I have come across this nice IWC cal. 73 -17lig. H4 and there is sign Chronométre on the dial.
I have never seen pocket IWC watch marked Chronométre and I read that only cal. 71/72, 52/53 and 65/66 were awarded a chronometer certificate.
What do you think, is it or is it not Chronometre watch?
Midloch
This watch is from the 1920ies. In this period the term "Chronometer" was not protected and everybody, who thought, his watches could be regulated quite well, was in the position to print "Chronometer" on the dial.
Before and after this period only those watches were allowed to show "Chronometer" on the dial, which had passed an official chronometer test. In Switzerland the Observatories and the Buero Officielle were allowed to conduct chronometer tests.
IWC on the one hand submitted watches for official Observatory ratings. But on the other hand - obviously to save the fees for the external rating - IWC regulated a lot of watches to chronometer standards and sold them for a slightly lower price than those with offcial ratings.
However, Cal. 73 and 74 not only never were awarded an official Observatory rating, but as well none has got an inhouse rating. As you mentioned only Cal. 71/72, 52/53, 65/66 passed Observatory tests.
Hope this helps!
Regards
Th. Koenig
Th Koenig is absolutely right. An official test by an Astronomic Observatory took at least 6 weeks. Watches were tested at different temperatures and in different positions. Strange enough they were not tested for magnetic influence while the industrial revolution was peeking. Often a well regulated watch was tested for a much shorter period by IWC and using less strict criteria. Such watches were individually delivered with a piece of paper indicating the accuracy of that watch in seconds of deviation. Such paper was called : "Gangschein". Even in the 1970's such Gangscheins were issued.
The term "chronomètre" or chronometer was also stamped on the case lid and even "half-chronometre" was used. The latter is a kind of fancy term without significance.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Dear Th. Koenig, dear Adrian,
I read from your comments above that "Chronomètre" pocket watches were only awarded for Cal. 71/72, 52/53 and 65/66.
I have a pocket watch with Cal. 97 that was produced around 1950 (according to "date your IWC"). Would you think that this watch was also not awarded an official Chronometer like the watch of Midloch?
Thank you for your insights!
Hi Lyles,
To send a watch to one of the Astronomic Observatories ( Neuchâtel, Geneva or Kew) was a kind of competition between Swiss watch producers around 1900. Famous Swiss manufacturers considered it an advertising tool to win as much as possible awards. Some manufacturers did send only the movement with the crown as the case was not important. If the movement had passed the test, it was not usual to stamp "chronomètre" on the dial or case. Instead a "bulletin de march" was awarded to that particular movement and this precious document represented the evidence that the watch had passed the demanding test.
After WW I the interest of watch producers waned and IWC never belonged to the Swiss brands sending many watches to the Observatories. As even the test procedures differed between the Observatories( Kew had the most severe testing) and because there were no uniform criteria to call a watch a chronometer( as Th Koenig pointed out), many brands developed their own criteria and tests. Currently the COSC criteria have been accepted as a standard but by far these criteria are less tight than those used by the Observatories a centutry ago. Your watch fulfills the IWC criteria of 1950 but has not been tested in one of the Observatories.
Which does not mean that it cannot be extremely accurate!
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Here is a "fingerbridge" IWC p.w. awarded with a "Bulletin de Marche" from the Observatory of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Dear Lyles
What I outlined was what IWC officially offered (And they offered in the 1920ies and early 1930ies pocket watches signed Chronometre on the dial, though these watches had not been submitted for an official rating as chronometer).
On special request of customers IWC was willing to submit watches for a chronometer rating despite the fact this was not mentioned in the pricelist or other documents handed over to the retailers. But I saw no more than five or six such tests. So I deem the probability your watch was submitted by IWC for an official rating near to zero. However, in case you provide the movement No. (I can't read it on your pics) I can check your watch against the Observatory records.
From time to time third parties had watches produced by IWC tested. So for example all watches made by apprentices at a Swiss watch maker school as "school watch" were rated at a Bureau Officiel as chronometer (otherwise the apprentice had not passed the test to make and regulate his "school watch"). But your watch obviously is no "school watch". And anyhow the Bureaus Officiels did only publish how many watches of a brand they had tested in the respective year, not the movement Nos.
Last, but not least in theory retailers or end customers could submit a watch for a chronometer rating on their own, but I heard only of one case: The author of a book on the Cal. 97/95 had his watch rated.
My educated guess is your watch was sold in the late 1920ies or early 1930ies (or got a replacement dial from that period) and for this reason shows "Chronometre" on the dial while not having been awarded an official "Bulletin de marche".
Regards
Th. Koenig
Dear Gentlemen,
Thank you very much for your insights!
The movement number is 1126665.
Dear Lyles
Your movement, i.e. No. 1,126,665, has not been awarded a Bulletin de Marche from a Swiss Observatory. As the Bureau Officiels did not publish movement No. of tested watches, as said, it is in theory possible it has been submittend to a Bureau Officel. But IWC normally send their watches, if a chronometer rating was asked, to the Neuchatel Observatory, not to a Bureau Officiel.
So you have a watch, which properly regulated meets chronometer standards, but is no chronometer by definition as it was not officially tested.
Regards
Th. König