Vacheron Constantin

Perman attempts to follow the trail of the watch following Sotheby’s, filling in the gaps with gossip, but only succeeded in leaving this reader confused: Within weeks the timepiece was flipped among dealers, according to one watch expert, with the price doubling at each sale, before it was finally sold for a reported $2 million to Vacheron Constantin.  Almost immediately there were questions about this odd turn of events; chief among them was why the price for this watch had jumped so remarkably high in such a short time.  According to this watch expert, a story soon spread that the pocket watch had been part of Henry Graves, Jr.’s collection, which only led to more questions.

Certainly the news that Vacheron Constantin had discovered a previously unknown Graves watch elicited a great deal of excitement.  It was the Graves provenance, according to one of the biggest watch dealers in the world, that brought about the astonishing price tag just weeks later.  For Vacheron Constantin it was a horological triumph; one of the most important watch collectors of the twentieth century had patronized this august watchmaker.

As speculation mounted, there were rumblings that specialists were called in to authenticate the watch, only to have the piece quietly withdrawn and the matter dropped.

Apparently some light was shed by Vacheron Constantin themselves, and again I’ll quote directly from Perman:

When asked if the watch had indeed been one of Henry Graves, Jr.’s, a representative for the maison offered the following reply: “This piece was destined for Henry Graves, Jr., but Vacheron Constantin finally kept it for communication/promotion purposes.  The watch was sold to a private collector in the 50s.”  The maison also noted that this particular pocket watch, now part of a private collection, did not contain Graves’s famous coat of arms.

Perman concludes her chronology at this point, “with the matter seemingly unresolved”, and the watch receded for several years.

 

I was to discover its next public appearance in Antiquorum’s VOX Magazine Summer 2006 issue as an upcoming lot for sale in Geneva, now with that important attribution.  Once again I will rely directly upon the published description:

VOX Summer 2006 magazine, highlights of upcoming auction: Important Collectors’ Wristwatches, PocketWatches & Clocks, Geneva, November 11 & 12

For Henry Graves Jr. – Watch with 10 Complications

Vacheron & Constantin, Geneve, No. 415946, exceptionally fine, highly important and unique, large, astronomic, 18K gold keyless pocket watch with one-minute tourbillon regulator by James Pellaton, split-seconds chronograph, register, perpetual calendar, moon phases, lunar calendar and power reserve indication.  Made in 1932 and delivered to Henry Graves Jr. in 1934 after winning First Prize at the Geneva Observatory trials.  Diam. 66 mm.

Estimate: SFr. 1,800,000 – 2,200,000 ($ 1,450,000 – 1,800,000)

Notes: One of the four most complicated pocket watches made by Vacheron & Constantin during the 20^th Century and the only one of those watches fitted with a tourbillon regulator.

Henry Graves Jr. (1868-1953) commissioned this watch from Vacheron & Constantin and it was completed in 1932.  One of the terms of Graves’s order was that the watch be submitted for observatory testing with the chronograph running during the trial.  Before its delivery to Graves in 1934 it was submitted for testing to the Geneva Observatory where it won first prize.  This was an exceptional feat for a watch fitted with a chronograph, as the operation of the chronograph adversely affects timekeeping – thus this watch is one of the highest precision complicated pocket watches with a chronograph ever made, and a triumph for Vacheron & Constantin.

Without explanation, the watch was withdrawn from the auction and a check of Antiquorum’s database confirms it did not appear in the results and is not present in their online catalog for that sale or any other.  Nevertheless, the piece was featured occasionally in the official Vacheron Constantin forum, The Hour Lounge, during 2007 and 2008 as the “10 Complications Graves watch”.

I found the language used to describe the timepiece lacking in precision; “for Henry Graves”, “commissioned by Henry Graves” and “delivered to Henry Graves” did not affirm that the watch resided in his collection alongside the other great horological treasures.  Perman also relates a curious attribution from the Sotheby’s auction: The grande complication had earned first prize at the Geneva Observatory in 1934 and five years later was presented at the Swiss National Exhibition in Zurich.  One may then wonder who had possession of the watch in 1939 to present it at a Swiss exhibition.

