Reply With QuoteLooks suspicious to me but canīt be sure. Also by that price you can easily find real issued CWC.
Found this on E Bay
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 05425&rd=1
Do you think that the W10 and the serial number / year of issue have been added on by someone else then CWC to boost the price up. as you know the watches bought from Silvermans have no serial numbers/year off issue or service prefix.Just something to ponder about
Regards
Nimrod
Looks suspicious to me but canīt be sure. Also by that price you can easily find real issued CWC.
No idea, Nimrod, but nice to see you around again!
How are you doing? :)
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
Yes I must admit that watch looks dodgy, especialy the serial number looks if it was engraved and not properly stamped.
Thanks for the kind words Crusader, nice to back to the "cool" UK temperatures of 30C plus!
I have noticed my Army mates are now wearing the old style CWC G10s with the battery hatch again. These are back on issue. Good to see the back of the Pulsars but these are still the most common despite bits falling off them!
No word if any more CWC G10s with the snap on back and date function are coming on issue to us. I think it is only us in the light blue that are issued with them.Word is that a possible replacement for the Seiko chrono is another Pulsar but with a chrono function. God help us!! Every thing seems to be on "hold"
Warmest regards
Nimrod
I must correct myself. I believe that marking is real.
I was able to went trough small inventory of G10 watches and there were similarly marked CWC and the number was also near by (06xx/98 ).
I also regonized that all four 1997 issued watches from that inventory were also marked so that serial number and year were similarly marked as on your linked picture but W10 was stamped "harder" as usual manner.
All serial numbers on 1997 and -98 were sub 6000 on that inventory.
Bottom line: I assume that 1997-98 the amount of watch orders were so small that watches get just general stamping first and issue/serial -numbers were made when delivered.
JP
Thanks for your very interesting reply JP
What i meant I thought that the numbers were false as they looked ingraved and not stamped on
I may sound a bit sad but I am very interested in the serial numbers on the CWC G10s. Any idea when they changed from the rolling on numbers which just went on from year to year and then went to individual issue per year?
Do you have a list of the numbers. Is it from the net or just something you enquired.Do you know where I can get it please?
They seem to have changed from the 12 345
91
To 1234/98
Also the new issue (ie mine) has the numbers above the Nato stock number and not underneath. At the moment I have a battery hatch type again with a 2004 issue. For some reason it is a W10 instead of our normal 6b. Short of stock I presume as I have seen this before.
Regards
Nimrod
Yes those seems to be engraved. So the UK NATO -marking 6645-99 and watch type 5415317 is (always?) stamped. On some 1998 CWC:s W10 and serial number/98 are engraved.Originally Posted by Nimrod
I assume that engraving has been done late 1997- early 98 because I have seen CWC:s what have stamped W10-6645-99 but different shape (but also stamped) serial number/98. Maybe engrawing was used because over stocked case backs?
Sorry. No list.
Thanks for a quick reply J T
I must admit I have never seen anything engraved on the back of the CWC G10s but I must have been wrong. I stand corrected.this is whay i have thought something was not all correct.
On the late 80s and early 90s they seem to have been individualy stamped in one process as all the markings are of the same stamping.
On later issues the part numbers and serial/year of issue are of a different type presuming that they are added later.
Also I have seen the W10numbers etc with what looks like premarked on the back of the same type as the crow foot marking.
On mine as I have mentioned the serial and issue year is ABOVE all the numbers just below the battery hatch and is much smaller then on the 97 98 issues. It is a 2004 issue.
Regards
Nimrod
I was also thinking same but then when I saw this inventory of CWC:s I regonized these different "engaved s/n" 1997-98 G10.
Yes. AFAIK so it is.On the late 80s and early 90s they seem to have been individualy stamped in one process as all the markings are of the same stamping.
Something like that yes. I have seen 1990-91 models what have different shape on serial and year numbers. But still stamped not engraved.On later issues the part numbers and serial/year of issue are of a different type presuming that they are added later.
I think all 1980īs CWC:s what I have seen are like you said.Also I have seen the W10numbers etc with what looks like premarked on the back of the same type as the crow foot marking.
So you have UK MOD issued CWC from 2004?On mine as I have mentioned the serial and issue year is ABOVE all the numbers just below the battery hatch and is much smaller then on the 97 98 issues. It is a 2004 issue.
Regards
JP
Hi J P
Yet again thanks for your reply. I think the jist of all we said there is no uniformity in the stampings/engraving on the backs of these watches. I presume as years go on they seem to change it bit by bit.
Yes at the moment I have been issued with a CWC G10 with a W10 prefix and a year of issue 2004. It is the battery hatch type and all I can presume we must be short of the 2000 type with snap on back with the 6b prefix. Lovely watch and keeps absolutely perfect time.
