No. A much more accurate account is in [THE CHARGE OF THE ELECTRON][1] (1935): >In 1929 Prof. R. T. Birge (reference 1) published an acutely critical and masterly survey of our knowledge of the fundamental physical constants. It was a very timely summary, and it undoubtedly-if we may borrow from the vocabulary of another trade-did much to promote a desirable "constants-consciousness ” in the general body of physicists. This especially applies to two of the atomic constants, the charge *e* and the specific charge e/m of the electron. >At the time of Birge’s report, there were two distinct, and apparently equally well authenticated, values of e/m. Direct deflection methods gave 1.769 x 107, while spectroscopic methods gave 1.761 x 10^7 abs. e.m.u./ gm. As the maximum error admitted in each case was only of order 1 part in 1000, the relatively large difference between the two values was more than a little disturbing. On the other hand, Millikan’s value of e (only slightly modified in revisions of the calculations, made by Birge(1) and by Millikan(1) himself) was generally accepted as accurate to within 1 part in 1000. In fact it seemed very likely that the electronic charge lay somewhere between 4.768 and 4.772 x 10 ^ - 10 e.s.u. It is significant of the authority attaching to Millikan’s work that it was considered necessary to correct his values for the small difference between absolute and international electrical units and for a small change in the accepted value of the velocity of light. >The situation has oddly changed since 1929, the spectroscopic and deflection values of e/m now being in excellent agreement at something very near to 1758 x 10^7. **There are, however, now in the field two values of e which differ by more than 7 parts in 1000; they bear in fact to one another almost exactly the celebrated and possibly significant ratio 136/137(3). The first of these is Millikan’s, the second is the value deduced from absolute X-ray wave-lengths by a method which was only beginning to be fully exploited at the time of Birge’s first paper.** where reference 2 is Millikan's [THE MOST PROBABLE 1930 VALUES OF THE ELECTRON AND RELATED CONSTANTS][2] (1930) In other words, by 1929 there was data by a different technique that contradicted Millikan's value, and it was realized by 1935 that Millikan's value was flawed due to using an inaccurate viscosity of air. For further information see: [Viscosity of Air and the Electronic Charge][3] (1935). [The charge of the electron][4] (1937) (a follow up to the 1935 article with the same title) [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0034-4885/2/1/312 [2]: https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.35.1231 [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/136682b0.pdf [4]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0034-4885/4/1/312