C bezel is wider on the righthand watch.
Is this more than just an optical illusion?:

And the 1E case looks longer. Again optical illusion or needs to be measured?

[Tim.]

I like it. If it holds, it could be very useful. Some additional questions...
Can we assume the DS1/E was made between 1968 and 1972/73?
If so, should the post-1972 DS1s (sans E) exhibit an 8-digit reference number as well as the DS1 designation?

And an observation...
In the first image you posted, it appears the flat portion of the T-C bezel is wider on the righthand watch.
Is this more than just an optical illusion?:

And the 1E case looks longer. Again optical illusion or needs to be measured?

Brad you're correct, the flat portion of the DS1 is 2mm and the DS1/E 3mm, my DS1 chronometer is 2.5mm so some variations there. Both cases measure exactly 42.5mm in length, so yes Miles an elusion, perhaps the camera wasn't square to the subject. It would be good to see some more side by side and data from other members. Date wise , Henry put my DS1 at '72 and the DS1/E has a code of 105 so May '71, my DS1 chrono with ETA and 8 digit is 408/ Aug '74. So maybe '73 is the change over, as I said if we can get some code off other DS1/E's and code off some early 8 digits then we may be able to nail this down. Please post any information you have in regard to this.

[JOSE G]

Here is my Diastar 1/E black dial, without an 8-digit REF.
Code 309



Diastar 1/E Chronometer, without an 8-digit REF.
Code 305

[Tim.]

That's great Jose, thanks, that takes 1/E up to Sep '73 with no 8 digit and both with ETA's. At this point the data we have tells us that the E is dropped and the 8 digit added between Sep '73 and Aug '74. So far the theory holds good and the window is down to 11 months.

[scottjc]

Good work guys. Of course, the date we're using is the movement manufacture date so we have to ignore the possibility of Rado holding movements for any prolonged period of time before using...

[Tim.]

Good work guys. Of course, the date we're using is the movement manufacture date so we have to ignore the possibility of Rado holding movements for any prolonged period of time before using...

Was it ETA or Rado that added the codes? Are there examples of other watch manufacturers using ETA movements with this code?

[mike184]

Rado only. Others have their own codes.

[Tim.]

Rado only. Others have their own codes.

So then the question still remains, were the codes stamped by ETA during the movement manufacturing process or by Rado during the manufacturing of the watch? If the code is Rado specific was the purpose to know the manufacture date of the watch or the movement?

[scottjc]

So then the question still remains, were the codes stamped by ETA during the movement manufacturing process or by Rado during the manufacturing of the watch? If the code is Rado specific was the purpose to know the manufacture date of the watch or the movement?

It just gets more and more confusing!

[mike184]

In the 1990s, I´ve been on Crete for holidays and met an old watchmaker there with a shop for watches and jewellery. He spoke excellent German and we drank some Henninger beer together.
He wore an old DiaStar and told me it´s his only personal watch and he doesn´t need another. And that Rado movements, properly serviced, were on the same quality level as Rolex or Omega.
He worked in Frankfurt at Wempe for a decade and before, up to end of the 1960s, in Lengnau at Rado. He told me that Rado just bought raw ebauches in parts and did the finishing, assembling, adjusting inhouse.
That explains the higher quality and different finish of Rado movements in compare to others of the same caliber. I don´t know if it´s still practice there today (I assume), but surely it was still in the 1970s, 1980s.
Rado, in compare to others, was a prospering company all over the time, they made large quantities and I´m sure these movements didn´t age a lot in the stock.

[Henry Krinkle]

Rado only. Others have their own codes.

So then the question still remains, were the codes stamped by ETA during the movement manufacturing process or by Rado during the manufacturing of the watch? If the code is Rado specific was the purpose to know the manufacture date of the watch or the movement?

I have no reason to suspect that this movement is not the original movement for this Alpine, yet the code seems to indicate...1972(?)... EDIT: And never mind the rest of what I initially wrote...

I tend to think that the stamping was done by ETA for Rado, or if Rado did it, it was done when the movements were recieived.

[Henry Krinkle]

Furthermore, My Diastar 8 has an A Schild movement without a code, which is typical. Both of the Diastar 8/1s had coded ETA movements, also typical. Since these are not only contemporary, but virtually the same watch other than the movement this implies to me that these are movement dating codes not watch codes.