Reply With QuoteI can’t help with any information but that looks superb. Have you checked the date of the hallmarks?
I was talking to a a new colleague in his 70’s and watches came up in conversation - he mentioned a wrist watch from WW1 era his grandfather had - which came into his ownership when he was 40.
He believes it is from around 1919 when his grandfather got it - but he died shortly afterwards. When he received it it had been sitting in a drawer for many decades - so needed a service. Apparently, that’s all it needed and ticks away nicely and keeps good time.
Looks like an enamel dial - lovely blued hands in a Dennison gold case - but any info about movement - which has Rolex markings - would this be pretty early for a wristwatch movement ? - and is it genuine Rolex movement. His watchmaker seemed to think it was legit.
He’s not interested in selling - just would like to know a bit more about the watch & its history.
Apologies for the photos - only had my iPhone available.
z
Last edited by zelig; 29th May 2019 at 08:07.
I can’t help with any information but that looks superb. Have you checked the date of the hallmarks?
Can't make out the case markings, but possibly WD in the rectangle.
The movement is Aegler so could be Rolex.
Originally Posted by alfat33
As above.
F.T.F.A.
This really wears its heart on its sleeve. The word Rolex is clearly engraved on one wheel, in line with Aegler’s practice at the time. Wilsdorf and Davies were still just a recasing outfit and Rolex one of their many brands while Aegler supplied the same movement to a host of similar companies. As such the brand name went on a wheel rather than a bridge, allowing Aegler to supply ebauches to many in an agile manner.
Likewise, the case is clearly marked Dennison. They were, at the time, an enormous outfit supplying everything to everyone.
The full story will be in the hallmarks, but the movement was made in Switzerland and almost certainly supplied finished but uncased to the UK - avoiding massive import tax at the time, to be cased by a third party acting for W&D, who were founded in the UK but moved to Switzerland a decade or so before.
So in many ways, it’s a classic mongrel from the period where the majority of watches were. However, by luck it’s a mongrel conforming to the brand standards, and bearing the name, of a recasing company who went on, from these entirely humble beginnings, to be a teensy bit famous.
Which is pretty cool.
Definitely Rolex with an Aegler "Rebberg" Rolex movement.
http://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/mo...gler/Rolex.jpg
M4tt nails it and a lovely watch to see and more of a Rolex than the vast majority of this period sold by dealers with "Rolex" on the dial which they almost never had originally.
Many years ago I did see one from 1919 IIRC that did look to have an original Rolex brand on the dial and it was an Extra Prima, jewelled to the centre and adjusted to 3 or 4 positions(from memory), but that's the only one I've personally ever seen I'd be confident about - at the time I wondered if it was a salesman/demonstration example. As M4tt notes the UK market was different(North America was similar enough to the UK and you see a few with retailers on the dial). In Europe it was the opposite and you would find brand names on the dials from early on and almost never retailers names. Though I've never seen a Rolex of any kind in a European context from this period? They seemed to be very much aimed at the British and its empire at the time market(and were for years).
It was a fascinating time of flux and innovation into the new ear of wristwatches for men and great to see another example show up, especially in such good condition. No doubt helped by the fact it was put away in a drawer shortly after the chap's grandfather passed away and left there for decades.
Interesting point about the engraving just on the wheel M4tt, never considered that as a reason. :)
Great feedback - Thanks guys.
I’ve passed on the info.
It’ll make him very pleased.
z
If you want to get a shot with the marks on the silver clearly shown, I'm pretty sure that we'll be able to refine the details to a point that many would consider a mental health issue...
What's really terrifying is if you compare that movement with the handwind movements offered by Rolex fifty odd years later:
Not a lot has changed! My example is a Royal from '66, but the movement, clearly a very gentle evolution from the Aegler movement from the turn of the century and still made in the same factory, remained largely unchanged until Rolex stopped doing handwound oysters in around 1990!
And still running indirect seconds that late in the game too. Something I'd not expect to see much past circa 1940. Interesting. TBH I always had a soft spot for indirect seconds. The seconds hand moves slightly differently with them I've found.
