Horological Meandering

I realise that you are a specialist of chronographs from the first 40 years of the 20th. Brilliant! 

Regarding your remarks: 

1) - I have also read a long time ago that Longines had made a Flyback mecanism a few years before the development of UROFA 59 (two years before the start of the development of UROFA 59, as you report), but i have never seen that watch, and i don't know if it really is an integrated movement like UROFA 59 or simply a modular movement. Do you have an example of that 1936 watch to show? In any case, it seems that never before had a flyback movement been created on purpose for military use under a government contract, nor produced in such a systematic and massive scale, nor really used by pilots in a war, before UROFA 59, as far as i know. And the purpose of a Flyback mechanism is obviously a military purpose. 

2) - About the asymetrical pushers, i have no idea why they are asymetrical, to tell you the truth. I have read in many places that it was intended for safety reasons and this is what i have (dumbly) repeated, but i agree with you that it seems a bit absurd! Do you have a better explanation? The funny thing is that HANHART has also made its Caliber 41 with asymetrical pushers, BUT asymetrical in the opposite way to UROFA 59! I own several examples that i can show later. 

3) - I have checked the inscriptions in both Glashütte and Hanhart cases. As you correctly point out, none mentions "antimagnetic", but only waterproofness and stainless steel back. 

4) - As i understand, the "rubbish", cheap cases were the rule for most (if not all) WW2 German military watches other than older pocket watches still in use. As far as i know, the 55mm B-UHREN by Lange, Laco, Wempe were also make of nickeled brass. For myself, i consider this a very lucky feature because, as i have said, the beautiful patina comes from the erosion of the nickel and the natural polishing by intensive use on the brass alloy. This is an important part of these watches' charm, IMO. If in steel like the Hanharts made in the 50's, they would loose much of their appeal. 

5) - Shock protection is a feature of some models, especially in the range 205### to 207### (see the first of the three examples below), but it is not so common. Curiously, all the HANHART models that i own and that i have seen do have the shock protection. Why would it be difficult for Tutima-Glashütte to source the Incabloc, yet not for Hanhart? This is a field to investigate further... 

6) - How and how much did the Swiss help in making this watch is a matter that i have not investigated. But, like at all times in the history of watchmaking (and any other human endeavour), everybody has always been copying everybody. It wouldn't make sense to reinvent the wheel each time you create a new caliber and, in any case, that would be impossible as any trained watchmaker would necessary know other earlier creations and thus would be influenced when making its own. 

Best regards, 

Frank

 

  login to reply