I believe that my vintage wristwatch has a calibre 84 movement, but I am not 100% certain.
The movement number is 880756
Case number is 918070
I believe that the watch was made circa 1931.
Many thanks, in advance.
Michael
I believe that my vintage wristwatch has a calibre 84 movement, but I am not 100% certain.
The movement number is 880756
Case number is 918070
I believe that the watch was made circa 1931.
Many thanks, in advance.
Michael
It is!
And it is from 1928!
Is it actually a ladies' wristwatch?
Hi Michael,
It is a very small movement -- 8 3/4 ligne, which translates to about 19 mm in diameter. As such it was found mostly in ladies' watches. Back then, most wristwatches were relatively small, but this movement was relatively small for the era. Only about 22,000 were made if I recall.
If you want to view a technical page about the movement's parts, you can click on the link below.
Regards,
Michael
Thank-you,info and 2 questions
First, thank-you both for your helpful replies.
Dr. Goerter, is only the movement from 1928 or is entire the watch from 1928?
If you are aware of a model name, I would be most grateful to learn of it, as well.
Mr. Friedberg, on the link you provided, there are 2 balance staffs listed: One staff is described as "only" (#8478) and the other as "adjusted" (#8479).
Can you tell me the difference between the two?
I understand the difference between the other parts as being caused by dial types--raised vs. flat, but I'm a bit puzzled by the 2 different balance staffs.
If I had to guess, I would think that one was more precisely machined, whereas the other would need filing and/or polishing before being usable--but I'd rather not simply guess.
If this is true, though, why would a watchmaker prefer a roughly finished product? Greater profit for a bit more work?
To answer your question:
No, I don't believe that is is a ladies' wristwatch. It is a wire-lug, tonneau and is 36mm x 26mm, excluding the crown, but including the lugs.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Michael
The two numbers always differ . . .
. . . you would hardly find a watch with similar numbers (case AND movement numbers). Normally the movement number is older. When a case is ready they took a fiiting movement out from the stock and assembled the watch.So, [i]normally[i] the movement number is from a later date.
Often they assembled the famous cal.97 in a tonneau-shaped case. They a called [i]Formwerk[i] (formed movement) because they are formed like the case. Tonneaus with that movment are more expensive.
Yes I agee with you: it's a men's watch if it is a tonneau-shaped one.
What's about showing a picture from the watch here?
Greeting to wherever you may be :=)
Hans
err, it's not a c. 97 or 87, but a round 84
Hi Hans (and Michael),
In your reply you mentioned a calibre 97, but that's a large round pocket watch movement never used in a tonneau case. You undoubtedly had a typo since you talk about shaped movement in a tonneau case, and the cal. 87 was such a movement.
But this movement is not a shaped movement and is not what you call a Formwerk. This is a very small round movement. It is a calibre 84 and completely different than what you are talking about.
To reply to Michael's questions:
There is a source which allowed Hans (and others who could have replied) to date the movement. We cannot date the casing or first sale of the watch, which frequently is slightly later. IWC can date the first sale, and you need to apply for an extract from the archive book (see link below).
I have no idea about the difference in one part for this uncommon movement. I doubt anyone can tell you definitively why two different balance staffs are shown. Sorry!
Regards,
Michael
No No Michael . . .
. . . I wrote:
[i]Often they assembled the famous cal.97 in a tonneau-shaped case[i]
and: often is not always :=)
It was only a amerndment from me that besides other movements (e.g.84) often (!) a "Formwerk c.87 was used in rectangular watches.
And: 4 posts ago I still agreed that is is definitively a c.84 in Michael Nolans watch.
So: only a misunderstanding :=)
oh now I see...
... how stupid! Sure a C.97 (pocket watch movement) wouldn't fit in a tonneau case.
That was a typo! I meant c.87.
Please forgive- Didn't see my error at first glance!
just to make sure you've got it...
cal. 97 --yes, a typo (but not the point); and a round large pocket watch movement
cal. 87 --what you discussed as a "shaped" or formwerk movement, in the post to which I replied. However, that was not a typo, but a misunderstanding by you --the question here involved a cal. 84, not a cal. 87; as such I tried to correct (politely I hope) your off-base reply
--cal. 84 --a small round movement, in the watch in question. Not shaped, and not a formwerk. Used seldomly in rectangular watches, and mostly in small ladies' watches.
All straight?
Thanks and regards,
Michael
That's exactly what I meant :=)
It was only a misunderstanding and a typo, Michael. I have several c84-watches and one is very very old: it's a former Lady's pocket watch and they solded lugs on a little pocket watch case to make a wrist watch of it.
Nice watch with three covers.
All the ebst
Hans
Thank-you both, again!
Dr. Goerter, the watch is presently in the hands of my watchmaker, so I cannot post a picture.
Unfortunately, it had been redialed before coming into my possession, though it is still attractive enough--but less collectible.
I am interested to learn how you were able to determine the calibre number from the movement's serial number.
Michael
There is a program that is available
on the link below. A most useful reference and a must for any IWC vintage collector.
Cheers from the cellar
Oh no! The program is gone!
Cellar, I clicked on the link, but the webhost seems to have deleted the program, due to inactivity.
Thank-you, though.
Michael
Try this link
It works
Sorry but the link doesn't work
try clicking on the programs, you get a message that reads:
"This file has been deleted. Reason: No download for a longer period. Inactivity-timeout exceeded."
I sent Marco an email - lets see what happens.
Cheers from the cellar
I think I've solved it; see my post above (nt)