A de facto change of provenance seems to have occurred since 2008.  The Hour Lounge article from July of 2010; “Massive Attack: Vacheron Constantin’s Most Complicated Timepieces”, rightfully accords the watch its due horological prominence but does not mention a Graves connection.  While the article labels the watch with 9 complications (lunar calendar not credited), the appearance and serial number match the 10 Complications watch.

Another Hour Lounge article from September of 2011; “Quantum Leap: History of Vacheron Constantin Calendar Watches Part 1”, also omits Graves when describing the watch: A gorgeous grand complications featuring a split seconds chronograph, perpetual calendar with leap year indication and moonphase, tourbillon and power reserve indicator.  Made in 1932 this piece is the only multi complication pocket watch by Vacheron Constantin featuring a tourbillon. Its regulation was entrusted to Edmond Olivier who was not only a master watchmaker but a true artist in regulation of movements sent for Observatory trials. One of the particularities of this piece results from the fact that watch’s accuracy is not adversely affected when the chronograph is functioning. In 1934 it obtained 1st prize at the Geneva Observatory trials and in 1939 it was presented at the National Swiss Exhibition in Zurich.

This completes the second mystery; was the watch received by Graves but returned to Vacheron & Constantin soon afterwards, to be sold on to a private collector and arrive at Sotheby’s in 2002 via a different lineage?  If so, why did Graves give it up?

Having reviewed the results of the Geneva trials for 1934, perhaps I can suggest an answer.   Although neither Sotheby’s or Antiquorum revealed the Observatory score, we may recall from Quantum Leap that Edmond Olivier was credited with adjusting the movement of this complicated watch which obtained a First Prize.  Vacheron & Constantin did indeed capture the highest score and 1er Prix for the Concours de séries entre Fabricants in competition “B”; Chronomètres de poche de grand format, with a record 823.1 points.  This award, however, reflected cumulative scores and not that of individual watches or régleurs.  For the Concours de pièces isolées, Vacheron & Constantin swept the top three places in competition “B”.  Olivier is mentioned as adjuster, but of the 2^nd place watch with 854 points, falling behind a record score obtained by Mademoiselle Hélène Jaccard of 862.5 points.  This rare and talented woman also captured 3^rd place for Vacheron & Constantin with 830 points.

By way of explanation; watches were submitted to either 1^st  or 2^nd Class trials according to their expected performance.  1^st Class watches which successfully completed trials were granted a Bulletin de 1ere Classe ou pour pièces compliquées.  Those which scored 600 points or higher were also eligible for the Concours.  These were the competition watches.  As noted, watches with complications were acknowledged but did not compete in a separate Concours and just obtaining a Bulletin was considered laudable.   The competition watches were grouped by scores and typically more than one watch would be granted the distinction of First, Second, Third Prize and Honorable Mention.  Hence, you will see watches engraved with dual attributions of Bulletin de 1ere Classe and 1er Prix au Concours de Genève or lesser Prizes.

The top score within each category was considered informally as the First of the First Prize watches for that group; a distinction that Henry Graves, Jr. clearly coveted.  As far as I am aware, it was only at his request that the unorthodox designation of “First First Prize” was engraved by the Manufacture.

So, which watch was which?  If his was indeed the Olivier piece, did Graves resent having a 2^nd place watch regardless of its multiple complications and his requirement to have the chronograph running during the trials (although the latter stipulation may not have affected the timepiece according to a notation in “Quantum Leap”)?  In short, did an unsatisfied customer return the merchandise?

