Callahan
Støttemedlem
Panerai-kaféen - løst og fast om Panerai
- Trådstarter Preacher
- Opprettet
Callahan
Støttemedlem
Regia Marina leveransene pågikk jo frem til 1970-tallet, før det ble helt stille med klokker frem til re-lanseringen på 1990 tallet.
Enkelte setter et skille på Panerai MED og UTEN strids historie. Personlig synes jeg de nyere modeller som har referanser til de tidlige krigs-modeller er de fineste.
Redigert:
Consigliere
Støttemedlem
- Medlem
- 7. mars 2014
- Innlegg
- 4.497
Se der, ja. Ingen tvil om at det er sandwich
Spørsmålet er om modellen fremdeles selges med sandwich dial, jeg er usikker. Fant flere nye modeller på chrono24 som tilsynelatende har en annen skive
Mye bra å lese på nettsidene hans også:Perezcope begs to differ om årstallene
Sjekk IG
https://perezcope.com/
Callahan
Støttemedlem
Panerais historie er alltid interessant å studere, og Perezcope har jo bidratt mye her. Men han er og blir kontroversiell - kanskje er det fordi han er selektiv i kildebruken sin?
I dette tilfellet bruker han følgende som begrunnelse for at 6152/1 med liten sekundviser og crown guard (som Fiddy er basert på og som er opphavet til betegnelsen "Luminor 1950") først kom på 1960-tallet:
"Original Angelus 240 movements found in Ref. 6152/1 watches have either MAI.61 (May 1961) or JUIN.61 (June 1961) as a production date."
Iht. det omfattende bokverket til Ehlers og Wiegman (2016), Vintage Panerai - The References, er ikke dette den hele og fulle sannhet. I deres database er det dokumentert fire forskjellige versjoner av Angelus 240-verket i referanse 6152/1 med crown guard. To av disse fire er, som Perezcope viser, datert MAI.61 og JUIN.61, men en tredje versjon er datert 12.55, mens den siste ikke er datert.
Så, jeg slutter meg til Perezcope sin hyllest av PAM 127 som "my favorite modern Panerai". Men, basert på andre, omfattende kilder er det ikke like lett å slutte seg til konklusjonen hans om "Luminor 1960"... Ehlers og Wiegman dokumenterer jo at 6152/1 med liten sekundviser (Angelus 240-verket) og crown guard fantes allerede i 1955. Så, jeg er fortsatt veldig komfortabel med å kalle min PAM 127 for "Luminor 1950"...
En fin oppsummering - takk.
Enig i at 127 er en favoritt, kun slått av de uopnålige 203, 267 og selvfølgelig grail over grails Pam21.
Thanks for your comment. It's not only the movements my friend. The substance "Luminor" was also introduced in the 1960s. The official 1949 document is just a trademark registration for the name "Luminor", not a patent for a specific product.
Rolex was forced by the US Government to do something about the high radiation and as a result, the Swiss watch industry moved away from radium. The Swiss Goverment banned radium for watches in 1963. Do you seriously believe Panerai made tritium-based dials before the Swiss watch industry?
There is also a very simple explanation for the 12.55 Angelus movement in a 6152/1. It was either a left over from the GPF 2/56 production or the watch was assembled from parts in recent years. In addition, the watch we are talking about has the matriculation number SMZ MM 186 and it belongs to the very last batch of 21 pieces delivered to the Marina Militare in 1968.
Here's the article I wrote about the origins of the "Fiddy":
https://perezcope.com/2018/02/15/pam-127-the-origins-of-the-fiddy/
Btw, Ehlers & Wiegmann's books are full of made up watches and fakes. Remember the 6152 with blue dial, which according to Ehlers & Wiegmann is one of the most important watch in their database? That dial is completely fake:
https://perezcope.com/2017/10/12/vintage-panerai-the-mysterious-bluish-tinted-dials/
This is only one of many examples. Basically, the watches in Ehlers & Wiegmann's books belong to their friends or are watches that they themselves sold to collectors. They keep publishing those watches in an attempt to legitimize them. Ehlers & Wiegmann are part of the problem...
