Reply With QuoteSounds like complete bollocks to me :?
Any thoughts on this one?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRITISH-MILITA...QQcmdZViewItem
Sounds a bit unlikely :shock:
Jimster
Sounds like complete bollocks to me :?
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Not only does it sound unlikely as in "never heard of that".
in addition, I don't think the Monster was around as early as 1999, was it? The earliest reviews I could find are from 2002, so I wouldn't know why Seiko would have given it to the British Forces as much as 3 years earlier.
Guntram
According to the Seiko Divers Reference (http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/...ndex.html#7S26) the Monsters were first produced in 2000.
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Seems an odd choice of watch to try and pass off as military issue. I somehow can't imagine the RN really going for the styling :)
Guntram - not sure either when BM was introduced, but I think you're right - am also pretty sure it wasn't around in '99
The first BM I ever saw was when it was being discussed on MWR, stating it was being issued to the Australian Navy. Not impossible that it was used but I'm suspicious of the markings. Interesting that the seller mentions Hereford and leaves any prospective buyer to make their own connections.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I don't think the 99 is a date mark - without looking it up I suspect it is a national code or some such. 99 appears on CWC quartz mil watches (and others) and is separate from the date.
The NATO strap marks give it a convincing look, but why would the MoD trial a watch like the BM when there are more obvious Seiko choices such as the classic SKX007?
Correct, David, 99 is the NATo country code for UK.I don't think the 99 is a date mark - without looking it up I suspect it is a national code or some such. 99 appears on CWC quartz mil watches (and others) and is separate from the date.
The watch doesn't appear to be marked with an issue year.
Odd as it may seem, I'm inclined to believe this watch genuine.
Cheers
Foggy
Seriously? Blimey! I''d have thought it rubbish, but to be honest I have only a very slim knowledge set in this.Originally Posted by Foggy
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Hi Foggy,
I understand the watch would not have an issue year. I was alluding to the seller's description...
If someone's in the know enough to procure one out of 5 to 10 watches, why would they be off when it comes to the date of issue to the military?
You may well be right, of course - I'm the first to admit that you know a lot more about British military watches than me. To me, the description doesn't quite stack up, is all I'm saying. :wink:
Guntram
Hi Guntram
Normally they would, though. That's the unusual part for me.I understand the watch would not have an issue year
They're a watch dealer, so presumably they get offered a lot of watches. Doesn't mean they know diddly squat about them though :wink: . Some of my best buys have ben through dealers not knowing what they have.If someone's in the know enough to procure one out of 5 to 10 watches, why would they be off when it comes to the date of issue to the military?
I don't know if it's right or not, just my gut feeling says it probably is.
Cheers
Foggy
Didn't know British watches have the year of issue engraved. Out of curiosity: Where would one typically find that? Is it attached to the 12-digit-code? Etched between the lugs?
Your hunch is definitely a better indication than mine, so I'll be happy to admit the watch could be genuine. :smile:
Guntram
Yes, it's tagged on at the end of the code together with an issue number, so for example, my own CWC G10 reads:
0552/6645-99 (0552 indicates Royal Navy stock, 6645 nato stock code for a watch, 99 uk nato code)
5415317 (not sure exactly what this signifies, possibly watch type?)
32391 (issue number for that year)
89 (date of issue)
It'll be interesting to see if anyone else has the same hunch as Foggy and how much it'll go for.
Jimster
Thanks for the explanation - much appreciated!
I go with Foggy on this - as I said in my post above, the NATO strap marks give it some credibility and the caseback markings don't look obviously faked.
USA NATO codes split the the last 7 digits to further sub-classify items. For example, the good old general purpose but slightly good watches (type 1) are 066-4279 no matter who makes them, and the beloved navigator's watches (type 6) are 364-4042.
Of course, the US government calls them Federal Stock Numbers, in the same way that they call a Harrier an AV8 - wouldn't want the American people to know that they're using foreign ideas or designs :wink:
cheers,
The last seven digits of the NSN are just a unique number for a given item. The number on the watch might be for a dive watch, but not neccessarily a Seiko BM.
I could have a look on Fed Log tomorrow and see what it throws up.
Regards, Jon.
This from the seller
"A NUMBER OF WATCHES INCLUDING SEIKO, TRASER ,OMEGA SEAMASTER ARE USED BY SPECIAL FORCES IN LIMITED NUMBERS.THIS WATCH CAME INTO MY HANDS FROM A NEIBOUR WHO IS EX SPECIAL FORCES HERE IN HEREFORD"
Well, nobody to my knowledge has seen a Traser with issue markings, but I do have one that came from MOD stores, so I know that part to be true. I also know that more recent Seamasters were trialed, so again that part is true.
