The movement in my watch is stamped simply 1003 in the rectangular box. Yet, I have seen and heard of movements stamped 1003/1, 1003/2 and, if memory serves me correctly, 1003/v. I should be greatful If someone is able to tell me the differences (if any) between the various versions.
Thanks
Harvey

Originally brought to daylight by JLC as Cal 803 on request from VC and AP. No one else, not eihter JLC has used this movement.
VC names it Cal 1003 and AP Cal 2003.
First introduced by VC 1955, and still the thinnest movement produced. 1,64 mm high and diam 20.80 mm. Chronometre quality and it has no shock proofing, because it's so light!
Cal 1003 means that it's the original basic version with minute and hour hands only.
So be proud it's a milestone in horology!
I'll soon get my first one
Doc

and is it still in use?
Thanks, Doc

and yes, still used.
Patrimony "les Extra-Plates Large Model" Ref. 33093, one of the absolute most beautiful watches ever produced, and I think a skeleton malte version too and perhaps there are more..
"Lots" of vintages, so it's still possible to get a fantastic movement very, very cheap if you are lucky!
Best
Doc

(Scan from the book "The World of Vacheron Constantin")



Jian

I know you could kill for that one
Doc

to save your skin!



Jian

I just wish they STILL had this watch in their line up, or the similar 33094 (same thing but with gold stick markers). I'd go out and buy one tomorrow! Thanks for the pic:<}

Don

nt

In the very detailed "Kalerliste", it says Chronometerqualität, and I also seen that in the German magazine ArmbandUhren.
I have never for sure, as I now can remeber seen any Chronometer certified Cal. 1003, but it anyhow has the Geneva Seal.
Anyhow it's a very nice movement!
Doc

Cheers!

Jian

until I hold this beauty from 1936






Doc

looking forward to seeing more home-made photos of that beauty...



Jian

Hi John,
I have done some more research(?)...
Kreuzer refer to the Genfer Prufbüro, which had higher standards then official Swiss Testing Agencies. This is also confirmed in Osterhausens "Wristwatch Chronometers", page 45. In the Osterhausen's book notably stands - "none of the watches which bear the Geneva seal bear the inscription "chronometre", the only exception is VC "Chronometre Royal". Statistics about the participants were not kept by the bureau.
As I understand it, Cal. 1003 is tested but wears no sign of it more than the Geneva seal.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood
Doc

Hi Doc,

If I remember well, watches (or movements) need seconds hand to be tested as a chronometer.

I don't think cal 1003 variations ever got a seconds hand!

I love this movement.

that the author Anton Kreuzer means when he writes that this movement has Chronometer quality is that it's tested for the Geneva Seal including their chronometertest, but no certificate was issued.
As you know VC has over the years been very inconsistent about cronometer test and the Geneva Seal too.
Some years they where among the more frequent testers, I remember as late as 2002-2003 or about that period, they was number five or so at the COSC testers. The last years I haven't seen any tests from them (or PP as well).
Still they are producing the chronometre I'm wearing just now, DTR and this one bought 2005 is COSC certified.
I think VC in the future only will focus at the Geneva Seal, I mean they even put it on the dial
Doc

be COSC certified?

I'm not certain that the answer is yes...

Fritz von Osterhausen writes about B.O. = "Bureaux officiels de controle de la marche des montres", consisting of Bienne, La Chaux-de-Fonds, St. Imier, LeLocle, Le Sentier and Geneva.
In 1973 these officies were put under one administration, "Controle Officiel Suisse des Chronometres", namely COSC.
Osterhausen also concludes that comparing to Swiss testing Agencies Geneva standards were always higher. Testperiods were 18 days compared to 15 at B.O..
None of the watches tested with Geneva seal bear the inscription "chronometre", which was usual for watches tested at B.O. The only exception is VC "Cronometre Royal".
Basically the term chronometer, which is Greek, means "time measure".
So far von Osterhausen.
And Jérôme, in his "Bible of chronometers" there are three pictured watches without seconds hand: CYMA, Omega and Movado.
I think this could go on for ever..
And why is Bill so quiet?
But Cal. 1003 still is very nice
Doc

There is so much done about the use of terms out of their formal context....

I just wonder if a company can name a watch a chronometer (or "chronometer qualitat") without having it officially tested (in Switzerland or elsewhere, I don't remember if they still officially test chronometers in Besançon) without risking to get unhappy consumers charge them with false advertising?

So it's already going too far.

But as you pointed, where is Bill?

But I seem to be a bit late to add much to this thread, which has been very interesting to read.

Still, there has been no answer on why there are naming variants for the 1003 (ie-1003/1), and I have no idea. One would think that the modern version with the addition of a jewel (18 total) would have been good for another number after the slash, but I guess not.