Have a look at the 3646 with Angelus 240 and Radiomir dial for instance. The movement is from a table clock and the dial is fake, made by a well known Italian faker who, btw, also made the aforementioned blue dial...
Cheers
Jose
[QUOTE = "Dr. Fiddy, post: 645385, member: 3514"] Panerai's story is always interesting to study, and Perezcope has contributed a lot here. But he is and becomes controversial - maybe it is because he is selective in his source-use?
In this case, he uses the following as the grounds for the fact that 6152/1 with small secondary newspaper and crown guard (as Fiddy is based on which is the origin of the term "Luminor 1950") first came in the 1960s:
Acc. The extensive book of Ehlers and Wiegman (2016), Vintage Panerai - The References , is not this complete and complete truth. In their database, four different versions of the Angelus 240 work are documented in reference 6152/1 with crown guard. Two of these four are, as Perezcope shows, dated MAI.61 and JUIN.61, but a third version is dated 12.55 while the latter is not dated.
So, I join Perezcope's tribute of PAM 127 as "my favorite modern Panerai". But, based on other extensive sources, it is not as easy to conclude his conclusion about "Luminor 1960" ... Ehlers and Wiegman document that 6152/1 with the small second-hand (Angelus 240 work) and crown guard already existed in 1955. So, I'm still very comfortable calling my PAM 127 for " Luminor 1950 " ...
Vis vedlegg 79753[/QUOTE]
Rolex was forced by the US Government to do something about the high radiation and as a result, the Swiss watch industry moved away from radium. The Swiss Goverment banned radium for watches in 1963. Do you seriously believe Panerai made tritium-based dials before the Swiss watch industry?
There is also a very simple explanation for the 12.55 Angelus movement in a 6152/1. It was either a left over from the GPF 2/56 production or the watch was assembled from parts in recent years. In addition, the watch we are talking about has the matriculation number SMZ MM 186 and it belongs to the very last batch of 21 pieces delivered to the Marina Militare in 1968.
Here's the article I wrote about the origins of the "Fiddy":
https://perezcope.com/2018/02/15/pam-127-the-origins-of-the-fiddy/
Btw, Ehlers & Wiegmann's books are full of made up watches and fakes. Remember the 6152 with blue dial, which according to Ehlers & Wiegmann is one of the most important watch in their database? That dial is completely fake:
https://perezcope.com/2017/10/12/vintage-panerai-the-mysterious-bluish-tinted-dials/
This is only one of many examples. Basically, the watches in Ehlers & Wiegmann's books belong to their friends or are watches that they themselves sold to collectors. They keep publishing those watches in an attempt to legitimize them. Ehlers & Wiegmann are part of the problem...
Have a look at the 3646 with Angelus 240 and Radiomir dial for instance. The movement is from a table clock and the dial is fake, made by a well known Italian faker who, btw, also made the aforementioned blue dial...
Cheers
Jose
[QUOTE = "Dr. Fiddy, post: 645385, member: 3514"] Panerai's story is always interesting to study, and Perezcope has contributed a lot here. But he is and becomes controversial - maybe it is because he is selective in his source-use?
In this case, he uses the following as the grounds for the fact that 6152/1 with small secondary newspaper and crown guard (as Fiddy is based on which is the origin of the term "Luminor 1950") first came in the 1960s:
"Original Angelus 240 movements found in Ref. 6152/1 watches have either MAI.61 (May 1961) or JUIN.61 (June 1961) as a production date."
Acc. The extensive book of Ehlers and Wiegman (2016), Vintage Panerai - The References , is not this complete and complete truth. In their database, four different versions of the Angelus 240 work are documented in reference 6152/1 with crown guard. Two of these four are, as Perezcope shows, dated MAI.61 and JUIN.61, but a third version is dated 12.55 while the latter is not dated.
