| Author | Message | ||
     Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
I know this is a JL forum, but many of us who collect reversos also like to comment on the 'rivals'. Here is a Hamilton 191 "Otis" for sale. I have seen a number of these watches, this looks right but I cannot place what worries me about it. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=2002 72861737 | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3582 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
It looks OK...it's best not to post live auction links, especialy on JLC items as people may be bidding on them. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
The thing that seems to have me confused is that the model numbers do not seem to match. I think the case numbers fit a later 19 jewel mechanism. On live auctions, it is better to know before one bids than after. I also collect Roman coins and a couple of the list discussion groups of which I am a member, we often have a discussion of items for sale. One of the discussion groups is a forgery group which has its own website on which the details of the forgery are posted as is the details of the seller. The two collecting hobbies are in fact connected in as much as we see fakes being generated in, for example China and Germany in the same factories. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3585 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I don't understand what you mean. A 17j caliber 980 is correct for an Otis. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
Zaf, the point I am making is that the 19 jewel movement does not match the watch housing. Hamilton made a 17 jewel movement in the 1930s and with no real size change, in the early 1940s they made a 19 jewel movement. The casing number seems a low number and I would have thought it matched a 17 jewel movement, not a 19 jewel movement. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3594 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I still don't understand, the movement pictured is 17J. Its serial and that of case are similar to examples I have sold in the past. I don't see anything wrong with that watch... | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
The movement is NOT a 17J. Read carefully what is on the movement. It is a 19 jewel movement and my records of Hamilton watches record the fact that the 19 jewel examples of the reverso were not produced until the early 1940's. The case number belongs to an earlier movement, a 17 jewel movement. The are subtle but significant differences. I only collect Reversos and information surrounding them. I could not put my finger on this disturbing picture until I aligned the case number with the movement type. If you have been selling similar watches, either they are hybrids or you overlooked the jewel number of the movements -- the latter are important for Hamilton. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
Woops, I have the case and movement number reversed. The movement is 17 jewels but the case is from a 19 jewel watch according to the case numbers for Hamilton. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3595 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I'd be very careful about what you say, it terms of my selling hybrids, etc, particularly, when your entire thread stated that the movement is a 19j movement. In any event, since you're such an expert at this, I'll just bow out of this thread, since I can't possibly add any knowledge you do not already have. Furthermore, please do not post live auction links. You may post their photos but not their link. Thanks. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
Hamilton produced a manufacturing book that included notations as to the type of tools used in production. They actually had their own in-house library -- some volumes of which were recently sold on ebay. Serial numbers of cases and movements were included in some of these volumes. I did not see the 'rules' that said one could not discuss an item that is for sale. If such a rule exists, it is worth discussing its merit? In relation to the various coin forums, discussion does occur on live auctions for the benefit of its members. Sarcasm is not appreciated. | ||
| Ilja Moderator Username: Ilja Post Number: 243 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Julius, this a watch forum and compared to any other watch related forum here we have no censorship, the only thing we ask for is not to post live auctions and not to challange the people spending their time and some efforts to help people figure out things on a certain watch. Especially on JLC watches this forum is the only one giving substantial answers on the vintage theme. About discussing live auctions: This ends up in doing a consultant job, but free of charge - how convinient. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3601 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Julius31: First of all this is my forum and my site. I can moderate it as I please, I very rarely ban users or what they say. I just make things clear from the begining: The forum states no links to items for sale. Auctions are items for sale therefore if you would like to discuss something, post its photo, not the live link. I also find your attitude to be condescending and frankly a little hypocritical. If you have such documentation on Hamilton and what grade movement went into which cases...why did you bother to post such a seemingly innocent question? On top of that, after insisting the watch has a 19j movement, you accuse me of selling "hybrids" with the implication that I don't know what I am talking about? Please. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
Zaf, I did not accuse you of selling hybrids. I noted that they exist. I saw no indication of the fact that one cannot discuss watches currently for sale. I note that you do and have discussed the watches of one seller and I noted that he seemed to have for sale a watch that I had not seen before. You quickly described it as a fake. I also would kindly suggest that the attitude issue seems to be one that you should reflect upon. I asked a question because the numbers on the case and movement did not seem to ring true. It was only after looking through my reference material that I could work out why I was confused by the images of this watch. I note your words that "this is my forum and and my site". Good for you, but if you wish to run it as a forum and not a blog, a broader set of rules for discussion would be a help those who wised to contribute. | ||
| Julius31 New member Username: Julius31 Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2008 Rating: N/A |
Zaf, on reflection, it is probably best that you use your 'discretion' and delete this thread as in no way did I wish to imply that you trade in any way that is inappropriate. Given your attitude, I certainly will not be posting again on "your" website. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3604 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Good bye then, I'm sure your analytical skills are needed elsewhere. | ||
| James_d Junior Member Username: James_d Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2007 Rating: N/A |
"Romanes eunt Domus" | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3607 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Yes, by Jupiter! There doesn't even appear to be a problem with the watch. I have one in a similar configuration with original BOX & PAPERS that has a case that's earlier by 27,000 (that's nothing in terms of Hamilton production). Also, customers were able to chose which movement went into the watch (17 or 19), and had the opportunity to upgrade to the 19J movement at a later date at fixed cost. Hamilton back in the day was jewelry store oriented and was very flexible to customers. | ||
