WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
What exactly do you want to know? You have already identified everything. What's missing?
I'm unsure of the date - not quite sure if it's 1930s-1940s. Also, it would be nice to get a reference number. Even better, there's a catalog somewhere that identifies it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,774 Posts
Given the design, I would say early to mid 1940s.

Oh, and there is no such thing as a Movado Calatrava, nor is there any other Calatrava that's not a Patek.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Given the design, I would say early to mid 1940s.

Oh, and there is no such thing as a Movado Calatrava, nor is there any other Calatrava that's not a Patek.
Great, thanks!

And yes, I know. I think it's a nickname of sorts for watches of that era with the same case (same as the ref. 96 of PP).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Have a look in the Links and Articles section above for the 46 Movado catalogue link.
Thanks for the suggestion! I did but unfortunately could not find something with this dial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,774 Posts
Thanks for the suggestion! I did but unfortunately could not find something with this dial.
Look for a matching case, rather than a matching dial - a particular case design was likely available with a number of dial options.
 

·
Zenith Forum Co-moderator
Joined
·
17,865 Posts
And yes, I know. I think it's a nickname of sorts for watches of that era with the same case (same as the ref. 96 of PP).
It is not and never has been a nickname for non-PP watches - at least not in any watch literature that has passed under my eyes (and yes, I've read a fair amount). The only ones so far using (I should probably say: violating) this description are hoodinkee and we should not do them the favour of perpetuating the error. The reason why I say "violating" is that (i) Patek make some of the choiciest watches in the entire world, (ii) hoodinkee are known to charge several times what others charge for an identical watch so that (iii) it is not unreasonable to suspect that hoodinkee are trying to capitalise on Patek's good name and reputation to sell their ware at exorbitant and excessive prices.

Hartmut Richter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Hi there,

.... it is not unreasonable to suspect that hoodinkee are trying to capitalise on Patek's good name and reputation to sell their ware at exorbitant and excessive prices.
Indeed, but this is not restricted to the Hodinkee gang. Long before sellers learned how to turn famous model or disigner names to cash.

So never buy from sellers who offer watches (or any stuff) with such ridiculous claims Things become too expensive - always, because there are always enough sufficiently dumb (i.e. unexperienced) bidders who believe this nonsense. Although I must admit that the Hodinkees are masters of this kind of marketing. But that's no real problem, because only people with an exorbitant misrelation between wallet size and intelligence pay prices asked by them.

Regards, Roland Ranfft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Hey all, just got word from the watch smith. It looks like the reference number is 12753. According to my research, this is the stainless steel equivalent to the same reference of 2753 (1 indicates stainless steel). Any guesses on the year of the reference? Can we narrow it down further than mid-1940s?

I noticed there is a 2773 in the 1946 catalog with a similar case. Maybe that means the 2753 was a predecessor?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top