So, I join Perezcope's tribute of PAM 127 as "my favorite modern Panerai". But, based on other extensive sources, it is not as easy to conclude his conclusion about "Luminor 1960" ... Ehlers and Wiegman document that 6152/1 with the small second-hand (Angelus 240 work) and crown guard already existed in 1955. So, I'm still very comfortable calling my PAM 127 for " Luminor 1950 " ...
Vis vedlegg 79753[/QUOTE]
Redigert:
Consigliere
Støttemedlem
- Medlem
- 7. mars 2014
- Innlegg
- 4.497
Great articles, very interesting to read the real Panerai history @pereztroika
Se der, ja. Ingen tvil om at det er sandwich
Spørsmålet er om modellen fremdeles selges med sandwich dial, jeg er usikker. Fant flere nye modeller på chrono24 som tilsynelatende har en annen skive
FFS
Har 560 eller 562 på lista over mogelege innkjøp i løpet av våren, men har jo lyst på sandwich-dial! På nettsidene til Panerai ser det faktisk ut som at dei er avbilda både med og utan sandwich. Om det er slutt på sandwich på nye Luminor, vil eg faktisk vurdere Chrono24. Evt gje @Callahan eit tilbod han ikkje kan seie nei til
Consigliere
Støttemedlem
- Medlem
- 7. mars 2014
- Innlegg
- 4.497
FFS
Nettopp
Thanks for your comment. It's not only the movements my friend. The substance "Luminor" was also introduced in the 1960s. The official 1949 document is just a trademark registration for the name "Luminor", not a patent for a specific product.
Rolex was forced by the US Government to do something about the high radiation and as a result, the Swiss watch industry moved away from radium. The Swiss Goverment banned radium for watches in 1963. Do you seriously believe Panerai made tritium-based dials before the Swiss watch industry?
There is also a very simple explanation for the 12.55 Angelus movement in a 6152/1. It was either a left over from the GPF 2/56 production or the watch was assembled from parts in recent years. In addition, the watch we are talking about has the matriculation number SMZ MM 186 and it belongs to the very last batch of 21 pieces delivered to the Marina Militare in 1968.
Here's the article I wrote about the origins of the "Fiddy":
https://perezcope.com/2018/02/15/pam-127-the-origins-of-the-fiddy/
Btw, Ehlers & Wiegmann's books are full of made up watches and fakes. Remember the 6152 with blue dial, which according to Ehlers & Wiegmann is one of the most important watch in their database? That dial is completely fake:
https://perezcope.com/2017/10/12/vintage-panerai-the-mysterious-bluish-tinted-dials/
This is only one of many examples. Basically, the watches in Ehlers & Wiegmann's books belong to their friends or are watches that they themselves sold to collectors. They keep publishing those watches in an attempt to legitimize them. Ehlers & Wiegmann are part of the problem...
Have a look at the 3646 with Angelus 240 and Radiomir dial for instance. The movement is from a table clock and the dial is fake, made by a well known Italian faker who, btw, also made the aforementioned blue dial...
Cheers
Jose
Thanks for your extensive comment. Panerai history is indeed interesting, and I have enjoyed reading many of your articles
You claim that "The Swiss Goverment (sic.) banned radium for watches in 1963" and ask "Do you seriously believe Panerai made tritium-based dials before the Swiss watch industry?"
Well, it's not about what I believe. It's about what evidence we have. According to not only Ehlers & Wiegman, but also to Officine Panerai and Giampiero Negretti (Panerai Historia, 2014), after registrering Luminor as a trademark in 1949, Luminor gradually replaced the Radiomir paste, with both types of dials being produced in parallell in the 1950s.
Also, according to Negretti, because the Luminor compound was being used in the mid 1950s, the military asked specifically for Radiomir in the "Egiziano Piccolo" due to the stronger luminescence. This specific request would not have been necessary if Luminor didn't exist at the time.