| Gatorcpa Member Username: Gatorcpa Post Number: 77 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
The 17 jewel caliber 980 is correct for the "Otis", based on this advertisement:  BTW, the Otis case was acutally made by Hamilton under license from JLC. I was able to find a lot of research material on the web, which I posted on another forum. Since, I don't think you allow posts from another forum, here are the text and links: "I found some interesting things on the web... First, here is a very recent (2006) U.S. Patent Office denial on an appeal by JLC for a patent on the current Reverso design. What is interesting is that one of the reasons for the denial is the existence of the original expired Reverso case patent from 1932. See discussion beginning on page 22 of the link below: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/other/2006/76413051.pdf Basically, the USPO said that there was not enough differentiation between the newer Reverso cases and the ones in the original expired patent. Second, here is a translation from a French watch forum which discusses the issue. Nice reproductions of vintage Hamilton advertising: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?tt=url&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforumamontres.forumactif.com%2Frevues-videos-photographies-fiches-pratiques-f2%2Fles-hamilton-otis-reverso-t37158.htm&lp=fr_en&.intl=us&fr=yfp-t-305 Third, another translation from a Spanish language forum, which shows other attempts at licensed cases from JLC. The Movado chronograph prototype is pretty cool. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?tt=url&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.risingsunwatches.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2043&lp=es_en&.intl=us&fr=yfp-t-305 According to several online dictionaries, the word "exigency" (same in English and Spanish) means the same as "demand". So it would seem that there was some license agreement with Hamilton that allowed them to produce the case for a time. At some point, either the license expired or was revoked by JLC, and that was the end of the Otis." Hope this helps, gatorcpa | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3613 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Excellent post! Can you document that the Otis was made under license from JLC? I has never able to find that... | ||
| Gatorcpa Member Username: Gatorcpa Post Number: 78 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
Zaf, I think the answer may be in the "book of the reverso published by Jaeger-Lecoultre, in the heading of the reversos under another mark", as mentioned in the French translation linked my prior post. I don't own that particular book. Perhaps you might have it. Another route that I will look into is the relationship between Rene-Alfred Chauvot, JLC and other watch companies. The US patent number matches that engraved on the Otis. Is there someone at JLC who might know the answer? You can send me an e-mail offline, it's in my profile. Take care, gatorcpa | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3621 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I have the book, that's weird, I missed that part. I'll take another look. | ||
| Gatorcpa Member Username: Gatorcpa Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
OK Zaf, I have a lead for you. I was able to find a few references to early Reversos being marketed by other watch companies. Google is a fantastic tool if used properly. Unfortunately, the best explanation I found is in the French version of Wikipedia. It is not avaliable in English for some reason. My French is horrible and none of my web page translators will work on it: (Your script will not pick up the full URL, you will have to copy and paste to a new browser window) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverso_(montre) I translated a couple of key passages from the Wiki article: "In addition, LeCoultre had no class adapted until 1932, the first Reverso were animated by a movement created by the firm Tavannes Watches Co. As a precaution, the first contracts also stipulated that could also be Reverso Developed by Movado [7]. " "In fact, before becoming the symbol par excellence of Jaeger-LeCoultre, Reverso was also marketed under other brands." [note-Hamilton is included, but your software will not allow some of the brands to be printed here] 8. "Jaeger-LeCoultre produced many watches under the name of these brands. Reverso. The Living Legend, p. 96-97." Another footnote references that Chauvot was paid FFr. 10,000 for his work on the Reverso. Perhaps all of this was taken from "The Living Legend" book. Hope this helps, gatorcpa | ||
| Ilja Moderator Username: Ilja Post Number: 244 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
The info comes from "Reverso the living legend" that's for sure. Really interesting is an old catalog from 1931/32 showing the very first Tavannes (Lisica) powered Reverso without any LeCoultre mentioning on the page while the entire catalog is about LeCoultre watches... In my eys the official story is a bit pimped to fit the later marketing.  Ilja | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 3623 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
I'll read the Reverso book pages again when I have a moment. Definitely the story is pimped! I think they just bought out an existing design/invention and marketed it, brilliantly. Sort of like the Atmos. | ||
| Gatorcpa Member Username: Gatorcpa Post Number: 80 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
Sure sounds like the Atmos story. Just substitute Chauvot for Reuter. Interesting that Movado produced the Atmos and Reverso under license prior to JLC's purchase of the patents on both products. Remember that JLC is the company that claims the Futurematic was not produced until 1953, yet I have a US ad from 1951 clearly showing the watch for sale. JLC themselves has dated the movement in my example from 1952! Revisionist history indeed, gatorcpa | ||
| Clavi Member Username: Clavi Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
Similarly, I believe the Patek Philippe Reversos were produced under the Patek Philippe name and with a PP movement BEFORE LeCoultre had their movement and name on the dial. Exemple: the Patek Philippe & Cie, Gen�ve, "Reverso", movement #823421, case #609481 (retailed by Gübelin) was Produced in 1930 and sold on June 29 1932 according to Patek books, which are usually very accurate... It was a white gold case, already with the small second which appeared later on the LeCoultre ones. I too don't believe LeCoultre was so closely associated to the initiation of the reverso as they claim they are. I think they have mostly taken the opportunity to buy a good concept which was already way past the concept stage, fully developed and commercially available to other brands at the time. And then they have secured exclusivity and distribution. Same story as the Atmos indeed  | ||
| Gatorcpa Member Username: Gatorcpa Post Number: 81 Registered: 11-2006 Rating: N/A |
Clavi - Could we impose on your bi-linguistic skills to translate the French Wikipedia page into proper English and get it posted to the US or British Wiki sites? Or perhaps on your own web pages? This is provided that the Wiki information is not copied directly from the "Reverso - The Living Legend" book. Don't want to infringe on any trademarks. I think there is important information there regarding the origins of the Reverso. Many thanks, gatorcpa |