Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theory for why we have DS1 and DS1/E

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

  • Tim.
    replied
    Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
    I just re-read this entire thread and familiarised myself with information I had forgotten. My take-away message is this:
    You guys are passionate, smart, and willing to share information...and the excellent results of working together are evident. Great job!

    Question for the team: do you want me to approach Rado with a summary of this information and ask for their input?
    If so, perhaps we can collaborate in distilling the significant points into one post in this thread and I can share the URL with Herr Kaenzig at Lengnau.
    We've got nothing to lose and who knows, maybe if we share with Herr Kaenzig he'll share with us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Watch Carefully
    replied
    I just re-read this entire thread and familiarised myself with information I had forgotten. My take-away message is this:
    You guys are passionate, smart, and willing to share information...and the excellent results of working together are evident. Great job!

    Question for the team: do you want me to approach Rado with a summary of this information and ask for their input?
    If so, perhaps we can collaborate in distilling the significant points into one post in this thread and I can share the URL with Herr Kaenzig at Lengnau.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim.
    replied
    This will certainly help Marcus, thank you. I'll try to make some sort of spreadsheet and see where that leads.

    Leave a comment:


  • pimpclinic.v.s.o.p.
    replied
    More data from my collection:
    Iīm starting with a DS1/E Chrono 101:







    DS 1 Chrono AS1858 911:







    DS 1 (?) Chrono ETA 2824:







    DS 1 AS1858 912:







    And my actual DS 1/E Chrono with a ETA 2783 408 (without detail pics, sorry):



    I also own a DS 1 with a AS 1700 and the earlier shown DS1 with the ETA 2782 008

    Hope that helps..

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim.
    replied
    Great detailed information Mike. Just a quick note: It's possible that there are DS1/E COSC chronos, there are 2 in this thread, both belonging to Jose, that date to '73 and one is a chronometer. It's a bit unfortunate though, so far we can only base any of this theory on actual data from 7 watches. So it's a bit thin.
    Last edited by Tim.; 05-12-2017, 09:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mike184
    replied
    Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
    Hi Tim,
    I can answer this question:
    AS 1903 is an AS 1902 with date. They use the same base plate, I believe, so it is marked as 1902/03. This is also seen on AS 1700/01 in some Rados (such as my 56-H below).

    http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-...&2uswk&AS_1902
    http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-...&2uswk&AS_1903

    Chronometer # at left, caliber number at right:


    I should clarify, too, that what I call a chronometer number is just a movement number. It's not really a serial number (as other movements in the production series were not necessarily numbered sequentially), and it wasn't issued by the certifying body (to my knowledge). It is simply a common requirement that all movements submitted for chronometer testing/certification must be numbered. I expect two mfrs could submit movements using the same number, and the testing facility would differentiate them in testing, and on the certificates, by the name of manufacturer, caliber # and other dissimilarities.
    I can confirm that completely.

    Additionally info to AS-markings:
    Following Roland Ranfft, AS-movements using the same base plate wear often wrong marks. The marked base plates had been in stock - AS needed them and used them without changing the mark. So simple.
    Sometimes they marked additionally, e.g. the AS 1789 has the same base plate as the AS 1701, so itīs almost marked with AS 1700/01 under the balance wheel and an additional AS 1789 beside.

    AS 1789.jpg

    Some AS movements were just an interim level of development but though wore own caliber numbers and were just made for a short interim period, e.g. the AS 1858 and 1859. I never saw one of them in another watch than a Rado. Thatīs why Roland doesnīt list them in his register.

    To the chronometer-certification:
    Bradīs info is right. The COSC (which is a private organisation, not an authority) is testing movements only (not complete watches as itīs done in Germany). Today the movements (automatic ones without rotor) arrive there in standardised clear acrylic cases with standardised crowns, standardised white dials and standardised black seconds hands - and with registration numbers of the watch companies. They never leave this case during the test.

    COSC.jpg

    But I donīt know the regulations at the beginning. And the COSC was founded not until 1973. Before 1973, there had been 7 different observatories in Switzerland with own regulations. After the COSC had been established to standardise these regulations, it surely took some time to come to an agreement and to coordinate these seven observatories (today they still have three).

    That means the time period of DS 1 and 1/E ended before the COSC was founded. And Bradīs nice AS 1701-movement from his 56-H chronometer had been tested probably at the observatory in Biel, which still exists, sited just 12 km away from Lengnau.
    Last edited by mike184; 05-12-2017, 08:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim.
    replied
    Hi Mike, I've done the compatibility test and DS1 and DS1/E backs are interchangeable and even a DS1 8 digit will fit, although the reverse isn't true. I own a DS1 with bayonet back and spring bars into the TC also and would've thought of it as Gen 1, it's virtually a zero case with a different case back, anyway mine has an AS 1700/01 fitted and that's interchangeable with ETA right up to 2836-2? makes life easy for the good Dr.
    Last edited by Tim.; 05-12-2017, 08:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mike184
    replied
    Compatibility

    Hi!