Bill

Hi Guys,

At least with modern useage, the word chronometer has a very specific definition, which applies to a watch that has been certified according to certain international standards of timekeeping. Either a watch is a chronometer (certified) or it is not.

This is a relatively modern convention though if I understand the history correctly, and certainly the term has been used differently over the years, sometimes referring to a chronometer escapement equipped timepiece or to a watch certified by any number of observatories with sometimes different tests and standards (and grades).

In modern useage, I think the term "chronometer quality" is misleading and/or hollow at best. Either a watch is a chronometer or it's not. You can't be a little pregnant. Of course, some of that is just my opinion.

_john

Of course, I'm not denying that there is highly technical and standardized content in COSC tests, but I'd guess that the decision of sending or not one's movements to be tested is basically marketing oriented. Needless to say, that's only MVHO.

It's would be interesting to know how many movements (from various brands) are being tested and what porcentage of them have passed the tests. I vaguely recalled having read something about the former but don't remember if there is any sufficient infomation about the latter.

Anyway, I personally don't love VC less only because some of their movements are not chronometer certified - because, among other reasons, I'm confident of their "chronometer quality", just to use the term in spite of the enlightening comment from John - as well as I don't care too much that some VC movements are not "in-house".

Sometimes, I could just put one of my few VC watches on my wrist to be ready to make peace with this world.



Jian

What today is considered as a chronometer, that's what John has answered to.No more about that.
When you read the litterature about vintage, pre 1973, VC watches there is another terminology.
Then they used the word "chronometerquality".
Let me cite from von Osterhausen again!
"Chronometer wristwatches with observatory certificates (from Geneva) are very rare. We know that from Patek Philippe's 480 tested watches with certificate, only 15 ever has been sold"
So Jian, I'm with you, just lay back and enjoy the beauty of a movement from Vacheron&Constantin is pure poetry, with or without certificate, but I'm first in the que for Bill's chronometer with certificate, if he ever would think of...
Doc

nt

Hi John, all,
"chronometer quality" isn't an empty claim in my book and it's been a pretty common description for a certain level of quality (and used to describe the base movement). As I understand it it's a base movement which has everything, in design and execution to enable one to finish it to chronometer spec's. Movement's like the famous Peseux 260 are often described as chronometer qulity (or grade) movement - even if unclear if this specific movement wasn't tested.
Even parts like hairsprings or balances are often decribed in a similar way - "Qualite Bulletin" or "Qualite Observatoire" are common ways to describe highest quality components.
I just understand it as a rather nice sounding but basically technical description of the qulity the part/component/base movement is capable of.
Of course all this is from yesterday and, at least with the relatively low todays COSC requirements, almost any modern movement would have this capability.

Best regards
Suitbert

Hi Suitbert,

Perhaps I'm being overly contentious on this point, so I'll make a few concessions:

Balance/hairspring combinations are often described as "chronometer quality" or similar, but in my experience this is typically the case where the movement is available in both a chronometer and non-chronometer version (a variety of ETAs come to mind). Of course a "chronometer quality" balance/hairspring combination is an absolute necessity if chronometer certification is desired.

I suppose I could also go for referring to some pre-1973 movements as chronometer quality, (perhaps in quotes?) if the manufacturer or some other authoritative source referred to them that way. I'll even allow it could be appropriate for a given movement IF some iterations of the same movement (with the same timekeeping "dress" as it were) were in fact chronometer certified. I'd still be tempted to say, "How do you know?", as in, how can you be sure that the same chronometer critical bits were included on the reportedly "chronometer quality" yet not chronometer certified piece? But let's just pretend that we trust the manufacturer's claims for the sake of argument.

With regards to this statement:

"Of course all this is from yesterday and, at least with the relatively low todays COSC requirements, almost any modern movement would have this capability."

I'll just have to strongly disagree, it being obvious that you and I have seen a different sampling of modern movements apparently.

_john

Hello all:

The 1003 AFAIK has never been chronometer certified and has only in the last 6-7 years been stamped with the Geneva Seal...about the time the movement was provided with KIF shock protection to the balance (1003/2).

Don

chronometer (quality) and "official certified chronometer" (after 1973, COSC).
In Berners Dictionnaire you can read, "A very good watch is sometimes referred to as a regular chronometer".
In Antiquorum's Catalogue, book, for the auction "The Art of Patek Philippe", 1999, there are at several places following definition of Geneva Seal:

"Poincons de Geneve
The voluntary quality control of watches at the Geneva Observatory, was established by a law dated November 6, 1886. Conditions were laid down for the attribution and stamping of the Poincons de Geneve, punch-marks designed as the coat-of-arms of Geneva. Pocket watches, or wristwatches which carry the Poincons de Geneve, considered as an equivalent to a Bulletin Officiel de Marche, punched on a bridge and on the main plate of the movement, were qualified to be officially termed "chronometers"."

