Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One of the rules of vintage collecting.

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

  • One of the rules of vintage collecting.

    Don't let looks fool you.

    A Diastar 8 I once acquired.

    P1017760-1.jpg

    What I really got.

    P1017756.jpg

    DS82.jpg

    The cleanest, nicest, best AS 1876 I have ever seen. Also one of Rados more uncommon movements. It runs better than any of the other AS 1876s I have ever owned and I have had at least a couple others.
    Last edited by Henry Krinkle; 08-19-2017, 09:12 PM.
    Solve all your doubts through question mode.

  • #2
    That movement is similar to the one in my cushion Diastar with the AS 1863
    Which other Rado shared the AS 1863

    Comment


    • #3
      Henry, I was just thinking about you. I was posting a Sunday watch that you know well. Your first photo jogged my memory as I also have one of those in my junk box. Unfortunately not the same lovely gold movement as you and Jose have though.

      20170820_142011 (1).jpg

      This one is a DS8 and has an AS 1716-17 on board. Is that the difference between 8 and 8/1? O oh, here we go!

      20170820_141709 (1).jpg
      Last edited by Tim.; 08-20-2017, 12:48 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JOSE G View Post
        That movement is similar to the one in my cushion Diastar with the AS 1863
        Which other Rado shared the AS 1863

        I don't know the answer to that Jose. I do not which other Rado had the notoriously finicky AS-1876 with the push button date advance. The Diastar 10/ Diamaster.
        Solve all your doubts through question mode.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
          I don't know the answer to that Jose. I do not which other Rado had the notoriously finicky AS-1876 with the push button date advance. The Diastar 10/ Diamaster.
          And that movement is the main reason I have never kept a Diamaster. Every touch of the crown on the back of my hand, which happens often as I wear my watches low down on my wrist, advances the date. Extremely frustrating.
          http://s145.photobucket.com/user/sco...deshow/Watches

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by scottjc View Post
            And that movement is the main reason I have never kept a Diamaster. Every touch of the crown on the back of my hand, which happens often as I wear my watches low down on my wrist, advances the date. Extremely frustrating.
            And every time you advance the date, there is a chance that damage will result.

            Hence the acquisiton of a near mint spare.
            Solve all your doubts through question mode.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
              And every time you advance the date, there is a chance that damage will result.

              Hence the acquisiton of a near mint spare.
              Always good to have a backup.
              http://s145.photobucket.com/user/sco...deshow/Watches

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tim. View Post
                Henry, I was just thinking about you. I was posting a Sunday watch that you know well. Your first photo jogged my memory as I also have one of those in my junk box. Unfortunately not the same lovely gold movement as you and Jose have though.

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]23754[/ATTACH]

                This one is a DS8 and has an AS 1716-17 on board. Is that the difference between 8 and 8/1? O oh, here we go!

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]23755[/ATTACH]
                Tim, the 1717 you showed above may be the only Rado movement I've seen of that era (except for the aforementioned 1863) that does not have a Rado signature on the rotor. It that rotor original?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tim. View Post

                  This one is a DS8 and has an AS 1716-17 on board. Is that the difference between 8 and 8/1? O oh, here we go!

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]23755[/ATTACH]
                  I think that more than a few of us suspect tht the difference between the 8 and 8/1 is the change from AS to ETA, though there are 8s with ETAs and 8/1s with ASs. We don't know if these are anomalies, or were swapped later, or simply that our theory is wrong. The wonder of rado.
                  Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
                    Tim, the 1717 you showed above may be the only Rado movement I've seen of that era (except for the aforementioned 1863) that does not have a Rado signature on the rotor. It that rotor original?
                    I'm sorry Brad but I don't know if it's original or not, I bought it as junk for the 7 row and this is the first time I've seen the movement, thanks to Henry's thread. I do seem to remember seeing other AS Rado movements with unsigned rotors on the forum but as to weather or not they are 1717's I'd have to check.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tim. View Post
                      I'm sorry Brad but I don't know if it's original or not, I bought it as junk for the 7 row and this is the first time I've seen the movement, thanks to Henry's thread. I do seem to remember seeing other AS Rado movements with unsigned rotors on the forum but as to weather or not they are 1717's I'd have to check.
                      The AS 1876 is the only one I know of for certain.
                      Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
                        The AS 1876 is the only one I know of for certain.
                        You are most likely right Henry, I have a photo of one of Scott's on my phone but it's the same as Jose's an 1863. A quick check of my other AS movements reveals that this 1716-17 is the only unsigned one I have. Unfortunately the photos I was looking for here on EoT have been swallowed up in this cursed photobucket scam, so no joy there. The only other observation I would make is that all the unsigned rotors seem to be of the same type i.e. with the cut out or slotted section.
                        Last edited by Tim.; 08-21-2017, 07:41 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tim. View Post
                          You are most likely right Henry, I have a photo of one of Scott's on my phone but it's the same as Jose's an 1863. A quick check of my other AS movements reveals that this 1716-17 is the only unsigned one I have. Unfortunately the photos I was looking for here on EoT have been swallowed up in this cursed photobucket scam, so no joy there. The only other observation I would make is that all the unsigned rotors seem to be of the same type i.e. with the cut out or slotted section.
                          Your rotor may have been scavenged from an AS 1876, though it seems to be the right type for 1716-17. I wonder though, if A Schild didn't have some technical issue regarding engraving that specific rotor.
                          Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
                            Your rotor may have been scavenged from an AS 1876, though it seems to be the right type for 1716-17. I wonder though, if A Schild didn't have some technical issue regarding engraving that specific rotor.
                            A quick search of Dr. Ranfft's shows that it is the correct rotor for 1716 and that in fact it's the first AS movement to use that roller bearing type of rotor. A little extrapolation of his data means we can date my watch to between '64 and '69 when they started date stamping AS movements till they ran out. P.S. I note that they had no trouble engraving 25 jewels on Ranfft's examples.
                            Last edited by Tim.; 08-21-2017, 08:54 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tim. View Post
                              A quick search of Dr. Ranfft's shows that it is the correct rotor for 1716 and that in fact it's the first AS movement to use that roller bearing type of rotor. A little extrapolation of his data means we can date my watch to between '64 and '69 when they started date stamping AS movements till they ran out. P.S. I note that they had no trouble engraving 25 jewels on Ranfft's examples.
                              They did not. If you look at the examples with logos though, which are traditionally much larger engravings, you will note that they are screen printed rather than engraved. I believe those Midos are the oldest example of printed rotors I've seen.
                              Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X