    Another question while comparing DS 1 and DS 1/E models here is the compatibility of parts.
    Which shows up 2 new questions:

    Are the DS 1 and the DS 1/E backs interchangeable?
    It would be nice if s.o. owing both models from the same time period could try that.

    Are the movements of the DS 1 and the DS 1/E interchangeable?

    Just one of those would easily explain some exceptions, e.g. a DS 1 with ETA 2782, which also could be a DS 1/E with DS 1 back.
    As we all know, the Dr. Frankensteins are less interested in authenticity than we are. I have a DS 1/E in my register with an AS 1858 but canīt find archive pics of that (a lot of my pics were gone when my HDD once crashed - no stupid comments about backups, please ). But though I still believe in the "1/ETA-theory".
    The second question is already answered, I think - I own a DS 1 with second generation case (springbars still in TC, octagonal bayonet case back) with a nice ETA 2836-2 inside, which hadnīt been made before 1982.
    Though itīs obviously a Franken, I love this watch and wear it from time to time.

    0 DiaStar 1 b.jpg

    DiaStar 1 back.jpg

    DiaStar 1 ETA case side.jpgDiaStar 1 ETA ETA 2836-2.jpg
    Last edited by mike184; 05-12-2017, 06:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mike184
    replied
    Hi!

    Iīm completely with Henry about the time code being for the movement, not for the watch. Anything else doesnīt make sense.
    The time code mark as well as the other Rado marks (Rado, jewelsīaccount, Rado-R with additional Rado caliber no.) were clearly done by Rado, who did the finishing, decorating and assembling of the raw movement parts from ETA inhouse. It was done while finishing and assembling the movement parts to complete movements.

    This is a Rado R 2797 = ETA 2783, timecode 407 (July 1974):

    ETA 2783 DiaStar 1E.jpg

    This is for compare an Enicar AR 2167 = ETA 2789-1.
    Enicar did the same and you can see the differences in finishing (both are gold plated with 25 jewels) - different rotor decorating, no decoration on the bridges and less polished, no additional caliber mark, instead they grinded the ETA-mark under the balance wheel away and replaced it by their own caliber no.:

    Enicar 2789-1 a.jpg Enical 2789-1 b.jpg
    Last edited by mike184; 05-12-2017, 06:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim.
    replied
    Thanks Brad, good to know.

    Leave a comment:


  • mike184
    replied
    Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
    Probably. I am not wearing my contact or my glasses and I really need both to see that.
    I know this stupid problem ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Watch Carefully
    replied
    Originally posted by Tim. View Post
    Note: What does the /03 in the AS cal no. represent? Very big chrono number. Is it issued to the watch or the movement manufacturer?
    Hi Tim,
    I can answer this question:
    AS 1903 is an AS 1902 with date. They use the same base plate, I believe, so it is marked as 1902/03. This is also seen on AS 1700/01 in some Rados (such as my 56-H below).

    http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-...&2uswk&AS_1902
    http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-...&2uswk&AS_1903

    Chronometer # at left, caliber number at right:


    I should clarify, too, that what I call a chronometer number is just a movement number. It's not really a serial number (as other movements in the production series were not necessarily numbered sequentially), and it wasn't issued by the certifying body (to my knowledge). It is simply a common requirement that all movements submitted for chronometer testing/certification must be numbered. I expect two mfrs could submit movements using the same number, and the testing facility would differentiate them in testing, and on the certificates, by the name of manufacturer, caliber # and other dissimilarities.
    Last edited by Watch Carefully; 05-12-2017, 04:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim.
    replied
    Well Marcus, unless that case back has been changed, which is possible although unlikely, that's the end of the ball game. Interesting though ,that one also has the wider flat section on the bezel like my 1/E.
    I had a look at your DS1/R and the only thing that I can think of is that it may be their earliest model using Swarovski Rhinestones and perhaps that's what the "R" is for.
    Last edited by Tim.; 05-12-2017, 09:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pimpclinic.v.s.o.p.
    replied
    BTW. i found this Diastar 1 with a ETA 2782 in my back stock, check the pics:





    Leave a comment:


  • pimpclinic.v.s.o.p.
    replied
    I cannot see why the 1/R shouldnīt be mentioned in the same context; Itīs a classic DS1, it has a slash behind the 1 and it has a AS 1700 movement..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X