Reference:Serial-numbers: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 127:

For early [[Reference:prince|Prince]], [[Reference:bubbleback|Bubbleback]] and manual Oyster references such as [[Reference:3478|3478]], compare the case number with examples of the same reference and material. A chart covering later Oyster production may not describe an earlier case-number sequence. British hallmarks on precious-metal cases provide a separate assay date. Steel cases need other evidence.

Ref. [[Reference:3068|3068]] illustrates the limits of its auction record: catalogues date individual watches from c.1935 to c.1950, while Sotheby’s and Antiquorum report different diameters and movement sizes for case 1008594. Antiquorum reads a Dublin import mark on case 1008656 as 1937. These object-level readings do not form a serial-year sequence or establish the reference’s production span.

For [[Reference:3346|ref. 3346]], Antiquorum dates case 146262 to circa 1937; Christie’s dates its 2002 example to circa 1938, and Sotheby’s later identifies that watch as case 142587. Monaco Legend dates case 142589 to circa 1941, while Sotheby’s dates case 146269 to circa 1942. The lower-numbered 142589 thus receives a later catalogue date than 146262. These are attributions to individual watches, not a serial-year sequence or production span. [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-ref-3346-zerographe-lot-339-292 Antiquorum, case 146262] [https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2070687 Christie’s, dated c.1938] [https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/important-watches/reference-3346-zerograph-an-extremely-rare-and?locale=en Sotheby’s case-number survey] [https://www.monacolegendauctions.com/auction/exclusive-timepieces-33/lot-199 Monaco Legend, case 142589] [https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/important-watches/reference-3346-zerograph-an-extremely-rare-and?locale=en Sotheby’s, case 146269]

Line 285:

Line 287:

For a Glasgow or Edinburgh mark, use that office's historical import-mark chart. Date-letter cycles and the dates on which letters changed varied between offices and periods. The letter records assay, which may precede assembly or retail sale. [https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/importmarks.php David Boettcher's guide] explains these distinctions. Opening a case requires suitable tools and care.

Ref. [[Reference:3078|3078]] shows why the case mark and watch date must stay separate. Christie's reports Dublin import marks dated 1937 on a 9ct-gold example but gives no case number. David Duggleby's caption reports Glasgow import marks dated 1937 and case markings read as 3789/3078; the number has not been independently confirmed. The records may describe the same watch. The marks date the import records, not the reference's production or either watch's assembly date. [https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-892250 Christie's] [https://www.davidduggleby.com/auctions/2300/Jewellery-Watches/104955/ David Duggleby, lot 2177]

Antiquorum’s 2010 description of [[Reference:971|Prince 971]] case 70,064 is inconsistent about the assay office. The lot introduction says English import hallmark dated 1928; the detailed case description says “Glasgow import stamp.” The catalogue does not resolve that discrepancy. Its date is an assay reading, not a movement-production date. Bonhams’ 2018 lot 37 separately identifies case 0329 with a Glasgow 1929 mark and movement 70,668. [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-226-401 Antiquorum lot 401]; [https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24629/lot/37/ Bonhams lot 37].

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 For early [[Reference:prince|Prince]], [[Reference:bubbleback|Bubbleback]] and manual Oyster references such as [[Reference:3478|3478]], compare the case number with examples of the same reference and material. A chart covering later Oyster production may not describe an earlier case-number sequence. British hallmarks on precious-metal cases provide a separate assay date. Steel cases need other evidence.
+Ref. [[Reference:3068|3068]] illustrates the limits of its auction record: catalogues date individual watches from c.1935 to c.1950, while Sotheby’s and Antiquorum report different diameters and movement sizes for case 1008594. Antiquorum reads a Dublin import mark on case 1008656 as 1937. These object-level readings do not form a serial-year sequence or establish the reference’s production span.
 For [[Reference:3346|ref. 3346]], Antiquorum dates case 146262 to circa 1937; Christie’s dates its 2002 example to circa 1938, and Sotheby’s later identifies that watch as case 142587. Monaco Legend dates case 142589 to circa 1941, while Sotheby’s dates case 146269 to circa 1942. The lower-numbered 142589 thus receives a later catalogue date than 146262. These are attributions to individual watches, not a serial-year sequence or production span. [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-ref-3346-zerographe-lot-339-292 Antiquorum, case 146262] [https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2070687 Christie’s, dated c.1938] [https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/important-watches/reference-3346-zerograph-an-extremely-rare-and?locale=en Sotheby’s case-number survey] [https://www.monacolegendauctions.com/auction/exclusive-timepieces-33/lot-199 Monaco Legend, case 142589] [https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/important-watches/reference-3346-zerograph-an-extremely-rare-and?locale=en Sotheby’s, case 146269]
@@ Line 285: / Line 287: @@
 For a Glasgow or Edinburgh mark, use that office's historical import-mark chart. Date-letter cycles and the dates on which letters changed varied between offices and periods. The letter records assay, which may precede assembly or retail sale. [https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/importmarks.php David Boettcher's guide] explains these distinctions. Opening a case requires suitable tools and care.
+Ref. [[Reference:3078|3078]] shows why the case mark and watch date must stay separate. Christie's reports Dublin import marks dated 1937 on a 9ct-gold example but gives no case number. David Duggleby's caption reports Glasgow import marks dated 1937 and case markings read as 3789/3078; the number has not been independently confirmed. The records may describe the same watch. The marks date the import records, not the reference's production or either watch's assembly date. [https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-892250 Christie's] [https://www.davidduggleby.com/auctions/2300/Jewellery-Watches/104955/ David Duggleby, lot 2177]
 Antiquorum’s 2010 description of [[Reference:971|Prince 971]] case 70,064 is inconsistent about the assay office. The lot introduction says English import hallmark dated 1928; the detailed case description says “Glasgow import stamp.” The catalogue does not resolve that discrepancy. Its date is an assay reading, not a movement-production date. Bonhams’ 2018 lot 37 separately identifies case 0329 with a Glasgow 1929 mark and movement 70,668. [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-226-401 Antiquorum lot 401]; [https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24629/lot/37/ Bonhams lot 37].