closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Intriguing Smiths...prototype?

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067

    Intriguing Smiths...prototype?

    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?

  2. #2
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    228
    Hi Matt, it was watched over on MWR too.....
    https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...334#post330334

  3. #3
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,672
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    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

  5. #5
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    ...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.

  6. #6
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    228
    What did you make of the strange conglomeration of 'military designation/issue' numbers though?

  7. #7
    Further this question by adding: What's the watches antimagnet properties?

    Cheers
    Pat

    Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by TapAptPat View Post
    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).
    Last edited by M4tt; 19th June 2019 at 00:24.

  10. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    228
    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.

  11. #11
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,672
    Suggest you also make your points over at MWR, there seem to be a few there with an opinion of it.

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    228
    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.

  15. #15
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,672
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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?

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    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.
    Last edited by M4tt; 19th June 2019 at 06:59.

  19. #19
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    I'm off to bed. Have a watch:


  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by TapAptPat View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    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

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TapAptPat View Post
    Stunning read. So mk11 Smiths is a thing even though it didn't get produced.

    Thanks Rev-O.


    Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
    Yes, iirc correctly 7 were made. 3 are known to exist, including this one. As with all other Smiths ebuaches (1215 from the WW2 Mk X, 27CS from the 1954 GD De Luxe and 60466E for the 1967 W10) this seems to have paved the way for the cal 0140

    Smiths' R&D and tooling was provided by the govt and the watches were sold at a loss but they really only ever made one successful military watch: the W10 (over 20,000 made and issued)

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    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.

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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?
    Yes, I think the dial is real one and I think (can't be bothered to check though!) that the movement is a Welsh Smiths one, too.

    It was that watch, though, that decided me on these cases being crap: one loose one and one shoddy franken is a bad pair. Had both cases been loose OR had the working one contained any rare or unusual or even high grade Smiths parts (eg a Mk XI or GS De Luxe dial or a gilt movement) then I might have been open to consider the possibility that these cases were of interest.

    But, no, just junk.

    Someone paid seventy quid for that case, too. :-(

  28. #28
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Someone paid seventy quid for that case, too. :-(
    Perhaps with the intention of knocking up a shonky mil watch with bits out of the spares bin.

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Yes, I think the dial is real one and I think (can't be bothered to check though!) that the movement is a Welsh Smiths one, too.

    It was that watch, though, that decided me on these cases being crap: one loose one and one shoddy franken is a bad pair. Had both cases been loose OR had the working one contained any rare or unusual or even high grade Smiths parts (eg a Mk XI or GS De Luxe dial or a gilt movement) then I might have been open to consider the possibility that these cases were of interest.

    But, no, just junk.

    Someone paid seventy quid for that case, too. :-(
    I hope you will concede that this feels quite a long way from the case being unambiguously and obviously crap. You appear to be saying that, on its own terms, the cases really are not obviously rubbish and you relied on contextual information to finally decide. Which was my point all along. I agree they are almost certainly crap. However there's enough to them that it isn't unambiguously obvious and certainly not something everyone should be quite so sure about.

    I wish I'd bid a bit more just to play with it. That's usually the real giveaway. If it had felt good I confess I might have tried to make something vaguely credible for the fun of it.
    Last edited by M4tt; 19th June 2019 at 22:53.

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    Perhaps with the intention of knocking up a shonky mil watch with bits out of the spares bin.
    If they are after a profit, then they'll struggle, if for fun, good on them.

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    I hope you will concede that this feels quite a long way from the case being unambiguously and obviously crap. You appear to be saying that, on its own terms, the cases really are not obviously rubbish and you relied on contextual information to finally decide. Which was my point all along. I agree they are almost certainly crap. However there's enough to them that it isn't unambiguously obvious and certainly not something everyone should be quite so sure about.

    I wish I'd bid a bit more just to play with it. That's usually the real giveaway. If it had felt good I confess I might have tried to make something vaguely credible for the fun of it.
    Oh yes, always worth asking the question. And the engravings were nicely done (the "Smiths" script was a good copy of a canonical text) on an interesting case. But even a glance I was 99% sure it was rubbish. Had it had fixed bars I'd have been 95% sure.

  32. #32
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Oh yes, always worth asking the question. And the engravings were nicely done (the "Smiths" script was a good copy of a canonical text) on an interesting case. But even a glance I was 99% sure it was rubbish. Had it had fixed bars I'd have been 95% sure.
    I agree, at a glance it was obviously rubbish, as I said, that was my first reaction. However, my second thoughts were, and remain far more positive. Whatever else there is, there's certainly an interesting story there, because if it is a fake, then it's a bloody strange one. Any sane faker would go for something that would catch people out at first glance. More to the point, someone knocking up a franken with that dial would surely start with any number of cases that could be easily mistaken for a W10. There were enough of the real thing knocking about for nothing before they got trendy.

  33. #33
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    And the engravings were nicely done (the "Smiths" script was a good copy of a canonical text) on an interesting case.
    The dodgy movement engraving also bears a fair resemblance, to my untrained eye.

