I have been trying to determine the age and model of this watch. It was part of my brother-in-law's collection. When he passed away a fews years ago it came into our possession.
After many hours of searching the web I see some similarities to a "cioccolatone" but I'm not entirely sure. There are some differences. This watch is white gold, both the watch and the buckle on the strap. Unlike all of the watches I have seen it is a manual winding watch and has no second hand. On the last photograph the internal square has a different design which I do not see on any of the Vacheron Constantin watches.
On the back of the case is the number 638688.
I would be most grateful is someone could shed some light on this watch,
Thanks
Nigel Church



this watch case by Italians (shaped like a piece of chocolate). I may be wrong but I think any watch with this case could have the term applied. The original Toledo has this case, as does the new one. Regardless of what it is called you have a beautiful watch. Here are a few photos of a Toledo from the Historiques collection. Our moderator Bill or perhaps Alex can give more specifics as to the model you have. Are you keeping it?



The term "cioccolatone" was originally applied in 1952 by the Italian press to the triple-date and moon phases watch with the distinctive shape (Ref. 4764 with cal. 485, then 495) . Simple, time-only version followed with manual (Ref. 4822, cal. 454) and automatic movements (Ref. 4737 with cal. 499, then 1019 and Ref. 6440 with cal. 1071). What appears to characterize these original cioccolatone models was the stepped, curved and flared "carre galbe" case shape and size of 36mm wide x 43mm lug-to-lug.
So to answer your question, your timepiece is an hommage to the original from the Les Historiques collection, as was the Toledo 1952. Because the term "cioccolatone" was given by the media, and not the factory, there are no official rules - just what the collector's community has come to accept as convention. It compares in terms of shape, but not period or possibly size.
This message has been edited by Tick Talk on 2012-04-24 08:04:44