Thank you, Dr. McIntyre, for your information. However, my understanding is that Kathleen referred to a pocket watch produced before the first WW. And this is the subject of my interest. Of course, I could be wrong.
Osterhausen's The Movado History refers to a Movado tourbillon. In the late 1910's and early '20's Movado competed seriously in the Neuchatel chronometer trials.
He identifies the one Movado tourbillon as number 360433. He speculates that this was one 22 ligne calibre. It had the typical Movado bridge layout with the three lobed cock. It probably had a spring detent escapement. The watch is now missing. Several example of this calibre placed very high in the trials. According to Osterhousen one was a tourbillon.
as Dr.Jon mentioned, it was No.360433:
- steel hair coil with 2 end curves
- sadlywise no record about the tourbillon escapement kind
- the Regulator was Hector Golay, Geneva
- prooved in 1919 (Neuchâtel, CH) and 1920 (Kew, UK)
source: Reinhard Meis - Tourbillon (1986, Laterna magica) ISBN 3-87467-293-X
According to the published results of the 1920 trials, Movado entered four lever tourbillons.. They were numbers 360435 360445 360440 360034. They were acier and Guillaume balances with double overcoils. I did not find any entries for 1919 or 1921 that were tourbillons. I have not looked at all the trial records so I may still find 360433.
Movada also had a simple watch 360441 that placed higher. All were in the first tier, awarded first prize.
These records show that the adjusters of these and all Movado entries were Edw Ditesheim (As spelled in the Swiss Journal of Horology and Jewelry) and L. Augsburger. This pair regulated all the Movado watches that were enterred in trials both at Neuchatel and at Kew.
It is intersting to me that the one regulator was a Ditisheim The Movado founders spelled theor name Didisheim but Paul and probably Edward . I slo noticed that Paul Ditisheim had watche s regulated by another Augsburger so it appears this family kept it n the family.
I am still going over the trial records but I have not found any mention of 360433.
I am sure Osterhausen has good sources but the trial records do not seem to be among them. It is possible that 360433 was made for these trials but did not perform as well as the others.
The comments to my query by 'Dr. Jon' and 'Nachtmotte' are appreciated. Both of them provided some specific information. At the same time, their contributions are a proof that information on the watches only about 100 years old is not easily available, and often not quite complete. Let's hope that current efforts on the historical aspects of horology will eventually fill the existing gaps in our knowledge on the subject. This MB is an important tool to achieve the goal.