Page 3 of 5
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 10th, 2020, 6:29 am
by jbglock
My example...


This example went for practically nothing at auction. As a pocket watch no one wanted it. I see 6497/6498 pocket watches going so cheap it amazes me. As a wristwatch it has a new life. I see this as people saving these watches.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 10th, 2020, 9:23 pm
by mountaineer
jbglock wrote: ↑May 10th, 2020, 6:29 am
My example...


This example went for practically nothing at auction. As a pocket watch no one wanted it. I see 6497/6498 pocket watches going so cheap it amazes me. As a wristwatch it has a new life. I see this as people saving these watches.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Is that a custom dial? How did you line it up for a wristwatch? Did you cut dial feet and rotate.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 11th, 2020, 7:38 pm
by mountaineer
[mention]djolemag[/mention] [mention]spade_it[/mention]
You guys were right on the movement. It is 285/497.
It is kinda of strange Unitas has a 285, 285/497, 497 movements.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 11th, 2020, 11:16 pm
by hako
They are transitions from Unitas to ETA at some point in time.
When you go to Perezcope‘s blog you will find a timeline from early Cortebert to today’s 6497 which seems to be plausible.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 11th, 2020, 11:46 pm
by spade_lt
hako wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 11:16 pm
When you go to Perezcope‘s blog you will find a timeline from early Cortebert to today’s 6497 which seems to be plausible.
As I see from that article, he changed his position (and probably the article too)

He isn't claiming now that 6497 stems form Cortebert movement family - only that at some point Cortebert started using Unitas movements
Which is most probably correct, considering that 85 is made from 1930's, maybe earlier, and there is obvious development / change in generations from 85/87 -> 285/287 -> 487 -> 6487.
And 727 seems to be just a bridge form variation of 285, of which there are a few.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 12th, 2020, 1:29 am
by djolemag
There is some weird relationship between Cortebert and Unitas. Cortebert was top invention company with huge line up of various in-house calibers. Pitty it does not exists any more. Hence, general layout (except bridges shape) of cort 6xx family and unitas 85/285 and 497/649x is pretty much similar. More less, it even looks like cortebert provided ebauches to unitas for that purpose...

Just assuming..
Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 12th, 2020, 2:30 am
by spade_lt
djolemag wrote: ↑May 12th, 2020, 1:29 am
There is some weird relationship between Cortebert and Unitas. Cortebert was top invention company with huge line up of various in-house calibers. Pitty it does not exists any more. Hence, general layout (except bridges shape) of cort 6xx family and unitas 85/285 and 497/649x is pretty much similar. More less, it even looks like cortebert provided ebauches to unitas for that purpose...

Just assuming..
No way
There are to many differences - starting with keyless works. Which are completely different between Unitas family and Cortebert family. And why that relationship should be Cortebert -> Unitas, but not Unitas -> Cortebert, which, if at all, might be more plausible?
Though I'm always surprised when people are trying to establish causation from correlation... the fact that two pocket watch movement (families) look similar / have similar proportions / construction / etc. shouldn't surprise - all classical movements are basically the same design.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 12th, 2020, 3:20 am
by djolemag
And why that relationship should be Cortebert -> Unitas, but not Unitas -> Cortebert, which, if at all, might be more plausible?
Why do you think it would be more plausible ?
Cortebert was one of the most inventing company of that time, so in that terms, Cortebert seems much more as "meister" to Unitas than vice verse.... Especially if we look at roots and tradition, since Cortebert is founded in 1790, right? Disclaimer: it is just mine personal opinion