My inquisitive nature requires that I throw in a few more questions to clarify the confusing history presented by Perman following the 2002 Sotheby’s auction; what happened with the watch between 2002 and the 2006 Antiquorum auction?  Were Perman’s timelines all wrong and did Vacheron Constantin purchase the 10 Complications watch just prior to the 2006 auction, as seems more likely considering the date of Torres revelations to Foulkes?  If not, when did Vacheron Constantin acquire this watch and under what circumstances?

Of course, it is entirely up to Vacheron Constantin if they choose to illuminate the matter; perhaps interest in Perman’s book will offer some incentive.  As we’ve seen, the official references to Graves in relation to this watch have been quietly expunged.

Irrespective of what transpires, it appears that lessons were learned if we recall a similar scenario which unfolded in June of 2011 involving another Vacheron & Constantin ultra-complication, this one delivered to Graves’ nemesis James Ward Packard in 1919 at a price of CHF 3,320 which received at auction an equally amazing $1.76 million.  The provenance was solid, having been sold on behalf of Packard’s descendants.  This time, the publicity and prestige continues to benefit Vacheron Constantin while enthusiasts appreciate the discreet acknowledgement that the maison purchased it back themselves.

The Real Deal

Talk of Observatory trials brings us back to our original subject; the “First First Prize” watch of 1927 that seduced Henry Graves, Jr. into the arms of Vacheron & Constantin.  In all fairness, I should declare a personal interest, for I have a Vacheron & Constantin that was also in the trials alongside Graves’ watch.  It too was adjusted by Olivier and captured a Third Prize with 742 points.  One gains perspective, however, with its summary treatment in the final report: 15 troisièmes prix de 750 à 724 points.

For your enjoyment, I’ve translated the relevant Geneva Concours results as conveyed in the official publication of The Watchmaking Federation of Switzerland on 24 March 1928.  At least this one is undisputedly a Graves watch, and still out there to be discovered.

Geneva Observatory Contest of chronometers in 1927

Monday evening, March 19, at the beginning of the session of the Classe d’industrie et de commerce de la Société des arts, Professor Raoul Gautier, honorary director of the Observatory, read his report on competition chronometers for 1927. He noted that it was his 40th and final report on chronometers deposited at the observatory during his long career there, including two reports on the international competition in 1896. Next year it will be his distinguished successor, Professor Georges Tiercy who speaks for competitions of 1928.

In 1927, the Observatory chronometer service covered 170 chronometers (180 in 1926): three marine chronometers and 167 pocket or deck chronometers, including two filed as 2nd class and 165 submitted for the trials of 1st class, interested in the contest, at least the 146 who received bulletins (19 failures), and not even all: in fact, from this number is deducted two pieces foreign to the canton of Geneva and twenty-five pieces that were filed two sometimes even three times during the year. Class competitions are therefore directed in 1927 to 119 chronometers (123 in 1926, 114 in 1925 and 115 in 1924).

For the fourth time, these competitions were divided into two sets of parallel competitions: one “A” contest for pocket chronometers to the size of 43mm, the other “B” contest for the deck chronometers larger than 43mm.

Calculations are also on the same formula dating back to 1908, corresponding to an unattainable maximum 1000 points. But, given the different dimensions of competitors’ chronometers, the requirements for the awards are more severe for pieces subject to competition “B”.

Of the 119 timers who competed, only 42 took part in the competition “A” and 77 in competition “B”.  As for manufacturers and adjusters, their participation was as follows: competition “A”, five manufacturers and eight adjusters. This is slightly less than 1926.

For competition of series, which do not participate as competitors and who made ??or commissioned at least five chronometers - (we take the average of the top five) - included: competition “A”, two manufacturers and three adjusters; competition “B”, three manufacturers and six adjusters.

In closing, Mr. Gautier notes that if the competitions in 1927 are compared with those of 1926, “A” contests are less interesting than those of the previous year, for either the quantity or the quality.  As for competition “B”, a remarkable achievement in the contest of individual pieces, and as a set, quite comparable to the results from past years in various “B” competitions.

