WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Welcome, lads and lasses, to the newest instalment in your favourite watchdog/comedy series! As always, shortcomings and outright fails in various listings will be unmasked, for your education and entertainment. In this episode, among other issues, we'll see masters of movement identification at work! Lads and lasses, this is your Bring a Brain!

First up, our favourite Usual Suspects!

Let's have a look at the most spectacular movement identification fail in this instalment. Oh, and for what it's worth: someone has spent 63 pieces of paper with Ben Franklin's face on them, for a watch with a misidentified movement.
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1940s-heuer-chronograph-reference-433-nt?variant=12288138838091

Here at HODINKEE, we love vintage Heuer chronographs...
Oh, undoubtedly. You just can't identify what they have under the bonnet.

Caliber: Valjoux manual-winding caliber 22
Yeah...right. Right? Nope. Tell me, have you ever seen a Valjoux 22? Well, if not, then after looking at the movement in this Heuer, I can only arrive at the conclusion that you never did.

Here's the movement which you, dear Shop staff, think is a Valjoux 22. Have I got news for you... It's not a Valjoux, let alone the cal. 22
hodinkee shop heuer NOT valjoux!.jpg
Nothing here matches the cal. 22. Not the column wheel, not the balance cock, not the clutch bridge, not the chronograph bridge, not even the base calibre under the chrono works!

For comparison, this is the 22:
Valjoux_22.jpg

So, if not the Valjoux 22, what's the movement in that Heuer? The members here undoubtedly know well the make of it. The movement in your Heuer, dear Shop staff, has been made by Landeron. It appears to be something of a link between the monopusher cal. 13 and the later cal. 39, however a short lookup does show two-pusher specimens of the 13, which is exactly what this movement is.
Landeron_13.jpg
Looks familiar?

It's not common, however the balance cock shape should in the first place have suggested just where to look for answers.

Let's move to another watch, and another movement ID fail.
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1967-rolex-datejust-reference-1603-with-papers?variant=12288179208267
Caliber: Rolex self-winding caliber 1570
Great Scott, I thought that after the numerous times I've remarked this particular fail, it won't come back. But here it is, making its great comeback. I can't say it more clearly than I did before...hmmm...what to do now? Wait,I know! Fiddling with the font! Since you chaps love to write the name of your site in capital letters, maybe this will work:
THE ROLEX CALIBER 1570 IS A NO-DATE MOVEMENT. THE 1575 IS THE DATE VERSION. BRIDGES SIGNED 1570 WERE OFTEN PUT ON THE 1575, BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE DATE VERSION WILL ALWAYS BE THE CALIBRE 1575.

Yeah, well, hope this works, although maybe that's just me being optimistic in spite of logic and past experiences suggesting, that giving up on reforming the irreformable is the way to go. But I simply have enough faith in people not to give up so early.


Let's have a look at another Heuer:
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1950s-heuer-for-baylor-viscount-chronometer?variant=12288199491659

There's hardly anything to link this case to EPSA. Compressor and Compressor 2 cases indeed had a press-in back, but a cross-hatched crown alone (what makes you think it cannot be, say, a replacement?) is hardly enough to declare a case a Compressor, especially in the absence of any EPSA markings and patent numbers for either the 1st generation Compressor or Compressor 2. Gasketed press-in backs were and are in use since the 1930s and the Omega Naiad, and in the 1950s, more brands started using the design. I'm not saying that this isn't a Compressor, but there's very little - if anything at all - to identify it as that.

Now, let's move to an ordinary example of good old fleecing:
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1960s-universal-geneve-pocket-watch-in-steel?variant=12288218824779
This is such a beautiful piece at an approachable price point; if you don't already collect pocket watches, this could be a great start
Whether it's beautiful or not is an entirely subjective matter. I, for one, consider it boring, but that's irrelevant. But an "approachable price point?" Ummm, nope. There's way better stuff to be found for less. "Way better" meaning, obviously, way better than a 1960s PW made long after the heyday of PWs, featuring a rather basic wristwatch movement inside. If I were to start collecting pocket watches, hell take me if that'd be my first choice, let alone something I'd recommend to anyone as a good starting point for their first PW.


Now that we're done with the Usual Suspects, let's move on to another venue, which I find far more ridiculous. What can I say about Theo & Harris? Jon Snow of GoT may well know nothing, but T&H specializes in knowing even less, yet on their YouTube channel, they pose even more. Why's that so annoying? Perhaps because after all the posers I've seen, I'm somewhat used to a better kind of that unsavoury species.