Mistery about similarity of Cortebert 727 and UT 285, same as Cortebert 736 <=> UT 6431 is still unsolved, in terms who is father and who is son... Common sense says that Cortebert as old vendor of pocket watches had more resources to produce ebauche to Unitas. On the other hand, economic logic says that Cortebert cut expenses by making specific orders from Unitas.... We all know about Cortebert pocket watches with Unitas 6497/8 and 6431/6445 movements...
Keyless work is not so important in that comparison, it is usually different in much more similar models from same vendor and in same family of movements...
My point of view is that Cortebert somehow "payed a debt" after WW2 for being in tight cooperation with Italy, through Perseo brand etc. More to add, we are all aware of similarity of Molnia and Cortebert movements, which 'strangely' occurs after WW2... so it could be a part of "war damage". Maybe Soviet Union just took machines or copycat movement (Cort 620) or it is done through some other sort of "cooperation", who knows...
There are rumors that Cortebert records vanished in fire during 1950, symptomatic?
Finally, Omega bought Cortebert in 1962, that is a weird fact I found recently somewhere on web...
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 12th, 2020, 6:41 am
by mountaineer
djolemag wrote: ↑May 12th, 2020, 3:20 am
And why that relationship should be Cortebert -> Unitas, but not Unitas -> Cortebert, which, if at all, might be more plausible?
Why do you think it would be more plausible ?
Cortebert was one of the most inventing company of that time, so in that terms, Cortebert seems much more as "meister" to Unitas than vice verse.... Especially if we look at roots and tradition, since Cortebert is founded in 1790, right? Disclaimer: it is just mine personal opinion

Mistery about similarity of Cortebert 727 and UT 285, same as Cortebert 736 <=> UT 6431 is still unsolved, in terms who is father and who is son... Common sense says that Cortebert as old vendor of pocket watches had more resources to produce ebauche to Unitas. On the other hand, economic logic says that Cortebert cut expenses by making specific orders from Unitas.... We all know about Cortebert pocket watches with Unitas 6497/8 and 6431/6445 movements...
Keyless work is not so important in that comparison, it is usually different in much more similar models from same vendor and in same family of movements...
My point of view is that Cortebert somehow "payed a debt" after WW2 for being in tight cooperation with Italy, through Perseo brand etc. More to add, we are all aware of similarity of Molnia and Cortebert movements, which 'strangely' occurs after WW2... so it could be a part of "war damage". Maybe Soviet Union just took machines or copycat movement (Cort 620) or it is done through some other sort of "cooperation", who knows...
There are rumors that Cortebert records vanished in fire during 1950, symptomatic?
Finally, Omega bought Cortebert in 1962, that is a weird fact I found recently somewhere on web...
My mind initially went to the economic logic and war disruption, regarding the transition to the Cortebert 727.
Re: pocket watch guilt
Posted: May 12th, 2020, 6:54 am
by djolemag
mountaineer wrote:djolemag wrote: ↑May 12th, 2020, 3:20 am
And why that relationship should be Cortebert -> Unitas, but not Unitas -> Cortebert, which, if at all, might be more plausible?
Why do you think it would be more plausible ?
Cortebert was one of the most inventing company of that time, so in that terms, Cortebert seems much more as "meister" to Unitas than vice verse.... Especially if we look at roots and tradition, since Cortebert is founded in 1790, right? Disclaimer: it is just mine personal opinion

Mistery about similarity of Cortebert 727 and UT 285, same as Cortebert 736 <=> UT 6431 is still unsolved, in terms who is father and who is son... Common sense says that Cortebert as old vendor of pocket watches had more resources to produce ebauche to Unitas. On the other hand, economic logic says that Cortebert cut expenses by making specific orders from Unitas.... We all know about Cortebert pocket watches with Unitas 6497/8 and 6431/6445 movements...
Keyless work is not so important in that comparison, it is usually different in much more similar models from same vendor and in same family of movements...
My point of view is that Cortebert somehow "payed a debt" after WW2 for being in tight cooperation with Italy, through Perseo brand etc. More to add, we are all aware of similarity of Molnia and Cortebert movements, which 'strangely' occurs after WW2... so it could be a part of "war damage". Maybe Soviet Union just took machines or copycat movement (Cort 620) or it is done through some other sort of "cooperation", who knows...
There are rumors that Cortebert records vanished in fire during 1950, symptomatic?
Finally, Omega bought Cortebert in 1962, that is a weird fact I found recently somewhere on web...
My mind initially went to the economic logic and war disruption, regarding the transition to the Cortebert 727.
It holds common sense and logic, too

One is sure: we will never know the whole story
Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk