Reference:Serial-numbers: Difference between revisions

Line 285:

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 285: / Line 285: @@
 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].