Since it has been a sliding meaning of the word Chronometer during the years, from originally been used by the English watchmaker Thaker 1714 through later on by John Arnold, who used the term for the spring detent escapement, until modern time, when the term has nothing to do with a specific type of movement.
This is a question that pops up over and over, but for me, this time I have at least learned some more, and that's what it's all is about, isn't it?
Doc

I have followed with interest and learned a lot. And the topic was much more clear after John's intervention and your last and conclusive post.

At this stage, COSC's official site seems to be a common place: http://www.cosc.ch/. But, it's still interesting to see what's the definition of "chronometer" in its terminological system: http://www.cosc.ch/chronometre.php?lang=en. And it provoked a smile in me when I checked its French version, which begins like this: "Une confusion existe, m¨ºme dans les milieux non techniques de l'horlogerie, quant ¨¤ la terminologie".

That's what I tried to hint, seemly in an unsuccessful humoristic way , when I said in my earlier post "I don't love VC less only because some of their movements are not chronometer certified - because, among other reasons, I'm confident of their chronometer quality..."

I agree with you that we should call up local police or Interpol to report Bill as a missing person.



Jian

Here is a photo of my cal 1003 that started this thread (photo copied from another web site). The case is rose gold and the dial is actually silver colored, not blue as shown in the photo. To me, the simplicity of the dial and case and the thinness of the case (less than 5 mm, which includes case back and crystal) is nothing short of classical elegance. It is probably my favorite watch.



Also, does anyone know the name or model number.

Thanks,

Harvey

vc

but maybe someone else could confirm this. And it's c.1960, also according to the same "non-authoritative" source.



Jian

Look at the bezel and lugs...
I have seen this very special one before but I can't find just now. Somewhere I have a pic.
But it's not Ref. 6335, that I'm pretty sure of
Doc

One from Antiquorum and other from I don't remember where:



Notice that from these two Ref.6335 pictures one has "guilloche" bezel and some straight lugs, just as you indicated, while the other one looks identical to the picture Harvey posted. I should suppose that there might be some errors in my database.

Jian

That's the pic I had seen!
It must be Ref. 6335.
But there is quite a difference between the first one at the crown fitting and this latest.
This is a good example how individual earlier watches was from V&C!
Very nice watch!
This, mine from 1959, Ref. 6454 with Cal. 1002, is a little lookalike



Doc

here are some sisters and cousins of hers. They all share the wide bezel characteristic design, with some variation.

(All from internet resource, to my sadness )

Ref.6395, cal.1003


Ref.6704, cal.1003


Cal.466


Cal.466


I wonder if the wide bezel would make the dial look smaller, the efect of which, in those cal.1003 watches which are mostly 30mm-33mm at that time, would be even evident. Doc, what's the size of your cal.1002? And do you have a wristshot of yours, just to see how it could fit?

Cheers,

Jian

Actually I didn't like the look some years ago of this kind of VCs, but when you have seen it in flesh, it's another watch!
It looks OK on the wrist but because of the wide bezel smaller, I guess.
Generally I am against wristshots, think they are a kind of a joke reall to be honest, and they have no values because you don't know how the mighty (or thin) wrist I have. But just because a very close friend asked me (he knows the size of my wrist) I happen to have one!



Alex and Felipe, for your knowledge, the shirt is from Barbour
This watch also happens to have a very nice movement, with Geneva seal, but has no Chronometerquality, referring to the same "Kaliberliste" as above.
More about that in my final conclusion.
Lousy pic.



Doc

Thanks, Doc! I would not ask you never more to publish your personal physical details. But, don't worry! A normal watch enthusiast would only notice the timepiece (and some others, also the shirt...).

As for me, I never take wristshot, only because I never do it well . What I believe is that sometimes you would like to see the watches in a living context, in interaction with other objects, which also serve as reference, in order to get the real and vivid feeling of the watch. There's something more than only the size, IMHO.

And that's a beautiful movement! I guess not all cal.1001/1002 have Geneva Seal, is it correct?

Anyway, it's been a long and colorful thread. I like your final observation about "chronometer" things.

Jian

Jian:
The right hand picture does look like my watch. However, compare the hands and hour markers. Mine have narrow black stripes painted longitudinally while the ones in your photo are unpainted. However, I don't think that this makes any difference in the model identification.

Aanyway, I thank you all for your efforts and information.

Harvey

Pocket watches, or wristwatches which carry the Poincons de Geneve, considered as an equivalent to a Bulletin Officiel de Marche, punched on a bridge and on the main plate of the movement, were qualified to be officially termed "chronometers"." - assuming it is correct - implies fairly clearly that all movements with the Geneava seal are also deemed to have the right to be officially called chronometres.