Here are the results as they were arrested by the office of the Class on the proposal of M. Gautier and voted at the meeting by the class itself:

I. Competition of Isolated Pieces.

Contest B: 77 deck chronometers - 5 First prizes

866         Vacheron et Constantin                                E. Olivier

819         Vacheron et Constantin                                E. Olivier

811         Longines

805         Patek, Philippe et Cie

801         Patek, Philippe et Cie

Guillaume Prize.

For the fourth time, the Société des Fabriques de Spiraux put together for 1927, available from the Geneva Observatory, as they did for Neuchâtel, the sum of one thousand francs to reward adjusters who have obtained the best results in the annual contest. As of 1924-1926, the Observatory has decided to share this sum of awards with those adjusters leading the competitions of series, but by bringing their best five settings made ??in all competitions of “A” and “B”.

After the experience in 1926, where they had expected  4 prizes and there were five competitors with two tie results, the Observatory had planned for three events in 1927, with 4^th , 5^th or 6^th prize, provided that competitors averaging at least 720 points . This is the second event come true, because this year there are 5 competitors who exceed this figure. Moreover, it was anticipated that, if two competitors stood less than 2 percentage points apart, they would be considered a tie and the corresponding prizes would be added and their sum shared by halves. However, this presents this year for the first two awards (300 and 250 fr.) and the last two (150 and 100 fr.).

Here are the results that are interesting:

2              1^er prix                  782.6                     M. E. Olivier

                tied                        782.4                     M. Hans Wehrli

1              3^e prix                   774.6                     M. Golay-Audemars

2              4^e prix                   765.2                     M. Perret

                tied                        763.4                     M. Modoux

On behalf of watch manufacturers and adjusters, Mr. Constantin also thanked very warmly Professor Gautier and gave him a plate and address of esteem and testimony of gratitude.

Esse Quam Videri

Before concluding, I’d like to take the opportunity to clear up a few loose ends arising from this enquiry.  As mentioned earlier, it appears that Graves made the unique request to have “First First Prize” engraved upon the cuvette of those winning Observatory chronometers he purchased directly from the Manufacture.  Here is an example of a similar Graves watch from Patek Philippe.

While impressive in appearance, the 1933 Geneva results for the Concours de pièces isolées reveal this watch was entered in competition “C”; Chronomètres de poche, petit format, for watches less than 38mm in diameter.  The piece did capture the top score in class of 872 points.  However, the “C” category was subject to a less stringent scoring formula than “A” and “B” watches and eventually the entire category was eliminated.  In fact, a higher score of 875 points was achieved in competition “A”; Chronomètres de bord, by an Omega as adjusted by Alfred Jaccard.  Furthermore, the watch that tied the record with top points in competition “B” was a Vacheron & Constantin as adjusted by Hélène Jaccard.  Clearly, it makes one wonder about the meaning of such cuvette braggadocio.  Still, it must have helped to propel this watch to the astonishing price of CHF 1,143,000 at Christie’s Geneva auction in November of 2011, although, contrary to the auction notes, there is no indication it held a “precision world record”.

As far as my admiration for Henry Graves, Jr., I’m left with one slight reservation.  Some have suggested the race between Packard and Graves to own the most complicated timepieces, culminating with the nexus of Perman’s book; the Graves Supercomplication, had as much to do with money, power, competition and ego as it did an appreciation of horology.  Graves’ quest for the best timepieces within the realm of precision chronometry elevated him, in my eyes, above those petty although normal human characteristics.  Yet I can find no mention that Graves ever acknowledged, let alone met and conversed with, the most important contributors to the success of his coveted Prize watches; the régleurs.  It would indeed solidify his reputation as a connoisseur of timekeeping to find such references.

I hope this tangential enquiry has informed and amused.  I suppose it’s now time to read “A Grand Complication” from the beginning; who knows what other mysteries will be revealed.

Tick Talk, 2014

  login to reply