Back to the "Fiddy"; the 127 is an homage to the improved 6152/1 watches constructed in the 1950s. First and foremost it's about the casing; Fiddy was the first, and all modern cases based on the Fiddy case are now termed "Luminor 1950" cases. According to both Ehlers & Wiegman (2016), Pasetto & Cipullo (2013), and Negretti (2014), all 6152/1 cases were manufactured in 1955. Then, it's the dial; as mentioned above, several sources refer to Luminor dials being produced in the 1950s. Finally, the movement; again, evidence shows that the small seconds movement was made already in 1955 (the "12.55").
Based on the above, naming the Fiddy as "Luminor 1950" seems more reasonable than "Luminor 1960".
As an avid fan of Panerai, I'd be interested in knowing your sources for when, e.g., Luminor dials were first used
Cheers
As an avid fan of Panerai, I'd be interested in knowing your sources for when, e.g., Luminor dials were first used
Cheers
You're most welcome! Your tenacity helps me making my article even better, thanks for that.
My research is based on data, lots of data. I own the largest vintage Panerai database in the world, with over 500 well documented timepieces and tons of other Panerai items and never before seen documents. I am also in contact with Maria Teresa Panerai, the widow of Giuseppe Panerai. Former Officine Panerai SpA employees, such as Mario Paci for instance, are friends of mine. Loris Pasetto and Luciano Cipullo, the authors of "Panerai - Una Storia Italiana", agree with my findings and its only a matter of time until a new book will be published which will include the latest results of my research.
We already talked about Ehlers & Wiegmann's credibility. But let me tell you one more thing. Their "research" is based on old fairy tales which were told by a well-known Italian Panerai dealer. This dealer became their "Guru" and they believed everything he said. Ehlers & Wiegmann are mostly aligned with the official Richemont Panerai story cause they don't want to upset Bonati.
However, not only Ehlers & Wiegmann believed everything the Italian dealer said, also the modern Panerai. And as a matter of fact, this very dealer became the historic consultant of Richemont Panerai. Giampiero Negretti's books are official Panerai publications and they are based on the dealer's fairy tales, nothing more.
Ok, let's talk about evidence.
Ok, but where is the evidence... and the logic, for that matter? The purpose of Luminor was to replace the dangerous Radiomir.
Ok, show me that specific request, pls... (It's an invented story
)Yes, Rolex produced Ref. 6152/1 in 1955. The 6152/1 on the image below is a true time capsule. It was on the wrist of an Italian Incursore (assault swimmer) when he died during an underwater exercise in 1957 off the coast of Sicily. This watch remained untouched in a drawer until just recently. As you can see, Panerai delivered the first 6152/1s with “Radiomir” dial and without crown-protecting device. According to the modern Panerai this is a "Radiomir 1940" correct? But it's the same case as the "Luminor 1950", isn't it?
These sources refer to it without providing any proof... Let me quote "Panerai - Una Storia Italiana" (Page 211/214), as you only seem to believe what is written in books:
"Once the use of radium was abandoned the writing changed, first to "Luminor Panerai" and then to "Marina Militare." (Remember the PAM 587? It's a "Radiomir 1940" with Marina Militare dial... what a nonsense!)
"Radiomir continued to be used up to the end of the 1950s when the watchmaking world started to become more aware of the health risks associated with gamma ray emissions from radium composites."
"Guido Panerai e Figlio substituted the radium with tritium, using a specific composit called "Luminor". The exclusive use of this trademarked name to identify .... had already been filled on 11th januara 1949 but only really started to be used after the creation of the tritium composite which was to replace "Radiomir".
I go one step further and say "Luminor" was introduced around 1962/63, based on the results of my extensive research.
Check out the following link, as these are the watches that were first equipped with "Luminor" dials in order to promote the new tritium-based compound to the Marina Militare:
https://perezcope.com/2017/09/29/modified-panerai-3646-with-solid-lugs/
Yes, because those movements were made for the GPF 2/56 from 1956.
Let me quote myself:
"There is also a very simple explanation for the 12.55 Angelus movement in a 6152/1. It was either a left over from the GPF 2/56 production or the watch was assembled from parts in recent years. In addition, the watch we are talking about has the matriculation number SMZ MM 186 and it belongs to the very last batch of 21 pieces delivered to the Marina Militare in 1968."