He just sent a shot of the hallmarks if that’ll help reveal any more...
z
I make that Birmingham (where Dennison were based), 1919 so that fits in.
What a lovely thing.
Nothing too surprising. It's a Birmingham 1919 hallmark for UK 18 carat gold, as expected. Dennison's factory was in Birmingham and it shows that the movement was UK made and cased. Rolex's original operation was in London and would have probably added a W&D makers or sponsor's mark after 1912. That this doesn't have one shows how far the organisation had moved to third parties building to a specification with no physical W&D intervention by the end of WWI.
Believe it or not, the bottom of the line Seamasters running the tail end of the 30 series were still running indirect seconds well into the sixties. Personally I have a long running love for these movements and consider the indirect seconds 285, which retained the Breguet overcoil hairspring but benefited from a modern balance, to be the Platonic ideal for a handwind movement.
I agree about the second hand, it always seems more eager!
Re: and bearing the name, of a recasing company who went on, from these entirely humble beginnings, to be a teensy bit famous.
A bit of a chip on someone's shoulder perhaps:-)
I'm sorry that you took offense, but it's a historical fact: Wilsdorf and Davies started off as a recasing company. I think that counts as humble beginnings, no? As for 'a teensy bit famous' that's just employing litotes for gently humorous effect.
As such, any chip certainly isn't mine. As you brought it up, in the middle of an enjoyable conversation that was entirely free of the need for passive aggressive emoticons, perhaps you may want to have a long hard look in the mirror.
I'm sorry that I do not uncritically fawn upon Rolex and that it is demonstrably true that Rolex didn't summit Everest until the early sixties, but that's just how it is. Please stop with the sly digs.
What a nice story, great that such detailed context can be added
You are the one who came up with passive aggressive comment which is not a first time. No one needs to fawn over anything and feel free to comment as you please. I have noticed a trend and hence the comment. You certainly seems to have a chip on your shoulder regarding Rolex and seem unduly disturbed by its great success. Rolex is here to stay. Get over it. Cheap digs aren't going to undo their success. It is like pointing at a successful CEO who climbed the ladder of success and saying look how far that peon got. It might be historically accurate but just shows someone as a bitter person.
Last edited by RAJEN; 29th May 2019 at 17:18.
Fanboi aggression, wind your neck in Raj.
I didn't read it like that at all. It was an interesting post and one that you've pretty much cocked your leg over in the hunt for Rolex slights. Brava.
May be, maybe not. My account is factually correct. I like Rolex watches. This was not a Rolex thread. OP asked to help identify a watch which Matt helped with but couldn't help take a dig as a part of his 'pleasant conversation. And, I pointed that out.
Sure, there will be other joining in the chorus for their own motives.
Sorry OP for my part in derailing the thread.
Last edited by RAJEN; 29th May 2019 at 18:15.
Oh I'd have a few, but it would certainly be among them alright.
I agree about the second hand, it always seems more eager!good way to describe it.
Regarding your Royal I always loved the 40's and 50's handwind non "sports" type Rolex, particularly the steel examples. They had some lovely watches which tend to go under the radar these days. I've had a couple in the distant past(and a couple of Tudors from that period), but stupidly sold them on. Kinda sorry I got shot of my early Oysters too. Though they were small and for some reason wore smaller and I got clear before that market died off, which will indicate how long ago that was... #ImOld
As far as the sly digs stuff goes: All now well known brands that were sold in the UK back then were "recased" by "recasers". As M4tt himself pointed out, to avoid heavy duties. Some sponsors used movements from various sources, others stuck to one supplier. Nor did they feature the maker on the dial. Hans Wilsdorf(truly a marketing giant) being the guy who was the one to change that in the UK market. If it were an IWC, Longines, Zenith it would be the exact same story. I'm a lifelong Longines "fan" and wouldn't go off on one if anyone said the same about them, because it would be factually accurate and hardly a "sly dig". However it does seem for some and for some reason that even the merest suggestion of not genuflecting in constant reverence to the big R raises hackles???
What exactly was my passive aggressive comment? My faults are numerous, but being passive about anything has never once been one of them.
