Author |
Message |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Dieter Zysk
New member Username: Smash
Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2005
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 10:32 am: | |
Hello to all ! I've bought a Memovox from 1960 I guess with the movement number 1.741.792 and the case number 1.008.889 Two questions: 1. Is there a source (perhaps in the WWW) where I could find the list of numbers from this time ? 2. Who knows if the movement number matches to the case number ? Kind Regards Dieter |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Zaf
Moderator Username: Zaf
Post Number: 1506 Registered: 05-2003
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 10:34 am: | |
The movement # should not match the case #. There is no list out there than can date your watch, I have a private list and I can tell you the watch dates to circa 1967. |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Dieter Zysk
New member Username: Smash
Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2005
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 02:37 pm: | |
Thanks for the answer Zaf ! And sorry for my bad English, but does "The movement # should not match the case #" mean that case and movement are from different watches ? Thanks Dieter |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Zaf
Moderator Username: Zaf
Post Number: 1507 Registered: 05-2003
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 02:58 pm: | |
I mean the serial numbers on the case SHOULD NOT match the number on the movement, so what you have is normal. |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Dieter Zysk
New member Username: Smash
Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2005
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 03:03 pm: | |
Thanks Zaf, could I buy your private list or have to wait on your book ? Regards Dieter |
![Top of page](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_top.gif) ![Previous message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_up.gif) ![Next message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/mark_down.gif) ![Link to this message](https://www.classicwatch.com/discus/icons/tree_m.gif)
Erik Deen
New member Username: Erikdeen
Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:26 am: | |
What about the age of my Memovox? C 825 (or maybe earlier), number 1431842, Lenght 21 cm, depth 12,8 cm, weight 50,1 gram (18 carat solid gold with steel back), housediameter 36,5 cm. There are no numbers on the dialplate and the dialplate is only with the word Jaeger-LeCoultre, not the specific logo. Can you give me any indication from your priovate list? The former owner claims that the Memovox is made in �1951, but I read that the 825 (with date) was made starting 1959, so 1951 cannot be correct. Question: what age is more likely? Regards, Erik |