Intriguing Smiths...prototype?

[M4tt]

I've been watching this for a while and failed to win it tonight:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Original-...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Initially I thought it was just a later bit of fakery, but the more I looked at it the more convincing it looked, sharing a case with a similar vintage Benson, for example. Certainly it's a specification Smiths would have been interested in.

I ended up interested enough to bid sixty odd quid on what might well have been scrap or an unrelated case and back, but the more I looked, the more credible it seemed. Clearly someone else agreed because I didn't win it.

What do you lot think?

[size11s]

Hi Matt, it was watched over on MWR too.....
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...334#post330334

[Mr Curta]

Hi Matt, it was watched over on MWR too.....
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...334#post330334

...and the consensus is that it is trash.

[M4tt]

...and the consensus is that it is trash.

Trash that actually got individual serial numbers? The working one is clearly a Franken with a W10 dial that is way too late but, and this matters, looks original to me. A faker using original late sixties Smiths dials seems a bit odd.

It seems to me that the scalloped Taubert style screwback is an unlikely style of caseback for a later fake. More to the point this sort of case style was in use by Smiths in their own and Benson watches like so:



Initially I thought this style was late sixties early seventies but it was clearly much earlier. So I see they thought it was trash, but I'm still not sure myself and clearly someone was at least seventy quid more sure than me.

[TapAptPat]

Hi matt,

I wouldn't be able to comment to this item in any way. Other to say have you read this thread?
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...ey-Mouse)-Mk11

All the best
Pat

PS..Oh too slow.
Pps..Google is your friend

[size11s]

What did you make of the strange conglomeration of 'military designation/issue' numbers though?

[M4tt]

What did you make of the strange conglomeration of 'military designation/issue' numbers though?

I've certainly seen similar. On the back of some JLC 6b/346 for example. Perhaps if you explained your concern?

[TapAptPat]

Further this question by adding: What's the watches antimagnet properties?

Cheers
Pat

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[M4tt]

Further this question by adding: What's the watches antimagnet properties?

Cheers
Pat

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

that's difficult to say with the dial, movement ring and inner soft iron caseback missing (if they ever existed).

[size11s]

It appears to be issue number 441 in '52 and then issue number 3336 in '14. I would be interested to see a JLC Mk 11 double issued as such, and so far apart, particularly without one being struck though/cancelled.

[M4tt]

It appears to be issue number 441 in '52 and then issue number 3336 in '14. I would be interested to see a JLC Mk 11 double issued as such, and so far apart, particularly without one being struck though/cancelled.

https://timefliers.wordpress.com/201...rs-wristwatch/

For example.

The '14' appears to be the number that changes between different examples, and as such I suspect that it's not the date...

Look, I'm not sure myself, but if someone can deliver the coup de main, I'm yet to see it.

[TapAptPat]

It appears to be issue number 441 in '52 and then issue number 3336 in '14. I would be interested to see a JLC Mk 11 double issued as such, and so far apart, particularly without one being struck though/cancelled.

This is the most like argument. IMHO

Ok for fun let flip the argument around
Mk11 stopped/superseded in early 50s 53/54ish. It would likely be replaced by Lemania in mid 50s. Dates are a bit fuzzy. I'm not looking at a Def Stan. After Lemania Fab 4 are introduced in late 70s early 80. They are the last generation of mechanical watches issued as navigators to the RAF. We have now transitioned into marking of time pieces as 6645-99-123-4567, the currently use of the nsn.
So in 2014 it's definitely nsn territory. For fun, you tell us what 3336-99-123-4567 or alt 6645-99-123-3336 designations are for?

Please understand I am asking only as a way to have an open and engaging discussion.

It's late here after a long day. So please consider my comments as just that. No proofs here.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[M4tt]

This is the most like argument. IMHO

Ok for fun let flip the argument around
Mk11 stopped/superseded in early 50s 53/54ish. It would likely be replaced by Lemania in mid 50s. Dates are a bit fuzzy. I'm not looking at a Def Stan. After Lemania Fab 4 are introduced in late 70s early 80. They are the last generation of mechanical watches issued as navigators to the RAF. We have now transitioned into marking of time pieces as 6645-99-123-4567, the currently use of the nsn.
So in 2014 it's definitely nsn territory. For fun, you tell us what 3336-99-123-4567 or alt 6645-99-123-3336 designations are for?

Please understand I am asking only as a way to have an open and engaging discussion.

It's late here after a long day. So please consider my comments as just that. No proofs here.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

In 2014, Smiths clocks and watches R&D like the Goodies, is no longer done in Cricklewood mostly because John Delaurean got the bail out money and thus Smiths instruments let them die in '79.

[Mr Curta]

Suggest you also make your points over at MWR, there seem to be a few there with an opinion of it.

[M4tt]

Suggest you also make your points over at MWR, there seem to be a few there with an opinion of it.

I don't see any overwhelming argument or evidence though.

[Mr Curta]

I don't see any overwhelming argument or evidence though.

That's 'cos they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Why not challenge them to backup their comments?

[M4tt]

That's 'cos they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Why not challenge them to backup their comments?

I believe they are and I believe I did.

It will not be the first time:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/qu...ia-356479.html

For one example among many. As I tend to get carried away (as you have noted) these days I mostly keep my thoughts to myself and pick up the bargains quietly.

