| Author | Message | ||
     JRK Unregistered guest Rating: N/A |
Zaf, two questions. I've noticed the patent/trademark photo you reference regarding the JLC/LeCoultre controversy. Could you tell me how you located the document, as I would like to locate it for myself. It seems to settle the issue. > > I am looking at a 1960s Memovox LeCoultre. Seems to be identical to the JLCs of the same era. Are the LeCoultre of lesser value; for instance, are they generally looked down upon as if a Tudor for example. JRK | ||
| Zaf Basha Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 29 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Hi. Thanks for the post. As far as I am concerned, there is no controversy. LeCoultre is simply the name prior to the merger with Jaeger OR the American market name until the JLC name was uniformily adopted. It still is not clear when that happened in the U.S., I would guess late 1970s. The U.S. market LeCoultre watches are generally cased in the U.S. with Swiss made movements, dials and hands. Some steel and 18k cases are the same as their European counterparts (i.e. made in Switzerland by either JLC or a Swiss based contractor.) As such, the value is generally less because collectors prefer all Swiss made cases. However, there are several models that are American market only which are interesting in their own right too. The analogy with Tudor doesn't really work. Tudor movements are not Rolex made, Tudor cases are Rolex made. LeCoultre movements are 100% identical to their JLC brothers and assembled at the JLC factory. LeCoultre cases are sometimes the same, but many times made by U.S. contractors to American tastes and metal requirements (gold filled and 14k). The document showing LeCoultre and JLC on the same page is from an instruction manual of an actual American market watch. |