Here's the movement of SMZ MM 186. Have a look at the balance wheel. This type of movement should have an "Incastar" micro regulation. Instead it has the "Incabloc" from a later MAI.61/JUIN.61 movement. The "Incastar" was a complicated system and it was soon abandoned by the Swiss watch industry. It appears that Panerai updated this old movement to the latest technology, before they delivered the watch to the Marina Militare in 1968.
This is how a proper 12.55 movement should look like. Note the different balance bridge.
Nope sorry, not reasonable at all. But of course, you can keep calling it the way you like...
Cheers
Jose
Redigert:
Thanks again for your extensive comments. I admire your level of detail here and also in your articles on perezcope.com. Your tenacity helps me focus my arguments too, and I'll try to explain why your point of departure isn't necessarily the only valid one
The overall question here is "What does the PAM 127 refer to?"
Was it supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, i.e., the PAMPL001?
Or, was it supposed to be a tribute to a great era of Panerai watchmaking?
Based on the sources I have already cited, it seems to me that the latter is the case, and that's also my point of departure. However, my impression is that your point of departure is the former; that the 127 is meant to be a near replica of the PAMPL001. So, with different points of departures, we might view the evidence in a different light and possibly reach different conclusions
We have already discussed case designs and movements. So, what about the Luminor dial?
I can't see that you have provided any evidence to support your claim either. So, I'll provide a piece of evidence that counters your claim of Luminor being introduced around 1962/63 (I guess you're very familiar with this one).
At Sotheby’s auction “Important Watches”, held in Geneva on 14th May 2014, an extremely rare example of a Luminor from circa 1955 was sold for CHF 425,000. The watch belonged to the late Admiral Gino Birindelli (1911–2008) from the Royal Italian Navy.
This early Luminor also came with a certificate letter signed by Dino Zei, who was the Chairman of Panerai during the years 1972–1997.
Officine Panerai themselves acknowledges that this Luminor is dated circa 1955:
Its date is also acknowledged by your friend Jake Ehrlich on his blog Jake's Panerai World:
An important point is also what we mean by a date? What does it mean that a watch is from, e.g., 1955?
So, if the point of departure is Panerai's tribute to their watchmaking in the 1950s, what should we emphasize?
We can choose to focus on when a particular case, movement or dial was designed, manufactured, assembled, sold or actually being used. To complicate matters further, all of these can be from different years. It's possible to have a case designed in 1949 and manufactured in 1955, a movement designed in the late 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to early 60s, and dials designed in the 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to late 60s. A 1956 case can be assembled with a 1955 movement and a 1962 dial. So, when is the watch from? 1955? 1956? Or 1962? The answer isn't clear cut.
In the case of the "Fiddy", the evidence is that the 6152/1 case that it's based on was produced in 1955, a movement with a small seconds hand was available in 1955 (the 12.55 Angelus) and, finally, the Lumior dial was also available circa 1955 (Birindelli's watch).
So, with the point of departure being a tribute to Panerai's watchmaking in the 1950s, I do indeed find it reasonable that the "Fiddy", and all other modern Panerai watches based on its case, are labeled "Luminor 1950"
However, I also acknowledge that if your point of departure is that the "Fiddy" was supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, that you reach another conclusion.
Cheers
Thanks again for your extensive comments. I admire your level of detail here and also in your articles on perezcope.com. Your tenacity helps me focus my arguments too, and I'll try to explain why your point of departure isn't necessarily the only valid one
The overall question here is "What does the PAM 127 refer to?"
Was it supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, i.e., the PAMPL001?
Or, was it supposed to be a tribute to a great era of Panerai watchmaking?
Based on the sources I have already cited, it seems to me that the latter is the case, and that's also my point of departure. However, my impression is that your point of departure is the former; that the 127 is meant to be a near replica of the PAMPL001. So, with different points of departures, we might view the evidence in a different light and possibly reach different conclusions
We have already discussed case designs and movements. So, what about the Luminor dial?