As for your trend:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...nd-Really-Wear
Or pointing out the Rolex constitution to you and talking about how amazing it was.
Or owning a fair few of them
As for the CEO metaphor. It's more like a successful CEO who, while now undeniably successful and with a history to be proud of, can't help embellishing his history and who has a history of making dubious claims that he later has to publicly apologise for.
Just read that M. Great bit of research.
I absolutely agree about Wilsdorf. More than a marketing giant, he was a uniquely moral individual whose vision for his company really was utterly unique. Oddly, I evidenced this claim to Rajen only a month or two back with some, as far as I am aware, original research.Oh I'd have a few
Regarding your Royal I always loved the 40's and 50's handwind non "sports" type Rolex, particularly the steel examples. They had some lovely watches which tend to go under the radar these days. I've had a couple in the distant past(and a couple of Tudors from that period), but stupidly sold them on. Kinda sorry I got shot of my early Oysters too. Though they were small and for some reason wore smaller and I got clear before that market died off, which will indicate how long ago that was... #ImOld
As far as the sly digs stuff goes: All now well known brands that were sold in the UK back then were "recased" by "recasers". As M4tt himself pointed out, to avoid heavy duties. Some sponsors used movements from various sources, others stuck to one supplier. Nor did they feature the maker on the dial. Hans Wilsdorf(truly a marketing giant) being the guy who was the one to change that in the UK market. If it were an IWC, Longines, Zenith it would be the exact same story. I'm a lifelong Longines "fan" and wouldn't go off on one if anyone said the same about them, because it would be factually accurate and hardly a "sly dig". However it does seem for some and for some reason that even the merest suggestion of not genuflecting in constant reverence to the big R raises hackles???
You are quite right about the recasing, however, the difference with Rolex is that, until 1926 AFAIK, they didn't design or manufacture anything at all. They bought movements from one place, cases from another, had dials made up and so on. IWC, for example made a whole watch in Switzerland, but for the UK Etc. would get Dennison or BWC or whoever to recase either in generic or to their own design.
It's a subtle difference. I can only think of one exception - Borgel, being a bit unique, tended to import whole and have import and sponsers marks to prove it. I bet there are others though...
Cheers. You have no idea how much of a pain it all was at the time.Just read that M. Great bit of research.
That he was M and unlike every other Swiss brand he and his company were the only ones who didn't sell to the Axis powers in WW2. And that was his position from the get go, when the outcome wasn't nearly so sure. The rest couldn't sell them to Germany fast enough. Including Patek whose marketing spiel on their "aviation history"[insert roll eyes smiley here] when their "pilots watch" came out consisted of two wristwatches and one pocketwatch, both to a late 30's German RLM B-Uhr standard. Well they sold them until Germany ran out of hard currency then they stopped. Post war, Girard Perregaux sought to destroy any German issued Mimos(a sister company) they could get their hands on. You want to compile a list of Swiss watch companies of the 30's? A list of German issued DH watches alone would be a comprehensive one, again save for Rolex. That's before Hans supplying his watches through the Red Cross to Allied POW's of all nations for little or no money to be paid off when the war was over. As you say M, a uniquely moral individual and one that had the courage of his convictions.
I'm not even sure about IWC M. Like the rest it seems they all sought out UK sponsors or were sought out by them and sent them movements. Indeed IWC were thought of more as a smaller movement supplier rather than a watch brand well into the 30's. Some sponsors had a near exclusive deal with one brand, EG Arthur Baume and Longines, others did the same as Rolex and brought in movements from various brands and cased them locally. Longines even advertised in British industry periodicals the fact that they wouldn't brand their movements for that market. They understood the local market. In a way and again oul Hans being ahead of the game, he was more like a UK sponsor in many ways, buying in different movements for his various sub brands and recasting them locally, which might explain why he was the first to cry foul and insist on his brand going on the dials. In reality he and his company were much more like a Mappin or Harrods or Land and Water than an Omega.You are quite right about the recasing, however, the difference with Rolex is that, until 1926 AFAIK, they didn't design or manufacture anything at all. They bought movements from one place, cases from another, had dials made up and so on. IWC, for example made a whole watch in Switzerland, but for the UK Etc. would get Dennison or BWC or whoever to recase either in generic or to their own design.
