# Dodgy Cccp Amphibias?



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

There appear to be a few of these Amphibias about, and a bit of searching brings up the odd discussion over them.



















You might note the patina on the dial visible between the hand post and the two o'clock hour marker.

One discussion I read concerning the cause for this attributed it to the lume used on the hands.

article

I wonder whether this was ever proven or not. Still, I suspect I might not feel entirely comfortable at the idea if it was even remotely radioactive as suggested. Any thoughts yourselves?

The other thing that piqued my interest was the relatively common surfacing of supposed 'new old stock' or 'unworn' vintage Vostoks, specifically the CCCP/USSR era. And in the case of the image above - just one of many to be found searching images - one curiosity was the marking 17 jewel, on what I presume to be an Amphibian here rather than a Komandirskie. It seems odd to feature a hand wind movement in a divers watch with screw down crown.

From a bit of casual research, this would seem genuine enough of the time. One article had the very same watch albeit far more weathered, nicely captured in pictures.

article 2

cheers.

edit: WUS appears to be down at the moment but if you put the URL into google and then select cached you'll still be able to read the article.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

These watches don't appear to be radium lumed. The older examples display the weaking of glow common to tritium and non-radioactive lumes. The dials themselves are known for being rather poorly painted. The USSR was known for purchasing paint by the tanker load from the cheapest source anywhere in the world, often of unknown age and origin.

Later,

William


----------



## AbingtonLad (Sep 8, 2008)

There was a fairly comprehensive discussion on radioactive paint a couple of years ago - I haven't tried to a link as it's a long way back! The gist was that it's nothing to worry about as this kind of radiation is very short-lived and only travels tiny distances (often not making it out of the crystal before decaying).

My wife, who works with the stuff every day, advised against swallowing luminous dials and hands, but made it clear that short of such behaviour you were unlikely to suffer any ill-effects.


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

That's interesting, cheers William.

Aside from the CCCP marking on the dial (which I suspect can be as equally faked as anything else - whether there are cases or not I do not know, however), how do you go about determining whether one of these is a genuine CCCP era issue and not a modern day re-issue? Are there any tell tale signs other than dial fading/patina, or lume deterioration (both of which could of course also be artificially recreated!)?


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

AbingtonLad said:


> There was a fairly comprehensive discussion on radioactive paint a couple of years ago - I haven't tried to a link as it's a long way back! The gist was that it's nothing to worry about as this kind of radiation is very short-lived and only travels tiny distances (often not making it out of the crystal before decaying).
> 
> My wife, who works with the stuff every day, advised against swallowing luminous dials and hands, but made it clear that short of such behaviour you were unlikely to suffer any ill-effects.


Missed this - ha, no I can not imagine a circumstance where I might end up ingesting the hands or dial! Good to know, then.


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

Well, I have one of the earliest Amphibia models and I can tell you it has no radium on the hands and markers. In fact, the lume is so bad and so old that it doesn't glow at all.

What happened with those is probably what happens to other Vostok dials changing colours. Now, if the watch was in some shelf or shop window getting direct sunlight, strange things will happen to the paint. If the watch was stopped, the hands will give shade to a certain area and the difference in temperature and exposure will make the paint react between two areas with differences in temperature exposure.

Another thing people at WUS noticed was that particular reaction happened just with that dial, so if the hands of that period had radium we would be seeing more of that in other dials. The metallic blue ones are particularly sensitive and are the ones most likely to change colour with just ONE afternoon on the dial (they turn greenish...). Some green ones turn grey (quite nice actually).

It's just my theory but Amphibias were (are) too cheap a watch to have such thing as radium paint.


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

Thanks Kutosov, a very reasonable explanation there - quite reassuring, I had had some reservation about carrying around half-life on my wrist! (er, not that I actually have the watch...)

Incidentally, the Boctok above was one I had originally spotted at Anton C's the Passage of Time blog, and posted here a while back - post 11

For convenience, it's this one, and an excellent picture I thought.










(picture used without permission, please delete if necessary)

Further examples from the WUS thread quoted here again for convenience.




























I was curious though as to the bezel, which as you will note appears to be one of two variants. I wonder if this reflects any difference in period, as the round bezel perhaps might indicate a later design? Alternatively of course, it might just be that they are easily interchangeable and so only reflect a modification by the owner.

Perhaps the most interesting dial change is seen in this example, again from the same WUS thread - just look at the hour hand outline! Fantastic.


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

howie77 said:


> I was curious though as to the bezel, which as you will note appears to be one of two variants. I wonder if this reflects any difference in period, as the round bezel perhaps might indicate a later design? Alternatively of course, it might just be that they are easily interchangeable and so only reflect a modification by the owner.


That's right, the bezel with the dots is a later design.

I was looking at the pictures you posted and another scary though crossed my mind... could it be that those patterns involve also moister inside the watch? Some pics might lead you think on that but I still think sun light is the culprit here... especially after looking at that last pic.

Easy enough to check that out... wear the watch for a while, if you gain super-powers then the watch is most definitely radioactive 

PS: Cool IMCO lighter on the first picture!! :notworthy:


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

Interesting point, I suppose it might in some cases be moisture ingress, perhaps be easier to tell with a view of the internal workings - sadly I don't own it though, it's just one I stumbled upon while idly googling CCCP era images! I suppose though if it is a vintage piece then any remaining water resistance ought to be viewed with a little caution...!

I must say though, if there is one thing I do like it's the ageing dial / patina that develops on these old Amphibias, gives each one it's own unique character if you will.