For one, you'd think that with an inventory chock full of Datejusts, they could as much as identify the movements in them. But no, here - and in many other respects - they fall far behind even the H-Shop.
https://theoandharris.com/vintage-watch-shop/vintage-watches/rolex-datejust-ref-1601-75/

Save the missing movement ID, just look at that worn crown and the stretched bracelet. The listing description should make it to the pantheon of classics of panegyrical claptrap about watches in mediocre condition. By the way, the date disk looks rather suspicious. The photo has been apparently taken at the same angle as in this listing (which, by the way, also has no information as to either the year or the calibre number):
https://theoandharris.com/vintage-watch-shop/vintage-watches/rolex-datejust-ref-1603-29/

Yikes. No good. Let's move to another venue.

Lads and lasses, bow before the King of Cape Cod, VintageCaliber!

3300 euro is a lot of money. And it's far too much for this:
https://vintagecaliber.com/collections/all/products/1943-omega-ref-2272-12-jumbo

The dial damage is hardly of the visually pleasing kind. Throw in a replacement (incorrect one, I might add) seconds hand and a refinished case, and the whole package becomes even more ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous...
https://vintagecaliber.com/collections/all/products/1945-tissot-ch27-tropical-two-tone-chrono

Original hands (repainted) with original radium lume
You'd think the lume was removed before repainting... That's because it most likely was. The way I see it, it's probably a rather well-tinted non-luminescent base, with some radium thrown into the mix to make the Geiger counter react to it. I've seen that sort of relumes done before, and they're of that terrifying kind which is almost impossible to tell. If not for the fact of hands being repainted, this would be one of them. But there, one thing's off, and the next thing you know is that there's a lot more to it than just one issue.
Oh, and yet another reworked case. Chaps, knock it off with the Cape Cods, please...


That's it for this instalment. Hope you fine fellows have enjoyed it, and as always: Bring a Brain will return if necessary!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Darn! That was both entertaining and educational......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #6

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,945 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,945 Posts
Welcome, lads and lasses, to the newest instalment in your favourite watchdog/comedy series! As always, shortcomings and outright fails in various listings will be unmasked, for your education and entertainment. In this episode, among other issues, we'll see masters of movement identification at work! Lads and lasses, this is your Bring a Brain!

First up, our favourite Usual Suspects!

Let's have a look at the most spectacular movement identification fail in this instalment. Oh, and for what it's worth: someone has spent 63 pieces of paper with Ben Franklin's face on them, for a watch with a misidentified movement.
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1940s-heuer-chronograph-reference-433-nt?variant=12288138838091


Oh, undoubtedly. You just can't identify what they have under the bonnet.



Yeah...right. Right? Nope. Tell me, have you ever seen a Valjoux 22? Well, if not, then after looking at the movement in this Heuer, I can only arrive at the conclusion that you never did.

Here's the movement which you, dear Shop staff, think is a Valjoux 22. Have I got news for you... It's not a Valjoux, let alone the cal. 22
View attachment 13491133
Nothing here matches the cal. 22. Not the column wheel, not the balance cock, not the clutch bridge, not the chronograph bridge, not even the base calibre under the chrono works!

For comparison, this is the 22:
View attachment 13491135

So, if not the Valjoux 22, what's the movement in that Heuer? The members here undoubtedly know well the make of it. The movement in your Heuer, dear Shop staff, has been made by Landeron. It appears to be something of a link between the monopusher cal. 13 and the later cal. 39, however a short lookup does show two-pusher specimens of the 13, which is exactly what this movement is.
View attachment 13491139
Looks familiar?

It's not common, however the balance cock shape should in the first place have suggested just where to look for answers.

Let's move to another watch, and another movement ID fail.
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1967-rolex-datejust-reference-1603-with-papers?variant=12288179208267


Great Scott, I thought that after the numerous times I've remarked this particular fail, it won't come back. But here it is, making its great comeback. I can't say it more clearly than I did before...hmmm...what to do now? Wait,I know! Fiddling with the font! Since you chaps love to write the name of your site in capital letters, maybe this will work:
THE ROLEX CALIBER 1570 IS A NO-DATE MOVEMENT. THE 1575 IS THE DATE VERSION. BRIDGES SIGNED 1570 WERE OFTEN PUT ON THE 1575, BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE DATE VERSION WILL ALWAYS BE THE CALIBRE 1575.

Yeah, well, hope this works, although maybe that's just me being optimistic in spite of logic and past experiences suggesting, that giving up on reforming the irreformable is the way to go. But I simply have enough faith in people not to give up so early.


Let's have a look at another Heuer:
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1950s-heuer-for-baylor-viscount-chronometer?variant=12288199491659

There's hardly anything to link this case to EPSA. Compressor and Compressor 2 cases indeed had a press-in back, but a cross-hatched crown alone (what makes you think it cannot be, say, a replacement?) is hardly enough to declare a case a Compressor, especially in the absence of any EPSA markings and patent numbers for either the 1st generation Compressor or Compressor 2. Gasketed press-in backs were and are in use since the 1930s and the Omega Naiad, and in the 1950s, more brands started using the design. I'm not saying that this isn't a Compressor, but there's very little - if anything at all - to identify it as that.