Saying that we had W10 prefixes before so no suprise there. I should be gratefull. They could have given me a Pulsar!!! Perish the thought!!!
Cheers
Nimrod
Hi Nimrod,
So you "are issued" mean you are in UK Army I believe. Then you have very good change to do serching what common WIS can not. To me (and propably some others also) it was new info that UK MOD has ordered CWC:s still 2004. Personally I prefer CWC G10 with the battery hatch type. but propably snap back model will work better against water.
Pulsar... hmmm... could be nive to have in collection but only if CWC already on wrist.
Regards,
JP
I believe the 2004 hatchback is 50 meters water-resistant as well. :wink:Hi Nimrod,
So you "are issued" mean you are in UK Army I believe. Then you have very good change to do serching what common WIS can not. To me (and propably some others also) it was new info that UK MOD has ordered CWC:s still 2004. Personally I prefer CWC G10 with the battery hatch type. but propably snap back model will work better against water.
Pulsar... hmmm... could be nive to have in collection but only if CWC already on wrist.
Regards,
JP
here's a thread on the watch on the WUS Pil-Mil Forum: http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=10113
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
Hi gents
Thanks to both of you for the reply. I am in the RAF and been issued recently with a CWC G10 watch with a battery hatch and Tritum. This is exactly the type that were used up to 1999. I have seen these on issue to some of my Army mates but they seem to be still with Pulsars. As I said mine is a W10 but again I presume we are issued with tri service stuff.
Personaly unless you are desperate I would not spend money on a Pulsar. Saying that they are better to see in the dark and they are Luminous, but only because the numbers are also in Lumina unlike the CWC models.
My previous model was a CWC G10 2000 type with a snap on back which was very good but unfortunately it met with an accident so now I have this one.
I naturaly know nothing official but beeing a G10 freak as you have gathered I see what people are wearing.
For some reason I have never seen a Pulsar with any prefix but W10 so I presume they must be issued like that to all services.
I never noticed the difference in the CWC 2000 model and the one I have now in respect of night visibility. Both very good.
Also I have never had the occasion to test the waterproofness of either and hopfully will never do so. Prefer to stay in the air rather in the drink!
So concluding we can presume that the old battery hatch type is on issue again , in what numers I have no idea, But most people from the Army seem to be still wearing the Pulsar.
Hope this bit of info is of some use.
Regards
Nimrod
I never noticed the difference in the CWC 2000 model and the one I have now in respect of night visibility. Both very good.[/quote]
And that is actually rather surprising, given that the hatchback G10 has tritium, and the 2000 model has Luminova! :shock:
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
As I said before and I hate to admit it but the best of the three for seeing in the dark is the Pulsar!!!
Cheers
Nimrod
:shock: On the one hand, that is a surprise. On the other, if they use the top-grade of Seiko lume, it isn't, really.
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
Hard to think the same firm that makes the Pulsar used to make the different variations of the Seiko chronos.
Diversing now we still have no idea what is replacing the chronos. Someone has said that he has seen a Pulsar chrono which are bigger then the Seiko version. Sounds awfull! I know that cost is the prime factor but how cheap are we going to get??? I also gather that some of our combat clothing is made in China. No comment!!!
Regards
Nimrod
Nice to hear that we have some "real user" here. Not so common to "meet" one. Bad news is that we propably start to ask stupid questions. At least I am planning to do so.....
So first. What has been the oldest CWC what you have regonised? I mean still issued to some soldier?
JP
The oldest CWC G10 I have seen is 1997. The oldest Seiko chrono I have seen is 1986 and is the first generation model (the best one)
Most G10s we see are sadly Pulsars, but bear in mind that to see a service man/woman with a service watch is not that common.They are not issued to all.
A lot of the aircrew who get the chronos do not wear them and use their own watches.
Regards
Nimrod
Thanks for fast answer.
What is the limit to get issued with a G10 or some other watch? Is there certain position what soldier must to have?
How about the aircrew peole. What (private) watches they prefer?
Regards,
JP
All wristwatches in the British Forces are issued on an "as needed" basis. Nobody is issued a watch on a permanent basis although it would be a brave Quartermaster who told his Commanding Officer that he couldn't have a watch. :wink:
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Like Eddie said, they are issued on "as needed" basis. Usualy if you go on deployment or on exercise you have it for the duration.
However aircrew (not me I sit in the back!) on flying tours tend to keep them most of the time.
A sight of a service watch is quite a rare sight nowadays.
I have to hand mine back when "done" but with great reluctance! I did get mine changed halfway through the tour as it got broken. hence the W10 version.
But i own several CWC G10s of my own which i wear the rest of the time.
Also like Eddie said a lot of top brass tend to have the watches or people in admin for some reason!
Regards
Nimrod
Posting Permissions
