Not Recommended Zenith Watches

MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
Wow. Someone mashed up a Zenith A3817 and a Movado version of the early El Primero Pilot, then threw in a generic case back. Funny to see such rare parts (A3817 dial and distinctive Pilot paddle second hand) together in the same Franken.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181159679702
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
alam
Posts
8,107
Likes
18,978
MMMD MMMD
Wow. Someone mashed up a Zenith A3817 and a Movado version of the early El Primero Pilot, then threw in a generic case back. Funny to see such rare parts (A3817 dial and distinctive Pilot paddle second hand) together in the same Franken.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181159679702

and I thought this was the "Recommended Zenith Watches On Ebay" thread ;-)
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
alam alam
and I thought this was the "Recommended Zenith Watches On Ebay" thread ;-)

Good point. Sorry, my last couple of posts are NOT endorsements.
 
MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
papaebetu papaebetu
WARNING: NOT original dial in this Cairelli !!

Agree, and a bad redial (I did say "redialed," above). Why would a fighter pilot need those 3-minute telephone hash-marks on the minute subdial? Wrong lettering too.
 
Stewart H
Posts
3,070
Likes
3,526
We can't categorically say that it isn't a chronometre. At the time this one was made, Zenith marked "Chronometre" either on the dial or the movement (in the case of the 133.8, on the oscillating weight) and sometimes on both the dial and the movement.

Looking at the state of the watch as it currently stands, I wouldn't even buy it for parts.
 
MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
Yes. I should have started this post with "I'll give you a toawpic...". Now back to my coawfee.
 
LouS
Posts
6,713
Likes
18,550
Stewart H Stewart H
We can't categorically say that it isn't a chronometre. At the time this one was made, Zenith marked "Chronometre" either on the dial or the movement (in the case of the 133.8, on the oscillating weight) and sometimes on both the dial and the movement.


Stewart, are you sure this business about the omission of "chronometre" marking is not just a Roesslerism, made "true" by repetition? I find the markings pretty consistent for the Jobin calibers and after. The large majority of such watches are marked on both dial and movement. In the exceptions where it is not, this statement is always trundled out by the seller to explain the discrepancy but I suspect a replaced movement.

I do find that chronometer marking on the Zenith movements prior to the 133.8/71/135 are scarce. Perhaps Roessler was talking about these and generalized to later movements as well?
 
Hijak
Posts
7,225
Likes
24,415
U ulackfocus
I thought it was verklempt?

You could very well be correct, I don't know, was just trying to get close to make joke...
 
CdnWatchDoc
Posts
1,817
Likes
7,188
Das ist richtig, Dennis. Sie solten die deutsche Sprache oft verwenden
 
LouS
Posts
6,713
Likes
18,550
Except it's Yiddish in this instance.
 
cicindela
Posts
15,049
Likes
24,004
Anyone knows; east of Great Neck, excepting the Hamptons, it is forclempt with the out on the Island accent. :rolleyes:
 
MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
This discussion is beginning to give me shpilkis in my genechtagazoink. Back to the Zenith chronometer question... I too believe that Zenith chronometers from the late 40's and onward (Jobin and Martel-based calibers) should be marked as such on the movement, and that those without such markings have probably been mucked with. Hard to prove, of course. Maybe some day we'll come across an untouched, NOS 2532 with "chronometer" on the dial and not on the movement, but I haven't seen a convincing one yet... and would still consider it an exception. I agree that the acceptance of unmarked chronometer movements after the 30's-40's is another piece of Rössl-errata. If you disagree, we'll talk, no big whoop.
 
Stewart H
Posts
3,070
Likes
3,526
LouS LouS
Stewart, are you sure this business about the omission of "chronometre" marking is not just a Roesslerism, made "true" by repetition? I find the markings pretty consistent for the Jobin calibers and after. The large majority of such watches are marked on both dial and movement. In the exceptions where it is not, this statement is always trundled out by the seller to explain the discrepancy but I suspect a replaced movement.

I do find that chronometer marking on the Zenith movements prior to the 133.8/71/135 are scarce. Perhaps Roessler was talking about these and generalized to later movements as well?

That's an interesting one Lou. Marking "Chronometre" on the oscillating weight was a really stupid move considering the 133/133.8's propensity for lunching its axle - the standard "20 Jewels" marking could be a service part or it could be the the original weight. The bumper's therefore are inconclusive.

I have not seen "Chronometre" marked on a 40T movement, neither in reality nor in photographs and we know that there were both rated and un-rated versions of this one.

From my point of view, I see no reason to doubt Rossler on this one.
 
MMMD
Posts
4,642
Likes
31,197
Good point about the cal 40T. Not as much room inside for extra inscriptions as there is on movements with oscillating weights, but it forces me to limit my post-1950 chronometer-marking theory to automatics. The 40T also brings up what I consider to be more nonsense from Rössler, though... the supposition that the stylized "40T" on some dials was evidence of observatory testing.
 
33 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...