Any other opinions on this . . . from a disinterested observer with a vintage 1003 with Poincon de Geneve?

Hi Ian,

The Geneva Seal has from its very inception been a marketing tool. It attempted to standardize a "Geneva Quality" concept and thereby protect high grade watches made in Geneva from competition from elsewhere and from the possibility of eroding standards within the canton as well. While it is a noteworthy metric IMHO, being a region specific standard AND of clear financial benefit to the region which upholds the standard, well, I think I'd call it less than perfectly impartial. This is not to say that it is worthless or of little value even, just to say that it's not exactly objective.

While the argument can certainly be made that the COSC and similar chronometer certification is also pure marketing, I would strongly disagree. It is a certification of a certain level of accuracy that corresponds to international standards as verified by an independent testing body. Some may hold the opinion that every fine watch can easily pass the COSC tests these days (thus nullifying its value except as a marketing tool), but certainly my experience with high grade watches from a number of manufacturers (even when brand new) AND having seen their internal specifications for accuracy leads me to believe that this is not the case (I should point out that I am not referring to Vacheron Constantin specifically).

I do agree that the decision to chronometer certify movements or not does seem to be a marketing decision in many instances, but the significant number of movements out there that simply could not meet the ISO chronometer standards with anything like practicality in production negates the possibility of it being purely marketing IMHO.

With regards to your question specifically, they can call them chronometers in Geneva if they'd like, but not being in Geneva myself, I think I'll fall back on the international standard. You know, the one with clearcut scientific testing procedures to objectively determine the accuracy and precision of the movement?

_john

you've done some very important precisions.

Thank you for that!


Jian

and could not find any test of accuracy mentioned.

My focus on VC is the Art Deco period (1910-1939). Therefore the litterature I mainly read describes watches under the circumstances valid for this period. Not that I'm uninterested to modern technology, I subscribe to 7(!) magazines in horology.
The litterature I mainly have referred to above are :
"Dictionnaire professionnel illustré de l'horologerie I+II" by Berner 2005
"Vacheron Constantin" by Anton Kreuzer 1992
"Wristwatch Chronometers" by von Osterhausen 1997
Definition by Berner : "Any instrument for measuring time. In actual usage, however, the word has been given another sense, a precision instrument. A very good watch is sometimes referred to as a regular chronometer.
The Swiss federation's defines the chronometer as follows: a watch that has obtained an official rating-certificate." So far Berner.
Kreuzer leanes mainly to official catalogues by the Swiss Watch Industry to the watchmakers. These included nearly all calibers, most of them with pictures from different angles. All Swiss firms did so during 40s and 50s, with Rolex and PP as exceptions.
As for the quotations from the Antiquorum PP auction 1999 about the Geneva seal, I can't add more than that I think the specifications for the seal has changed over the years, but the quotations stands beside PP watches even from 1989, in the 1999 catalogue.
In my personal view the word chronometer is so widely used for good movements, mainly in vintage watches, that I think there are actual two words.
"Chronometer" and
"Cerified Chronometer" by par example COSC or earlier other institutes.
From the beginning it meant something else as we all knows
Doc

Howdy,

just 2 cents:

In the first decades of the last century, the brands were allowed to conduct timing tests (within the specs of B.O., which became COSC later) in their own workshops. Thus a "chronometer" of that time does not say it is "officially" tested and in fact, there´s a whole conglomerate of significantly less elaborate watches up to pin-pallets which are labeled "chronometer". Obviously it´s not been strictly enforced then.

This did change when the B.O. certification required to test the movements in the bureaus; at least there´s been some official handling from that point.

The other way around B.O. was Observatory Certification in Neuchatel, Geneva, Besancon or Kew (just to name a few big ones).
Such a piece was a "chronometer" to official and legal standards, although the specs and tolerances were significantly harder to surpass. Thus few brands did offer observatory chronometers (mostly pocket watches) and the premium was significant. A 1914 catalogue by IWC gives an idea: the caliber 52 pocket watches could be had for 35 Reichsmark (German Marks then) in steel and 38 Reichsmark in silver, while the most affordable "Qualité Extra" with precision reglage to observatory standards (often with a Guillaume balance) was 96 Reichsmark. That´s roughly 3 times the price of the regular model and the bulletin, either of the Royal Observatory Leipzig or the Observatory Neuchatel, was 10 Reichsmark extra.
Thus the most affordable C52 "Qualité Extra" with papers was 106 Euro, whereas the same model in a gold case lifted the price to 186 Reichsmark (almost 6 times the entry-level model, with the same base movement).
As one may see, making a "real" chronometer was very very expensive then and an accurate watch anything but common prior to commonly available quartz units in early 1970´s.

So there are some differences and especially for the first half of the last century, things sometimes were not handled very equally

Cheers,

Peter