Now, let's move to an ordinary example of good old fleecing:
https://shop.hodinkee.com/collections/vintage-watches/products/1960s-universal-geneve-pocket-watch-in-steel?variant=12288218824779


Whether it's beautiful or not is an entirely subjective matter. I, for one, consider it boring, but that's irrelevant. But an "approachable price point?" Ummm, nope. There's way better stuff to be found for less. "Way better" meaning, obviously, way better than a 1960s PW made long after the heyday of PWs, featuring a rather basic wristwatch movement inside. If I were to start collecting pocket watches, hell take me if that'd be my first choice, let alone something I'd recommend to anyone as a good starting point for their first PW.


Now that we're done with the Usual Suspects, let's move on to another venue, which I find far more ridiculous. What can I say about Theo & Harris? Jon Snow of GoT may well know nothing, but T&H specializes in knowing even less, yet on their YouTube channel, they pose even more. Why's that so annoying? Perhaps because after all the posers I've seen, I'm somewhat used to a better kind of that unsavoury species.

For one, you'd think that with an inventory chock full of Datejusts, they could as much as identify the movements in them. But no, here - and in many other respects - they fall far behind even the H-Shop.
https://theoandharris.com/vintage-watch-shop/vintage-watches/rolex-datejust-ref-1601-75/

Save the missing movement ID, just look at that worn crown and the stretched bracelet. The listing description should make it to the pantheon of classics of panegyrical claptrap about watches in mediocre condition. By the way, the date disk looks rather suspicious. The photo has been apparently taken at the same angle as in this listing (which, by the way, also has no information as to either the year or the calibre number):
https://theoandharris.com/vintage-watch-shop/vintage-watches/rolex-datejust-ref-1603-29/

Yikes. No good. Let's move to another venue.

Lads and lasses, bow before the King of Cape Cod, VintageCaliber!

3300 euro is a lot of money. And it's far too much for this:
https://vintagecaliber.com/collections/all/products/1943-omega-ref-2272-12-jumbo

The dial damage is hardly of the visually pleasing kind. Throw in a replacement (incorrect one, I might add) seconds hand and a refinished case, and the whole package becomes even more ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous...
https://vintagecaliber.com/collections/all/products/1945-tissot-ch27-tropical-two-tone-chrono


You'd think the lume was removed before repainting... That's because it most likely was. The way I see it, it's probably a rather well-tinted non-luminescent base, with some radium thrown into the mix to make the Geiger counter react to it. I've seen that sort of relumes done before, and they're of that terrifying kind which is almost impossible to tell. If not for the fact of hands being repainted, this would be one of them. But there, one thing's off, and the next thing you know is that there's a lot more to it than just one issue.
Oh, and yet another reworked case. Chaps, knock it off with the Cape Cods, please...


That's it for this instalment. Hope you fine fellows have enjoyed it, and as always: Bring a Brain will return if necessary!
Excellent instalment as usual but as I told , I don't expect Hoodwinkee to be knowledgeable on movements. This thread is an example of good advice for new vintage watches buyers never to buy from Theo and Harris, Hoodwinkee and Vintage Caliber. We have owned Luis and his friend Eneuri so Isaac Wingold if he ever appears will never be able to defend his arguments. The hoodwinkee sales people are bloggers before all but not long time seasoned vintage watch collectors. The franken Carrera sold last time by Hoodwinkee shows us again an absolute crookery from these so called vintage watch shops which are not honest with their potential customers. I will post about this thread on facebook in all the watch groups I know so that Hoodwinkee gets even more negative feedback
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
887 Posts
"Charming dial and pretty unusual aging"... Can't believe, all this I saw, that they so boldly fool people without consequences. Too bad that their victims don't recognize it (I admit in many cases I wouldn't too, but this is why people with great knowledge here exist, to reveal and show).
What a shame. And what money they take, is outrageous.

As Border-Reiver said, good and educational read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
Even I could tell that the movement was misidentified, and that's saying something.

Is there a watchmaker fingerprint database that would allow us to identify who worked on the Omega dial?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Is there a watchmaker fingerprint database that would allow us to identify who worked on the Omega dial?
Yes, there is such a resource:
atlasofapes.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
BTW, they've corrected the movement mis-identification now. But I think that was done after the sale.
Obviously. At the moment I posted this instalment, the watch was already sold. They fixed the misidentification just for the Heuer, though - the Datejust listing remains as it was, still describing the movement as a cal. 1570, which it is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: georges zaslavsky

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
That vintagecaliber Omega displays a perfect example of the trendy, much sought-after, fingerprint patina. It's all the rage, you know, as it personalises the watch. It's not hamfistedly applied damage. Not at all. It's charming patina.
I was looking at first for the 'dislike button' before I realized it's all satire. But with Hodinkee you never know...
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top