I can't see that you have provided any evidence to support your claim either. So, I'll provide a piece of evidence that counters your claim of Luminor being introduced around 1962/63 (I guess you're very familiar with this one).
At Sotheby’s auction “Important Watches”, held in Geneva on 14th May 2014, an extremely rare example of a Luminor from circa 1955 was sold for CHF 425,000. The watch belonged to the late Admiral Gino Birindelli (1911–2008) from the Royal Italian Navy.
Vis vedlegg 80130
This early Luminor also came with a certificate letter signed by Dino Zei, who was the Chairman of Panerai during the years 1972–1997.
Officine Panerai themselves acknowledges that this Luminor is dated circa 1955:
Its date is also acknowledged by your friend Jake Ehrlich on his blog Jake's Panerai World:
An important point is also what we mean by a date? What does it mean that a watch is from, e.g., 1955?
So, if the point of departure is Panerai's tribute to their watchmaking in the 1950s, what should we emphasize?
We can choose to focus on when a particular case, movement or dial was designed, manufactured, assembled, sold or actually being used. To complicate matters further, all of these can be from different years. It's possible to have a case designed in 1949 and manufactured in 1955, a movement designed in the late 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to early 60s, and dials designed in the 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to late 60s. A 1956 case can be assembled with a 1955 movement and a 1962 dial. So, when is the watch from? 1955? 1956? Or 1962? The answer isn't clear cut.
In the case of the "Fiddy", the evidence is that the 6152/1 case that it's based on was produced in 1955, a movement with a small seconds hand was available in 1955 (the 12.55 Angelus) and, finally, the Lumior dial was also available circa 1955 (Birindelli's watch).
So, with the point of departure being a tribute to Panerai's watchmaking in the 1950s, I do indeed find it reasonable that the "Fiddy", and all other modern Panerai watches based on its case, are labeled "Luminor 1950"
However, I also acknowledge that if your point of departure is that the "Fiddy" was supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, that you reach another conclusion.
Cheers
Du verden hvilken kunnskap enkelte besitter! Må da fremheve @Dr. Fiddy spesiellt.
Få klokkemerker kan vise til lignende myter og historie enn Panerai. Tror ikke det finnes et merke med så mye "mystikk" og anekdoter.
Jeg har for lengst innsett at det lille jeg vet om dette merket, er knapt noe å vite....
Jeg lar meg imponere og fascinere av disse innleggene som er skrevet av e k t e Paneristi.
Her er det bare å ta av seg den imaginære hatten, mtp. kunnskapsnivå @Dr. Fiddy Dette er forskjellen mellom TS og andre ikke navngitte såkalte forum.
Hat’s off to you Sir, and your level of knowledge and passion for Panerai. @pereztroika
Hat’s off to you Sir, and your level of knowledge and passion for Panerai. @pereztroika
Ah the Birindelli watch...
Ok, one thing you need to understand about vintage Panerai watches is that once "Luminor" dials became available, the Marina Militare replaced all Radiomir dials on the watches that were in service. All watches delivered to the Marina Militare during the 1950s, without any exception, had Radiomir dials. This replacement happened without any doubt during the 1960s. All watches that were ordered from then on came with "Luminor" dials.
This is the reason why you can find many 6152/1 with regular screw-down crown and "Luminor" or "Marina Militare" dials. The original "Radiomir" dials were simply replaced.
This is documented. The old Radiomir dials, along with a few old 3646, were put in an ammunition box and sealed with concret. This box was sunk off the coast of La Spezia. I can probably get the exact date and the coordinates. Shall we go for a dive my friend?
The Sotheby's listing of the Birindelli watch is no evidence. It's just another auction listing with many faults. And on top of that it also contains a big lie... The Birindelli watch was never offered by the descendants of Birindelli as mentioned in the auction listing. The truth is, there is no real proof the watch ever belonged to Birindelli.
Sure, the watch was accompanied by a letter signed by Dino Zei. Let me tell you something about this letter. It was written by the owner of the watch who then paid an acquaintance of Zei in order to arrange a meeting. They met and the owner told Zei about the provenance and Zei, already 78 years old, signed the letter...