So for the Seiko BM - who knows, but I still wouldn't rule it out just yet :wink:
Cheers
Foggy
Hi Ian,
do you know which model Traser these were that came from MoD stores?
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
Hi Martindo you know which model Traser these were that came from MoD stores?
Sure do, as I still have it :lol: It's an S 3000. I got it with a batch of disposed of Seiko RAF's a few years back. Just don't ask me how :wink:
Here's a pic as it was (and still is) when I acquired it.
Cheers
Foggy
Thanks, Ian! :)
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
I'm with Foggy too.
Seems an incredibly odd fact to make up, or go to all the trouble of marking the case back. The markings look authentic, and it would be a costly proposition to do so much engraving on a relatively inexpensive case.
Every single thing the Armed services but has to be trialled in small numbers, so why not watches??
I have to rely on peoples honesty when they make such statements, and to call this watch a fake, would be to call the seller a liar and a cheat.
Some fakes are obvious, and some stories so far out, they're almost impossible to believe, and can therefore be quickly discounted. This one has that odd ring of credibility.
Ian,Sure do, as I still have it :lol: It's an S 3000. I got it with a batch of disposed of Seiko RAF's a few years back. Just don't ask me how :wink:
Here's a pic as it was (and still is) when I acquired it.
If you decide to sell . . . :D :D
If ever you replace the crystal, keep in mind that Traser's Titan Commander models P6506 come with a sapphire crystal, coated one side.
What's it say on the back, BTW?
cheers,
The Traser sapphire crystals are thicker than the Traser mineral crystals by about half a millimeter, IIRC.
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
That they are Martin, the sapphire protrudes about 1/4 mm above the bezel, the mineral about the same amount below. You'll probably agree Traser got that back-asswards, I recall you saying that sapphire is easy to chip at the edge!
cheers,
Yes, I think the mineral crystal was the original (and sensible design), and when they upgraded to sapphire, they added thickness to increase the structural strength of the crystal, without bothering to adapt the case to the fact that the sapphire crystal would protrude above the bezel.That they are Martin, the sapphire protrudes about 1/4 mm above the bezel, the mineral about the same amount below. You'll probably agree Traser got that back-asswards, I recall you saying that sapphire is easy to chip at the edge!
cheers,
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
It saysWhat's it say on the back, BTW?
3H mbm 200m water resistant
traser night reading
Switzerland
mb-microtec inc
Cheers
Foggy
From Military perspective I would be surprised if this was issued simply for one reason, it does not hack.
I had a Seiko Monster modded by Bry on this forum (Grit blasted to kill bling and bezel black bits removed and lumed) for use in a tactical green environment. It drew a lot of positive comments from the guys on ops. My reasons for choosing the watch would be the same as defence procurement, robust, usable in low light conditions, and most importantly for the modern Army - cheap.
I found the watch ticked all my requirement boxes, wore it on NATO's so it too acquired wear marks (After about two weeks so that is no proof of provenance alone). However, it went because it would not hack, and that was a pain in the a*se. I now know about backpressure but... If you try to explain backpressure to a squaddy you would probably get an answer along the lines of 'It may be legal now but it ain't acceptable' or 'not in my scratch mate'.
Just my opinion FWIW
Out to you
Crouchy
Hi CrouchyFrom Military perspective I would be surprised if this was issued simply for one reason, it does not hack
For the record, neither did the Seamaster 300 or Mil-Sub - both military issued divers.
Cheers
Foggy
Foggy,
Fair one mate, and neck wound in accordingly, however - I'm not saying it was n't issued - seen to many one off special procurements ( I had a Black Traser with NSN's on the back and NATO logo and KFOR on the dial that I picked up in Kosova in 2000 - belonged to a Czech Recce man who was buddied up with us and cost me $50 and a desert rat badge) in everything from socks to grub to rule it out, would just be surprised that the mob went back to non hacking - perhaps thats why it never reached the masses, as I said mine, when customised drew nothing but compliments and was certainly well up to the job, indeed it became something of a pass around item, and got me quite a few beers into the bargain. I do know that they had a few (10 to 12 or so) quartz new style black seamasters on test 'bout 4 or 5 yrs ago now - and thats for sure. A good mate of mine, who's an RQ somewhere heard about them and, like every other RQ I guess, tried to get one - only to be f*cked off. If he could n't get one (This was a man who could be in the middle of a desert - amd often was - and find a bar, and grub/women for everyone) it'll be many years, if ever, before any of those are seen/ released.