[M4tt]

I'm off to bed. Have a watch:

[size11s]

I really think that this is a case of thinking/wishing something into having some credence.....bedtime now. Hope I don't dream of the venerable, high spec/quality 6B/346 reduced to low quality tat.

[M4tt]

I really think that this is a case of thinking/wishing something into having some credence.....bedtime now. Hope I don't dream of the venerable, high spec/quality 6B/346 reduced to low quality tat.

You'd have a stronger case for dissonance if I'd bought it. Why exactly is what looks like a stainless steel case that is correctly matted as per the specification tat? The fact is I have given some clear reasons for thinking about it and nothing looks like it's been knocked down yet. As for high spec or quality, you really should consider some of the A11 (6b/234) cases that preceded the 346 spec.

Anyway, I'll buy any old crap:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rilcona-v...rdt=true&rt=nc

Notice the similar finish, it's called Parkerising and it was all the rage for high end military cases from the mid forties until the mid fifties. Now, maybe the Smiths case is cheap and nasty, but it looks like parkerised steel to me and that makes it expensive and nasty. Now I'm good enough at this to buy a high end military Bulova case that has been unfortunately frankened while you are still sniggering. So just maybe I might have a bit of previous here.

[size11s]

You'd have a stronger case for dissonance if I'd bought it. Why exactly is what looks like a stainless steel case that is correctly matted as per the specification tat? The fact is I have given some clear reasons for thinking about it and nothing looks like it's been knocked down yet. As for high spec or quality, you really should consider some of the A11 (6b/234) cases that preceded the 346 spec.

Anyway, I'll buy any old crap:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rilcona-v...rdt=true&rt=nc

Notice the similar finish, it's called Parkerising and it was all the rage for high end military cases from the mid forties until the mid fifties. Now, maybe the Smiths case is cheap and nasty, but it looks like parkerised steel to me and that makes it expensive and nasty. Now I'm good enough at this to buy a high end military Bulova case that has been unfortunately frankened while you are still sniggering. So just maybe I might have a bit of previous here.

I find the attitude and approach of all the above odd, demonstrably egotistical (particularly the first sentence), and generally unpleasant so won't be bothering my (over sensitive) arse with you again as it's simply not enjoyable.

[Rev-O]

Best guess is that someone has individually serially numbers these so that repeats don't show up on Google.

The whole thing is wrong almost every way.

But without going into the various issue codes and stock references on the back the simple giveaway are the springbars.

Here's what a real Smiths Mk XI looks like (and sold for -- £15.5k all in)

https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...old-at-auction

[TapAptPat]

Best guess is that someone has individually serially numbers these so that repeats don't show up on Google.

The whole thing is wrong almost every way.

But without going into the various issue codes and stock references on the back the simple giveaway are the springbars.

Here's what a real Smiths Mk XI looks like (and sold for -- £15.5k all in)

https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...old-at-auction

Stunning read. So mk11 Smiths is a thing even though it didn't get produced.

Thanks Rev-O.


Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[M4tt]

Best guess is that someone has individually serially numbers these so that repeats don't show up on Google.

The whole thing is wrong almost every way.

But without going into the various issue codes and stock references on the back the simple giveaway are the springbars.

Here's what a real Smiths Mk XI looks like (and sold for -- £15.5k all in)

https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...old-at-auction

I hadn't thought of the springbars, and, As I'd expect, you have offered a pretty heavy clue that it isn't right. However, the case still bothers me. I've thought about it a bit more and I'm clearer about my issues:

1) it absolutely looks nothing like any military Smiths I've ever seen, but does bear a striking resemblance to a couple of period watches from both Smiths and Benson. If it's a fake then it's a bloody odd one.

2) The quality of the case, again, for a fake of a non existent watch, it appears to be parkerised, has well stamped numbers, whatever they are and someone has gone to the effort of changing them. For a high end fake sure, but for a weird oddity? less so. Likewise, the caseback is a style that you don't find on anything modern but that was still quite common in the fifties. That's really odd for a recent fake.

3) The version which actually has a movement in it, the movement is clearly pants and has 'Smiths' graven in it (which is a really negative point) and yet it has a dial which looks a lot to me like a the classic Smiths W10 dial. That's a odd feature for a franken with an odd case. Do you agree that the dial looks authentic?

So I'm happy to accept that the watch isn't what it claimed to be, God knows, I started this thread precisely because I wasn't sure what to make of it. However I wish I'd won it so I could turn it over in my hand.

I'm aware of the other watch, and that while it looks stunning, the movement was overcomplicated and underdeveloped. As I remember, it failed testing and was too complicated to be easily serviced. The possibility that there was a second, much cheaper, string to the bow didn't seem entirely insane.

Either way, thanks for a helpful contribution.

[M4tt]

I find the attitude and approach of all the above odd, demonstrably egotistical (particularly the first sentence), and generally unpleasant so won't be bothering my (over sensitive) arse with you again as it's simply not enjoyable.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I was responding to this:

I really think that this is a case of thinking/wishing something into having some credence.....bedtime now. Hope I don't dream of the venerable, high spec/quality 6B/346 reduced to low quality tat.

Which wasn't exactly polite. Either way, It's probably for the best.

[TapAptPat]

Hi guys, been returning here to read interesting links. And generally lurking. Though you probably have already aware of this doc. But just incase you not seen it

https://archive.org/details/TM9-1575

For US, service manual for various time pieces.

Enjoy the weekend
P



Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk