serg70
215
Thank you, Dean
for correction, and sorry for price info, dont wanted to break the rules ((
Fully agree with you, only Extract can mislead buyers (and auction house as well) and is not enough to check and evaluate a watch. Hopefully the watch is redialed at VC, but I doubt it because of strange small hand at 3 and unusual markers on the same subdial between 45 and 15.
And I'm not sure about pictured watch you've posted.
This is the pic used for 4111 in THL article, right?

And this is the pic, used in the same article, but for ref 3768

Even stitches on the strap and the hand on 34 sec (at 9) are the same ))
Reffering to Phillips sales in November 2020 in Geneva, I would suggest, that chrono with pulsometer scale is ref 3768. It was a mistake in THL article, sorry
With best regards
Serge
Thank you, Dean
By: serg70 : January 11th, 2022-19:22
for correction, and sorry for price info, dont wanted to break the rules (( Fully agree with you, only Extract can mislead buyers (and auction house as well) and is not enough to check and evaluate a watch. Hopefully the watch is redialed at VC, but I dou...
My theory: it's both!
By: Tick Talk : January 11th, 2022-21:35
The same case design was used for both; first as photo reference 3768 in 1937 with cal. 295 based on a Martel ebauche, subsequently changed to model reference 4111 in 1939 when the photo reference system was discontinued. For the 4111, the movement was ch...
Thank you for explanation!
By: serg70 : January 11th, 2022-22:02
Indeed the same case (it would be great to find pic of case back for both references to check the producer). Do you have it occasionally? )) Different ebauchee, I agree. Probably also pulsometer vs tachimeter scale? Only 6 pcs vs 3 pcs? Without photos and...