Lemania Omega early chronometer chronograph

[artb]

Best early Omega(1942?) chronograph movement by Lemania (in first moonwatch) and still used by Patek with chronometer rating. In 14k case marked Lemania Chronometer 7 positions adjusted. 5 as watch plus 2 as chronograph. Is this the first wristwatch chronometer chronograph? Did Omega ever rate this (321 Omega number for it) as a chronometer? I am thinking that Lemania made a few early on to show its quality to prospective watchmaker customers as well as the public.

[Eeeb]

Best early Omega(1942?) chronograph movement by Lemania (in first moonwatch) and still used by Patek with chronometer rating. In 14k case marked Lemania and 7 positions adjusted. 5 as watch plus 2 as chronograph. Is this the first wristwatch chronometer chronograph?

Chronometer only has a definite meaning when applied to COSC certification. And COSC has existed only since 1973. Since this watch clearly predates that, it is impossible to make any first claims.

Patek is still using Lemania movements??? That bears more explanation.

Anyway, beautiful example! Enjoy.

[artb]

Eeeb: As you notice I know nothing about Swiss accuracy ratings. Why is
this one multiposition tested and marked chronometer?
Have info about Patek caliber 27-70 reference 5070 chronograph using Patek
rebuilt Lemania 2310 in 2004. From Watchtime magazine.
Did Omega ever chronometer rate the 2310 Lemania? Thanks for comments.

[Eeeb]

Eeeb: As you notice I know nothing about Swiss accuracy ratings. Why is
this one multiposition tested and marked chronometer?
Have info about Patek caliber 27-70 reference 5070 chronograph using Patek
rebuilt Lemania 2310 in 2004. From Watchtime magazine.
Did Omega ever chronometer rate the 2310 Lemania? Thanks for comments.

The Wikipedia article on COSC is pretty good at explaining what is happening here... TimeZone also has an excellent article. (Look for those when you google up "COSC".)

Generally, prior to COSC, folks would rate their top movements that they spent a lot of time adjusting as "chronometers". It did mean you had a very good watch but it is hard to compare 'chronometers' of that era. Generally comparisons were done by contests cities or observatories would run. (Longines used to use their awards as the basis of advertising during this era... They were making better watches than Omega during these times.)

I don't know enough about Omega's use of the term pre-COSC to comment with any authority. Others might.

[AbslomRob]

The history of watches in the last century is more about marketing then technology, in many respects. The term "Chronometer" technically refers to <any> device that tells time, but was originally coined to describe the device designed for the british navy to assist in navigation (the "marine" chronometer). The association between "chronometer" and high-grade movments stems from that.

From a more swiss perspective, this link gives some more detail:
http://montresuisses.blogspot.com/2006/07/vintage-chronometer-standards-1961-1973.html

[artb]

Eeeb and Rob: Nice to get some intelligent perspective about the term
chronometer, and references. Thankyou.

[radger]

Hi, before COSC, high grade 'adjusted' watches had to pass rigerous
testing, usualy at astronomical observatories before they could be called
a chronometer.

English watchmakers would send a watch to The National Physical Laboratory
at Kew.
Swiss watches were sent to the Geneva Observatory.

The testing regime of pre COSC chronometers was far more rigerous than present
day standards.

This is a very nice Lemania you have but what makes you think it is an Omega?

[artb]

Radger: thanks for nice and informative comments. A Lemania marked
movement and watch is not an Omega. This movement is mainly known as a well respected Omega 231 thus my confusing association with Omega. Also was this commonly used movement by Omega ever rated as chronometer?


the more I know the more I know how little I know

[artb]

Repeating a question regarding the Lemania 231 movement used in Speedy Pro before change to 861 in 1968. the 231(27chro) was used in a variety of Omega chronos. I think I read somewhere it was chronometer certified by Omega in something, maybe even in a special Speedy Pro?

[artb]

I seem to have a problem with numbers. 231 is the 321 for Omega.

[gatorcpa]

Watches marked as "Certified Chronometers" or similar would have been supplied with a certificate similar to this one, pre-COSC.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/3565206544_7d1c7bc50c.jpg
(Photo attributable to MSNWatch)

However, watch companies did make "adjusted" versions of certain movements as the original poster's example shows. While these watch movements were adjusted in the positions specified, they were not independently certified as chronometers when new.

This is why the dial says "Chronometer" as opposed to "Certified Chronometer".

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

[artb]

Certainly helps me understand better the use of the 'chronometer' marking.
I have learned a chronometer is simply an accurate timekeeper. So i guess a cheap but good quartz watch is a chronometer. My belief now is that a watch marked chronometer does not necessarily have a paper from a respected organization with written proof of superior accuracy certified by their technicians. However do watches now marked 'certified chronometer' all get individually tested with proper documents supplied?

[gatorcpa]

However do watches now marked 'certified chronometer' all get individually tested with proper documents supplied?

The uncased movements get tested. Once passed, they are sent back to the manufacturer who cases them for sale.

I know that for some Hamilton Ships' Chronometers, factory-run test results were supplied to the Navy to show that timekeeping standards were met under the terms of their contract. I think the same was true with some railroad chronometers. There were no independent American certification clearinghouses that I'm aware of.

This certfication process was a Swiss invention.

Take care,
gatorcpa

[lysanderxiii]

The uncased movements get tested. Once passed, they are sent back to the manufacturer who cases them for sale.

I know that for some Hamilton Ships' Chronometers, factory-run test results were supplied to the Navy to show that timekeeping standards were met under the terms of their contract. I think the same was true with some railroad chronometers. There were no independent American certification clearinghouses that I'm aware of.

This certfication process was a Swiss invention.

Take care,
gatorcpa
The US Navy certified Naval ship's chronometers in arather long and evolved process. Some where in my stuff I have one of these specifications for certifying a naval chronometer (USN). They still provide the US Navy with timing and astronomical data required for accurate navigation, astrometry, etc.

I am uncertain if US railroads certified their watches indepentently or had the manufacturer do it prior to shipping.

Currently, there are two placed that can "certify" a "chronometer" in the modern wrist-watch meaning of the word, that I know of, COSC, for Swiss made movements and Glassutte, for German made movements/watches.

[JohnF]

Hi -

There was no formal independent institutional certification for US RR watches.

The reason? No need to. Each and every RR watch used in service with railroads was adjusted to meet the railroad's quality control by watchmakers who did nothing else. The watches were checked every month to ensure that they were operating properly, as this was considered to be a life-critical component of the railroad operating system.

The manufacturers were "merely" responsible for building watches that were capable of maintaining their accuracy to these exacting standards. The railroads were not about to have their watchmakers running around working on watches that were not up to specification.

JohnF

[jason_recliner]

Sweet.

[artb]

Agree with Jason.