All the best, and out to you.
James
Cheers JamesFair one mate, and neck wound in accordingly, however - I'm not saying it was n't issued - seen to many one off special procurements ( I had a Black Traser with NSN's on the back and NATO logo and KFOR on the dial that I picked up in Kosova in 2000 - belonged to a Czech Recce man who was buddied up with us and cost me $50 and a desert rat badge) in everything from socks to grub to rule it out, would just be surprised that the mob went back to non hacking - perhaps thats why it never reached the masses, as I said mine, when customised drew nothing but compliments and was certainly well up to the job, indeed it became something of a pass around item, and got me quite a few beers into the bargain. I do know that they had a few (10 to 12 or so) quartz new style black seamasters on test 'bout 4 or 5 yrs ago now - and thats for sure. A good mate of mine, who's an RQ somewhere heard about them and, like every other RQ I guess, tried to get one - only to be f*cked off. If he could n't get one (This was a man who could be in the middle of a desert - amd often was - and find a bar, and grub/women for everyone) it'll be many years, if ever, before any of those are seen/ released.
All the best, and out to you
I'd love to know a definitive answer on this one. I don't know if it is or isn't the real deal, but would like to know for sure. I do know somebody who could check the numbers on the caseback, but he's away on ops at the moment. When he's back, I'll see if I can find anything out.
I too knew about the quartz Seamasters. That would be a real coup to have one of those :wink:
Cheers
Foggy
Lets see some proof ASAP then
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
More than happy to see your proof that it definitely isn't legit. Look forward to it :wink:Lets see some proof ASAP then
In the meantime, I'll continue with my positive efforts towards finding out.
Cheers
Foggy
Foggy
I cant link to e-bay(Work pc) and so cannot see the watch back. If you can post the details/ NSN, if they are visible in the pictures I will ask someone to run it thru' the flick for me and see if it is listed as a current, or back listed item - might give you/ the forum an answer, but might not as just because it is n't listed - you know the rest :wink: .
Out to you
Crouchy
Cheers JamesFoggy
I cant link to e-bay(Work pc) and so cannot see the watch back. If you can post the details/ NSN, if they are visible in the pictures I will ask someone to run it thru' the flick for me and see if it is listed as a current, or back listed item - might give you/ the forum an answer, but might not as just because it is n't listed - you know the rest .
Out to you
The back says
0552/6645
-99-
8299574
Cheers
Foggy
Good.
get on with it!
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
I don't take orders from you, Griff.get on with it!
Lets examine your evidence so far as posted in another thread on another forum
Really :lol:I would conclude that 0552/6645 99 is therefore a CWC marking and finally conclude the so called Black Monster military shown top is a fake
You don't say - there was me thinking the Seiko logo's etc just slipped off the caseback :othat case back looks like it may have been ground/filed or linished, and then buffed up
Lucky we're talking about a dive watch here then :wink:A watch with very high lume doesn't seem like a good idea to me for soldiering
The link to the full thread, to save me having to re-post the conversation all over again.
http://www.rltwatches.co.uk/forums/inde ... 16981&st=0
I think most will agree I've been fairly balanced with my reasoning over this one. Not once have I said it's definitely fake or genuine - I do, however, remain open minded until it's PROVEN to be a fake. Go ahead, Griff, give us that proof.
Cheers
Foggy
Foggy
Left a message with a blanket stacker today, hopefully an answer tomorrow, no promises tho'.
Not wanting to get drawn into an e-spat but, herego's, Griff actually lume is very important in soldiering and much better than electro luminescent back lights on digiwatches. We used to love CTR'ing non-switched on types, as when night stag changes were due, you only had to look out for the pale blue glows - cos believe me in the Ulu when all is dark, even if you cover the watch - that backlight will be seen to some degree, and you, and your team knew where NOT to go. Lume is much better provided it lasts the night, even if you wore your watch over your smock, or on your rig, there is a leather cover available on 1033 that clips onto the strap to conceal the watch face if req'd, or more commonly just apply black nasty (Duct tape). Just my two penneth, but it is from personal experience.
Out to you
Crouchy
Should come clean here guy's - feel a bit mischievous watching all this going on.......
I bought this one - arrived yesterday.
Some initial comments having had a loupe over it.
