cccp-forum.it

I know many of you are familiar with the Russian language and horology articles/books from the USSR.
I have been sent this link and wondered if it was already well known to you?
http://arch.rgdb.ru/xmlui/handle/123456 ... 6/mode/1up
I have had to use an OCR translator to understand the basics. I liked it and, disregarding the propaganda, found it informative.
I would be interested to hear peoples comments on it. And also if you could help with the dates. The book talks about "the next year" the "fourth year", "the final year". Are these perhaps a reference to 1932 (the last year of the five year plan)?
Interestingly, the book was published in 1933 which was about the period Tochmekh was being disbanded and I didn't come across specific reference to Tochmekh. Is there other evidence they were not mentioned in literature after 1933 (I know Bogdanov does later in his History of the Soviet Watch Industry).
So many questions

A link to downloaf the pdf


The most interesting information from page eight forwards.

I have found usefull the book 1) for photographs 2) the producing process (we are in 1932, that is in the initial stage. Before the restructuring of 1935-1937 and Stalin's purges that involved most of the technical staff of watchmaking factories).

I think that it is a book for children (or young people).

Thank you for your reply and comments.
You are right about the tone of the writing, perhaps aimed at students to encourage them to become technicians.
The years make sense, thank you.

Thank you for the link, Alan. I was not aware of that book. I will try to read it as soon as I can.
And many thanks to mchap for the review and for making it available in pdf
P.S. I would have translated it as "The First Watches", wouldn't you?

zvezda ha scritto:Thank you for the link, Alan. I was not aware of that book. I will try to read it as soon as I can.
And many thanks to mchap for the review and for making it available in pdf
P.S. I would have translated it as "The First Watches", wouldn't you?

I have incorporate some of the information within my blog because it depicts the very early period, especially the photo's which are great, as mchap says. I have gone for 'First Watch' but have no argument with 'The First Watches'.
Infact this highlights what a corruption of languages English is (Norse, Celtic, Latin-Roman, French, Anglo-Saxons plus fragments from our other invaders and now of course it is not English but American that we all speak). The translation of Часы into English, using every translation device on-line is 'Hours'. I understand why another language would see the use of 'Watch' as an obscure description for such a timepiece. I think hour in English is a corruption of the French heure, the Spanish hora and the Italian ora all of which must have Latin/Greek root.

hampden ha scritto:and now of course it is not English but American that we all speak

So awfully true! (to be read with an awfully British accent...)

hampden ha scritto:I have gone for 'First Watch' but have no argument with 'The First Watches'.

Indeed, the original Russian title "Первый Часовой" can be translated either way. Unfortunately, it is very difficult, and certainly beyond my reach, to render all the suggestive nuances of the original Russian title.

The Russian noun "час", singular, is unambiguously translated into English as "hour", or heure, hora, uhr, ora, all from the Latin "hora", as you correctly pointed out. Ambiguity starts when the term is used in its plural form "часов", or часы, часах, часам, and so on, according to declension, because it can be translated as "hours" or "timepiece" - whether the latter be wearable or not.

The adjective "часовой" means "relevant to hours", where "hours" retains the ambiguity between the time units and the instrument to measure them. So the well known term «часовой завод», usually translated as "watch factory" should be more accurately translated as "factory relevant to timekeeping" or something like that.

As to the book's title, however, it is self-evident that translating «Первый Часовой» as "First (things) relevant to timekeeping" would be totally out of the question The author's name is not easier either. The Cyrillic transliteration 'Gershenzon' and the phonetic transcription 'Hershenson' are both equally good.
But as "Gershenzon – First Watch" sounds good to me, I am going to adopt your version (please edit your topic's title accordingly if you don't mind. Thanks!)

However we name it, I enjoyed reading (perhaps the term "painfully deciphering" is more apt) the book. In the year-end meeting described in the first part the author gives some interesting facts and figures, like the intent to become independent of imports of watch hands, jewels and hairsprings within 1932. It is another piece in the puzzle, because we know how it went thanks to the report from Neifeld and Breytburt (see the link below).

The information contained in the book is technically correct for the most part. (Maybe with the exception of the parts a pocket watch is composed of, which the book reports as around 300. Apparently, they were not talking of the good old Type I, which is made of far less than two hundred parts.) Anyway, were it not for the very interesting photographs, the second part would have been boring. Manufacturing processes, equipment and tools are explained superficially, as any advertising brochure still does today, no matter the brand of the watches (OK, maybe today's ads lack that sort of "socialist tone" the whole book is spiced up with ) Anyone interested in the subject will find much more detailed information in Soviet horology books like Kann's, Breytburt's and Tarasov's. (all of them available for download here at cccp-forum.)

Little (but interesting) details are found even on the newspapers illustrated on the front and end pages. This one is dated May 1 1932 (1 мая 1932 года) and the title reads "1 мая - боевой смотр революционных сил международного пролетариата". According to the information provided on the last page, the book was submitted for production few weeks later, on July 10, and signed for printing on September 27. Eventually, as printed on the first card cover, the book was published in 1933.
I won't discuss the book any further, the summary you have made available on your blog is thorough and very well done. Thank you for your excellent work
I invite everyone to read the Birth of Soviet Watchmaking for the summary, the report from Neifeld and Breytburt and lots of interesting information.

I'm pleased you found it interesting and informative.
Your critique is welcomed and helpful, also your endorsement of my story. My grateful thanks.

If you like reading newspapers, here is a real headache!

hampden ha scritto:If you like reading newspapers, here is a real headache!

Do you mean the data on the production of Types I, II and III in 1932 (title reads завод выпустить / продукции строка, factory release / line of products) Or the evidence that even the Soviets used sellotape to repair their books? ( )

Do you mean the data on the production of Types I, II and III in 1932 (title reads завод выпустить / продукции строка, factory release / line of products)

Had you seen it before?
I sent that as a joke! I didn't think for one moment you would try and read it - and you find this priceless bit of information.
Well now I expect no more than the whole page translated!
Interesting that it would seem to confirm the factory produced Types 1, 2 & 3 and that they were not subcontracted to Artels. Also why no mention of Type-4's(?).