IIRC the 2409A incorporated shock protection?? I may be totally off base here, but there was a thread a while back that I think this was the subject. Anyway, I'm thinking that is the difference.

 

Thanks for the reply. So by that token, what I have is infact 2409A in these watches?

 

Never seen a non-shock protected movement in any amphibian.

 

Here's an old thread proposing that the 2409A had beveled bridge edges to fit in thinner civil watches, was marked, and is actually older than the 2409 which was found in the amphibians and had straight bridge edges and were not marked:https://www.watchuseek.com/f10/different-generations-vostok-2409-a-6772.html

 

Interesting, and that would follow with some examples I've seen tonight

a 2409A with bevelled edges on the bridges

and this one, which appears to have a 2409A bridge added to a straight edged 2409

but then.............

a 2409A with straight edges?

The plot thickens! :-s

 

Thank you! I need excuses for lots of things! ;-)

 

Don't worry abut it. I experienced a first today - this morning I realised for the past few months I had been thinking I was a year younger than I actually am! That really brings it home I can tell you :-(

 

All the Vostok-built ones, regardless of bevelling or not, are called 2409A; the original version made by Raketa was 2409, but after Vostok acquired the manufacturing rights from Raketa, it was slightly revised, which warranted the A suffix.

I really have to revise the database articles!

 

All the Vostok-built ones, regardless of bevelling or not, are called 2609A; the original version made by Raketa was 2609, but after Vostok acquired the manufacturing rights from Raketa, it was slightly revised, which warranted the A suffix.

I really have to revise the database articles!

2609A, or 2409A.... I'm confused again. Is that a typo Sam?

 

Storyteller,

What I can tell is that the 2409 was built by Raketa for a very short time, and then appeared again as the Vostok 2409A with some simplifications, most obvious is the balance regulator area. Our ex-Raketa man Alexander should be able to clarify this.

 

According to the catalog from 1974, the main difference between Vostok 2409 and 2409 A was that the former one was of 2nd class of accuracy, while the latter one was 1st class. The 2409 had 40 hours of power reserve, while 2409A had 46 hours. If we are to believe the catalog, both were produced by Vostok.

Source - Sergej Antonov's web page with catalogs (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...t.com/-h9DKgZleZ-U/TqhADvb17UI/AAAAAAAAKlA/xG6Bkr9bIQ8/s294/Изображение+012.jpg).

Unfortunately we don't have a forum member who worked in Raketa or Vostok research and design unit at that time, so we can only guess. And use circumstantial evidence. As for example the RD record. By the late 60s
1.Vostok had a good record of constructing new movements (2209) and transforming old ones (K 43, Pobeda with various modifications, 2802, 2803, 2809, 2809B with 18,21, 22 jewels based on Zenith). Raketa had one adaptation of Pobeda-type movement, one movement similar to ETA 1080, and its own version of 2209, arguably the worst movement ever constructed in Russia.
2. Vostok produced 22, 28, and 26 mm size movements, while - with the sad exception of 2209 and some experiments - Petrodvoretz stuck to 26mm.

That is why I don't think that we can consider the case of 2409 closed.

 

Storyteller,

That is a valid point too; the difficulty in working with secondary sources can be frustrating indeed, and as a result our observations and conclusions could best be said as provisionally correct, but there again, that's the meaning of the term "theory" in science after all.

But the point remains: as far as I know I have not seen a Vostok-built movement obviously marked "2409", it would probably be rather scarce. However it would still be safe to say that the modern unmarked, non-bevelled movements produced by Vostok in large quantities are 2409A, rather than 2409.

 

as far as I know I have not seen a Vostok-built movement obviously marked "2409", it would probably be rather scarce.

I stumbled on this thread because I was curious whether there were any differences between the 2409 movement in my watch and the 2409A movement I bought to replace it.

For the sake of the historical record, here's a Vostok Amphibia I bought in the early 1990s that appears to have a 2409 movement without the A.

 

A NOS Vostok 2409 (not 2409A) is being sold now, clearly dated from 1970. Seller's photos. The dial and case are quite similar to older dress 2209. Unfortunately there is no picture of the movement. I'm tempted to buy it just to see what is there inside.

 

storyteller: there will be vostok 2409 movement inside just like this one

or this one

or this one

.
They aren't rare and still can be found from time to time.

According to Alexander (ex-worker of Petrodvorec factory) the 2409 was designed by PChZ and transferred to ChChZ. Few Raketas with 2409/2414 inside were shown at watch.ru forum, here are a couple of links: example 1, example 2

 

Thank you, shadow_ru. I know the hypothesis about Raketa origins of 2409, but think it needs more evidence to be accepted. In support of this hypothesis, we have a couple of Raketa-branded movements and the recollections of Mr. Brodnikovskyi. But the movements are not dated - actually, as far as I remember, one of them had an Olympic dial, a Cornavin, which would locate it by 1980, while the Vostok from my last post is from 1970. Acording to Alexander signature, he worked in Petrovoretz in 1975 - 1983. So nothing firsthand so far, regarding Raketa origins.

I doubt that the movement was designed in Petrodvoretz, because:
1. by the late 1960s Chistopol engineers had a better record than Petrodvoretz - they had original movements of their own like 2209, succesfully adapted ones like 2809, several modifications of Pobeda, etc. My watchmaker thinks - and I fully agree with him - that Vostok 2209 is better than Raketa 2209, and I hope you will agree that 2809 is lightyears ahead of Raketa 2609. If we accept "Raketa-origin" hypothesis, it would mean that the better R&D team of Chistopol all of a sudden stopped designing watch movements by the late 1960s, while Petrodvoretz suddenly made 2 (two) movements, 2409 and 2609HA
2. 2409 seems designed in Chistopol tradition - starting with 2809 from 1958, all their movements have indirectly driven second hand, while all Raketa movemnts have directly driven second hand.
Further - except 2209, which obviously was part of a state commission (together with Poljot 2209 and Vostok 2209), Petrodvoretz has always been using 26mm movements. Starting from Pobeda, to Baltika, Rossia, 2609 HA etc. Probably this is related to things like tooling, cases, whatever. On the other hand, Chistopol was more flexible and by the 1970s it had 22, 24, 26 (Pobeda) and 28 mm. movements.
3. I wonder if in the centralized, hierarchical Soviet system there were many cases of cross-country horizontal cooperation, bypassing Moscow. There were many examples of cooperation involving at least one Moscow factory or NII, but I wonder if there were that many instances of cooperation between two provincial (NO, NO, NO I didn't say anything about SPb, I meant Petrodvoretz towns.

My guess is that there was some kind of cooperation involving NII Chasprom, or the movement was designed in Chistopol in late 1960s and offered also to Petrodvoretz by the late 1970s (which would explain the 1980 Olympic dial and the recollections of Mr. Brodnikovsky, who worked then in Petrodvoretz), but being 26mm required too many changes in tooling and cases, so they dropped it. Or something else. Not enough evidence so far.