The guy who owned the watch was seen at a few Panerai meetings in Florence. I heard the watch didn't have the bezel in the beginning. It was added later to create the "Prototype" myth.
This very watch was offered just recently at Phillips. I was asked about my opinion and I wanted to see the documents proving the provenance... and guess what. All of a sudden all documents had disappeared. The new owner of the watch, who paid CHF 425,000.00 for it had lost the documents, really? In consequence, the watch was pulled.
The whole point of my article is that "Luminor 1950" is a contradiction cause Luminor didn't exist in the 1950s. Sure, Rolex made these watches in 1955 but according to the modern Panerai, the watches that were delivered to Panerai were "Radiomir 1940" cause they don't have the crown-protecting device.
"Radiomir 1940" is another myth that actually never existed. The first "Panerai" watches with lugs carved out of the same block of steel as the case, were made by Rolex in 1953 with Ref. 6152. Rolex not only supplied the movements, like the modern Panerai wants us to believe, Rolex made the whole watch and Panerai only added their dials.
G. Panerai e Figlio ordered 500 pieces of Ref. 6152/1 from Rolex. When orders of the Marina Militare came in, Panerai openend the box and took the amount of watches they needed and added their dial. On later orders, Panerai disassembled the watches, modified the case, attached the crown-protecting device and added their dials.
In the 1960s, when they introduced the Angelus 240, Panerai disassembled the watches, modified the case to attach the crown-protecting device, replaced the Rolex 618 with the Angelus 240 and added their new "Luminor" dials.
So what's the real production date? Some watches were delivered in 1956/57 without any modifications. Later watches were delivered with crown-protecting device. And in the 1960s, the watches were heavily modified. This modification was so extensive, it's basically like creating a new watch... so for me the the true production date for the 6152/1 with Angelus 240 is the 1960s.
Cheers
Jose
Ok, one thing you need to understand about vintage Panerai watches is that once "Luminor" dials became available, the Marina Militare replaced all Radiomir dials on the watches that were in service. All watches delivered to the Marina Militare during the 1950s, without any exception, had Radiomir dials. This replacement happened without any doubt during the 1960s. All watches that were ordered from then on came with "Luminor" dials.
This is the reason why you can find many 6152/1 with regular screw-down crown and "Luminor" or "Marina Militare" dials. The original "Radiomir" dials were simply replaced.
This is documented. The old Radiomir dials, along with a few old 3646, were put in an ammunition box and sealed with concret. This box was sunk off the coast of La Spezia. I can probably get the exact date and the coordinates. Shall we go for a dive my friend?
The Sotheby's listing of the Birindelli watch is no evidence. It's just another auction listing with many faults. And on top of that it also contains a big lie... The Birindelli watch was never offered by the descendants of Birindelli as mentioned in the auction listing. The truth is, there is no real proof the watch ever belonged to Birindelli.
Sure, the watch was accompanied by a letter signed by Dino Zei. Let me tell you something about this letter. It was written by the owner of the watch who then paid an acquaintance of Zei in order to arrange a meeting. They met and the owner told Zei about the provenance and Zei, already 78 years old, signed the letter...
The guy who owned the watch was seen at a few Panerai meetings in Florence. I heard the watch didn't have the bezel in the beginning. It was added later to create the "Prototype" myth.
This very watch was offered just recently at Phillips. I was asked about my opinion and I wanted to see the documents proving the provenance... and guess what. All of a sudden all documents had disappeared. The new owner of the watch, who paid CHF 425,000.00 for it had lost the documents, really?
In consequence, the watch was pulled.The whole point of my article is that "Luminor 1950" is a contradiction cause Luminor didn't exist in the 1950s. Sure, Rolex made these watches in 1955 but according to the modern Panerai, the watches that were delivered to Panerai were "Radiomir 1940" cause they don't have the crown-protecting device.