Funnily enough, you gave me some interesting advice while back over those IMCO lighters, I think it's about time I got one, and to that extent I have a few in my ebay watch list - 6600 / 6700 / 6800...!


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

howie77 said:


> Funnily enough, you gave me some interesting advice while back over those IMCO lighters, I think it's about time I got one, and to that extent I have a few in my ebay watch list - 6600 / 6700 / 6800...!


Oh it was you then!! I wasn't sure because you changed your avatar. I remember pointing someone with BIG moustaches to a UK seller who had those lighters


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

Kutusov said:


> howie77 said:
> 
> 
> > Funnily enough, you gave me some interesting advice while back over those IMCO lighters, I think it's about time I got one, and to that extent I have a few in my ebay watch list - 6600 / 6700 / 6800...!
> ...


haha this chap?










Which was/is indeed me. The 'tache, though, was an optimistic after effect. I could never grow one like that! If any reading this does have one, though, well let's see it!


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

howie77 said:


> haha this chap?


   Yeap, that's the guy! I think you have to be a Sikh or Turkish to be able to grow one of those so no hope for you


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

AbingtonLad said:


> There was a fairly comprehensive discussion on radioactive paint a couple of years ago - I haven't tried to a link as it's a long way back! The gist was that it's nothing to worry about as this kind of radiation is very short-lived and only travels tiny distances (often not making it out of the crystal before decaying).
> 
> My wife, who works with the stuff every day, advised against swallowing luminous dials and hands, but made it clear that short of such behaviour you were unlikely to suffer any ill-effects.


Tritium is safe, radium is not. Radium's half life is over 1600 years. One of the members linked to this video a little while ago (I too can't find the thread  ), it's an old Timex dial.






Later,

William


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

William_Wilson said:


> Tritium is safe, radium is not. Radium's half life is over 1600 years. One of the members linked to this video a little while ago (I too can't


Yeap, you can even smash tritium vials with a banana without a problem like the Craig Hester said:






:bangin:


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

Coincidentally I just stumbled across a thread discussing this very watch. Apparently these models are all coming out of Thailand as NOS, as either model number 855057 or 880283.

I wonder what to make of that.

cccr vostok

All billed as 17 jewel, antimagnetic and CAEAAHO B CCCP. Suggests 2409 Movement.


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

And one more update! For those who are interested, this is a recently closed example of one such NOS - 310310233631





































Appears legit enough, old style Amphibia case, shallower as accommodating the hand wind 2409 movement? Though I can't quite make out any markings in this case.


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

howie77 said:


> Appears legit enough, old style Amphibia case, shallower as accommodating the hand wind 2409 movement? Though I can't quite make out any markings in this case.


I agree, seems ok to me. Nice that it has the antimagnetic shield too. Strange not to have any markings on the movement but we've seen this before.

I also agree with the general principle that there are no fake Vostoks, just frankens. And even that is hard to tell because I keep on seeing variations on these watches. There must be thousands of different combinations of dials, hands, bezels, cases, etc, etc.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Here is my "NOS" Thailand example.














































It has the 2409, I strongly believe these unmarked movements were for domestic use. Satin finished green dial with aged lume. I'm not sure my case was actually for an ÐÐ¼Ñ„Ð¸Ð±Ð¸Ñ. I suspect these were spare parts sold off to raise cash, at some point after the fall of the Commies.

Later,

William


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Kutusov said:


> William_Wilson said:
> 
> 
> > Tritium is safe, radium is not. Radium's half life is over 1600 years. One of the members linked to this video a little while ago (I too can't
> ...


Is that with, or without. the peel?

I so badly want to smash a tritium dial with a banana now. 

Later,

William


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

Article over at Ed's corner regarding the use of 2409 manual movement and respective case shape. Interesting short read.

Edscorner 2409

Summary of pictures below.


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

In respect of the initial watch that I posted, I found this, two variants using the roman numeral hour markers - no model number as such, quoted as serial numbers 855057 and 880283.










Sourced from these identical sites - crosswords911 - vostok and sapo - vostok

With close up pictures of the Vostok 855057










and the Vostok 880283










The 855057 I have also seen itemised as 774585, curiously enough. I wonder if there is some mix up between serial number, and model number?










Though curiously a google search on 774585 also turns up this example, as I posted in Williams Thread - Is This Boctok Real










(source of last two pics - gallery)


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

howie77 said:


> In respect of the initial watch that I posted, I found this, two variants using the roman numeral hour markers - no model number as such, quoted as serial numbers 855057 and 880283.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those six digit numbers should be the serial numbers that are stamped on the casebacks. I don't know if all of the casebacks were numbered in a series, regardless of what model/type of watch they were going on, or if each different model had it's own series of numbers. That could allow for of caseback number replication.

Later,

William


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

William_Wilson said:


> Those six digit numbers should be the serial numbers that are stamped on the casebacks. I don't know if all of the casebacks were numbered in a series, regardless of what model/type of watch they were going on, or if each different model had it's own series of numbers. That could allow for of caseback number replication.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William


Ah, that does make sense, as I'd been looking at a couple of Amphibias, if I recall also of CCCP era, that while different dials both bore the same serial number marking.

Either that, or a spot of photo duplication on behalf of the seller...!


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

William_Wilson said:


> Is that with, or without. the peel?
> 
> I so badly want to smash a tritium dial with a banana now.
> 
> ...


What do you get with a radioactive banana? This guy?


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Kutusov said:


> William_Wilson said:
> 
> 
> > Is that with, or without. the peel?
> ...


I bet he's a slippery character. 

Later,

William


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

William_Wilson said:


> I bet he's a slippery character.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William


----------