1. Caseback has been machined to remove original Seiko stuff.
2. Engraving is even, good profile and font under a 12x Loupe.
3. Nato strap burn looks similar to other mil watches in my collection.
4. Strap burn has occured after the engraving was done - no evidence of de-burring post engraving interfering with the 'burn'.
I will post some decent piccies over the weekend.
Regards
Chris
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Thanks Chris
That's good stuff. Look forward to more.
Hopefully James will get some positive info too via the blanket stacker :wink:
Cheers
Foggy
Maybe - the issue as regards 'evaluation' stuff is not clear - in the majority of cases it never makes it onto the general databases and records but is numbered to prevent it going missing and to track the evaluation etc.
I am happy with what I see in my hands but am interested to see what info appears.
Rgds
Chris
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Spot on, Chris. Things are never black and white with mil stuff, as some would like to think.Maybe - the issue as regards 'evaluation' stuff is not clear - in the majority of cases it never makes it onto the general databases and records but is numbered to prevent it going missing and to track the evaluation etc.
I know you know your stuff, so that's promising news.I am happy with what I see in my hands
Look forward to the pics.
Cheers
Foggy
Really :lol:
You don't say - there was me thinking the Seiko logo's etc just slipped off the caseback :othat case back looks like it may have been ground/filed or linished, and then buffed up
Lucky we're talking about a dive watch here then :wink:A watch with very high lume doesn't seem like a good idea to me for soldiering
The link to the full thread, to save me having to re-post the conversation all over again.
http://www.rltwatches.co.uk/forums/inde ... 16981&st=0
I think most will agree I've been fairly balanced with my reasoning over this one. Not once have I said it's definitely fake or genuine - I do, however, remain open minded until it's PROVEN to be a fake. Go ahead, Griff, give us that proof.
Cheers
Foggy[/quote:1io55ih3]
Gawd!!
You need to get out more!!
If you prove the watch is genuine that is fine.
I can't prove it is a fake but I think it may well be.
Your extreme sensitivity is really quite astonishing.
I suggest you carry aspirins with you at all times and save papping on and on and on about it till you have that proof :wink:
P.s.
If you know of an ex special forces man who has the time to change the metal parts on his nato strap to Seiko metal parts and spend time doing extra stiching on where the strap is joined up then he hadn't enough to do.
Perhaps he's never heard of super glue :lol:
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
Good darts Chris,
Won't be just a general issue database that gets looked at though :wink: .
If I can help with info i will.
Also glad that the thread seems to have calmed down, it looked for a while to be in danger of becoming an e-spat which is wholly unproductive for everyone.
All the best
James
The gob-shite of the North strikes again.You need to get out more!!
If you prove the watch is genuine that is fine.
I can't prove it is a fake but I think it may well be.
Your extreme sensitivity is really quite astonishing.
One day, just maybe, you'll add something interesting to a watch thread. In the meantime, your best contributions seem to be on sales threads where you regularly pop up with a lone
:shock:
Big man, Griff.
Cheers
Foggy
ps Apologies to Eddie and anyone else offended by this, but this Northern twat has been on my case for more years than I can remember. I'm happy not to post any more if that's what it needs to stop it.
Empty barrels make the most noise.
You need to calm down and lighten up.
Your rants over me say rather more about you :lol:
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
FFS Griff, Accept that Foggy is more competant in this field, than you'll ever be.
Did you take your "stupid pill" today ?
I'm not the one ranting Chris, and I'm far from stupid :wink:
The fact remains that I simply said there is no proof as yet the watch is genuine. I wont have a problem if it turns out to be so.
There is no excuse for a childish rant and the manner and language of the last one speaks volumes.
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
Ok, you win, Griff. I'm out of here (better things to do than be wound up by ignorant twats like you). You may call that childish. I call it ending the problem. For what it's worth, on any fora I've ever posted I've always tried to post relavant useful information, help out members wherever I can, and not act the clown like you do.I'm not the one ranting Chris, and I'm far from stupid
The fact remains that I simply said there is no proof as yet the watch is genuine. I wont have a problem if it turns out to be so.
There is no excuse for a childish rant and the manner and language of the last one speaks volumes.
I'm sure the forum will be much stronger for my absence and forever illuminated by your illustrious input :wink:
Toddle pip.
Foggy
I'll still be interested in seeing proof the watch is genuine. Maybe you could hang around till then at least. I really wont be upset if it does turn out to be genuine :wink:
p.s.
It's toodle pip with two o's :wink:
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
Posting Permissions