I can imagine. Great resource though and why I love the interwebs and folks like yourself collating that kinda info. Even in the last ten years I've read fantastically researched forum posts by "amateurs" that have rewritten the history of watches, in small and large ways.
I love how life has been breathed back into this thread by a couple of fantastic contributors. (doffs chapeau)
You’re right one was enough I’ll delete mine.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
There was no need to delete anything Ian. your comment was valid.
I was meaning Matt and Wibbs, both extremely knowledgeable about a wide variety of vintage watches.
Wibbs is a funny guy, with great humility, and Matt has a brain as big as a planet.
Send the cheques to...
definitely - found the comments interesting!There was no need to delete anything Ian. your comment was valid.
I was meaning Matt and Wibbs, both extremely knowledgeable about a wide variety of vintage watches.
Wibbs is a funny guy, with great humility, and Matt has a brain as big as a planet.
Send the cheques to...
[QUOTE=bobbee;5111193]There was no need to delete anything Ian. your comment was valid.
I was meaning Matt and Wibbs, both extremely knowledgeable about a wide variety of vintage watches.
Wibbs is a funny guy, with great humility, and Matt has a brain as big as a planet.
It's easy to mistake a mouth for a brain. There are plenty here know a damned sight more than me but make much less noise.
My fault I misunderstood your post.There was no need to delete anything Ian. your comment was valid.
I was meaning Matt and Wibbs, both extremely knowledgeable about a wide variety of vintage watches.
Wibbs is a funny guy, with great humility, and Matt has a brain as big as a planet.
Send the cheques to...
Thanks for pointing it out.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
A fascinating and insightful read.
Thank You.
[QUOTE=M4tt;5111252]There may be more knowledgeable folk on here and elsewhere, but some prefer to hoard that knowledge and not share it, for some reason or other.
[QUOTE=bobbee;5111399]As Newton said, 'I only see so far because I stand on the shoulders of giants'. There's a lot of folk here and over at WUS and now IWL who have freely shared, argued and refined what we know over the years.
In fact, here's a perfect example of my personal learning curve from a decade ago:
https://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/tudor-unease-247289.html
Which is how I ended up with this:
Last edited by M4tt; 30th May 2019 at 10:16.
[QUOTE=M4tt;5111451]Wow, thats a good piece of detective work! (by the members who exposed the fake)
As Newton said, 'I only see so far because I stand on the shoulders of giants'. There's a lot of folk here and over at WUS and now IWL who have freely shared, argued and refined what we know over the years.
In fact, here's a perfect example of my personal learning curve from a decade ago:
https://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/tudor-unease-247289.html
Which is how I ended up with this:
Last edited by oldoakknives; 30th May 2019 at 12:36. Reason: misunderstood
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
[QUOTE=oldoakknives;5111513]Surely it's exactly the opposite? I screwed up and was rescued by others with the skill and knowledge to school me?.
[QUOTE=M4tt;5111549]Ermm.... sorry, I meant by the people who exposed it as a fake............(now edited!)
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
[QUOTE=oldoakknives;5111556]I'm confused. Strela took one look at it and knew it was a fake. The end.
Ermm.... sorry, I meant by the people who exposed it as a fake............
I badgered on for more details, but that was just to allow me to move from declarative (having it explained) to procedural (just being able to know at first sight) knowledge about it. I also searched up dozens of real and fake pictures to practice the discrimination.
This is why I come to the forum. The depth and breadth of knowledge out there is wonderful.
Thanks for the information.
[QUOTE=M4tt;5111563]Are you just looking for an argument, based on what I thought was a pretty innocent good natured post I made?
Last edited by oldoakknives; 30th May 2019 at 17:47.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
[QUOTE=oldoakknives;5111778]Nope. I appreciated your intervention earlier, but I was just confused by the 'detective work' comment. I always sound like that. You must know that by now.
[QUOTE=M4tt;5112013]Oh, ok.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Posting Permissions