"Radiomir 1940" is another myth that actually never existed. The first "Panerai" watches with lugs carved out of the same block of steel as the case, were made by Rolex in 1953 with Ref. 6152. Rolex not only supplied the movements, like the modern Panerai wants us to believe, Rolex made the whole watch and Panerai only added their dials.
G. Panerai e Figlio ordered 500 pieces of Ref. 6152/1 from Rolex. When orders of the Marina Militare came in, Panerai openend the box and took the amount of watches they needed and added their dial. On later orders, Panerai disassembled the watches, modified the case, attached the crown-protecting device and added their dials.
In the 1960s, when they introduced the Angelus 240, Panerai disassembled the watches, modified the case to attach the crown-protecting device, replaced the Rolex 618 with the Angelus 240 and added their new "Luminor" dials.
So what's the real production date? Some watches were delivered in 1956/57 without any modifications. Later watches were delivered with crown-protecting device. And in the 1960s, the watches were heavily modified. This modification was so extensive, it's basically like creating a new watch... so for me the the true production date for the 6152/1 with Angelus 240 is the 1960s.
Cheers
Jose
Thanks again for your extensive comments. I admire your level of detail here and also in your articles on perezcope.com. Your tenacity helps me focus my arguments too, and I'll try to explain why your point of departure isn't necessarily the only valid one
The overall question here is "What does the PAM 127 refer to?"
Was it supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, i.e., the PAMPL001?
Or, was it supposed to be a tribute to a great era of Panerai watchmaking?
Based on the sources I have already cited, it seems to me that the latter is the case, and that's also my point of departure. However, my impression is that your point of departure is the former; that the 127 is meant to be a near replica of the PAMPL001. So, with different points of departures, we might view the evidence in a different light and possibly reach different conclusions
We have already discussed case designs and movements. So, what about the Luminor dial?
I can't see that you have provided any evidence to support your claim either. So, I'll provide a piece of evidence that counters your claim of Luminor being introduced around 1962/63 (I guess you're very familiar with this one).
At Sotheby’s auction “Important Watches”, held in Geneva on 14th May 2014, an extremely rare example of a Luminor from circa 1955 was sold for CHF 425,000. The watch belonged to the late Admiral Gino Birindelli (1911–2008) from the Royal Italian Navy.
Vis vedlegg 80130
This early Luminor also came with a certificate letter signed by Dino Zei, who was the Chairman of Panerai during the years 1972–1997.
Officine Panerai themselves acknowledges that this Luminor is dated circa 1955:
Its date is also acknowledged by your friend Jake Ehrlich on his blog Jake's Panerai World:
An important point is also what we mean by a date? What does it mean that a watch is from, e.g., 1955?
So, if the point of departure is Panerai's tribute to their watchmaking in the 1950s, what should we emphasize?
We can choose to focus on when a particular case, movement or dial was designed, manufactured, assembled, sold or actually being used. To complicate matters further, all of these can be from different years. It's possible to have a case designed in 1949 and manufactured in 1955, a movement designed in the late 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to early 60s, and dials designed in the 40s and manufactured in the mid 50s to late 60s. A 1956 case can be assembled with a 1955 movement and a 1962 dial. So, when is the watch from? 1955? 1956? Or 1962? The answer isn't clear cut.
In the case of the "Fiddy", the evidence is that the 6152/1 case that it's based on was produced in 1955, a movement with a small seconds hand was available in 1955 (the 12.55 Angelus) and, finally, the Lumior dial was also available circa 1955 (Birindelli's watch).
So, with the point of departure being a tribute to Panerai's watchmaking in the 1950s, I do indeed find it reasonable that the "Fiddy", and all other modern Panerai watches based on its case, are labeled "Luminor 1950"
However, I also acknowledge that if your point of departure is that the "Fiddy" was supposed to be a near replica of one particular watch, that you reach another conclusion.
Cheers
Redigert:
Shall we go for a dive my friend?
I guess we should just agree to disagree on the 1950s vs 1960s and come back to this discussion depending on what we find during the dive...
Cheers my friend