  34. #34
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    The dodgy movement engraving also bears a fair resemblance, to my untrained eye.
    The closest looking movement ever used by Smiths (that I'm aware of) was the Ronda 1137 which was used right at the final death. Given that Rev-o was making a movement connection off the top of his head, I suspect that this was the one he was thinking of.

  35. #35
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Ok, here's the Benson I was talking about:



    First, I'm pretty sure that this is an authentic late forties / early fifties Benson and the case is almost identical. However, it's when you turn it over that it looks a damned sight more convincing:


    Compare


    How likely is that? Benson are a company that had a deep and complex relationship with Smiths, among others and again there's that Taubert like fourteen sided case. Now that might be entirely a coincidence, but I'm really struggling to think of anyone else using fourteen sided casebacks in the fifties, or at any other time. Yet here it turns up in a near identical case to the odd one, made for a company with close relations. At the least it's a bit odd?
    Last edited by M4tt; 20th June 2019 at 22:52.

  36. #36
    Benson didn't have a "a deep and complex relationship with Smiths", they simply retailed some Smiths watches under their own name as they did with any number of other makes (the others all being, iirc, Swiss brands). The Benson Smiths usually have sterile movements (so Joe Public wouldn't know he'd paid thirty quid for a ten pound watch) and an extra and rather useless 16th jewel on centre pinion cap.

    Benson were a jeweller with no interest in or capacity for making watches (movements, cases) etc and almost certainly didn't even badge up the dials themselves (they would have bought them in pre-printed).

    I think the case has also been used for various Vietnam fakes (including exactly the same pheon stamp appearing on the WWW). I'll try and dig out some links and post them up.

    What impresses me about this case is the SMITHS (right typeface) and the use of individual serial numbers. So some small effort has gone in to making these look interesting but they are still utterly unconvincing. The rest of the markings make no sense so it's not even like they conform to MoD standards. Engravings are easy enough to do; a dust-cap / faraday shield or fixed bars are harder and, unsurprisingly, lacking. I'd take them on a sterile caseback more seriously than I would some numbers on an otherwise civilian-looking case.

    Finally, all other Smiths prototypes and experimental pieces are documented even if they seldom show up (the Mk X and Mk XI, the Quasar, etc.). When something utterly unknown sudden appears (and two of the them at that) the default position has to be caution if not downright cynicism.

    I'm surprised you are so convinced (? well, at least curious) about them. I mean, it's good to be open-minded and not accept received wisdom but really these are rubbish, probably from somewhere in SE Asia.

  37. #37
    Incidentally, I meant to say that Benson retailed watches by half a dozen makers and Smiths made watches for half dozen retailers so it's far from an exclusive monogamous relationship.

  38. #38
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Benson didn't have a "a deep and complex relationship with Smiths", they simply retailed some Smiths watches under their own name as they did with any number of other makes (the others all being, iirc, Swiss brands).
    They certainly did have a deep and complex relationship. From the eighteen sixties until WWII they were direct competitors with Bensons very much holding the upper hand. Both were watchmakers to the Admiralty, but Bensons were watchmakers to both Queen Victoria and The Prince Regent, among others. They both had factories within a couple of miles of each other and, frankly, anyone who can see a LeCoultre in the Cal.600 might be just as satisfied looking much closer to home... (I assume you read my explanation of that relationship?)

    The Benson Smiths usually have sterile movements (so Joe Public wouldn't know he'd paid thirty quid for a ten pound watch) and an extra and rather useless 16th jewel on centre pinion cap.
    I think it just might be a little more complicated that that.

    Benson were a jeweller with no interest in or capacity for making watches (movements, cases) etc and almost certainly didn't even badge up the dials themselves (they would have bought them in pre-printed).
    Actually, up until the 10th of May 1941, Bensons's capacity for making pocket watches, cases and dials was rather impressive. Sadly, the entire factory in Belle Sauvage Yard, Ludgate Hill, was destroyed by fire during the air raid that destroyed much of the area. The form of caseback used on both cases was quaint by the late thirties and the Benson above could easily date to before the factory was destroyed.

    I think the case has also been used for various Vietnam fakes (including exactly the same pheon stamp appearing on the WWW). I'll try and dig out some links and post them up.
    I'd be delighted to see one. I have looked quite carefully myself, to no avail.

    What impresses me about this case is the SMITHS (right typeface) and the use of individual serial numbers. So some small effort has gone in to making these look interesting but they are still utterly unconvincing. The rest of the markings make no sense so it's not even like they conform to MoD standards. Engravings are easy enough to do; a dust-cap / faraday shield or fixed bars are harder and, unsurprisingly, lacking. I'd take them on a sterile caseback more seriously than I would some numbers on an otherwise civilian-looking case.
    I quite agree, apart from the one point: the MOD didn't exist until 1964 and so I really wouldn't expect a watch that is, at least putatively, from 1952 to conform to an MOD standard. I would expect it to conform to a Ministry of Supply standard which I'd expect to look remarkably similar to this:

    Identification Marks

    The following shall be depth engraved or otherwise indelibly marked on the back of the case:

    (a) The Government mark consisting of the broad arrow.
    (b) One number of a series which will be allocated by the Director of Contracts.
    (c) The Stores reference number, 6B/234.
    This is the '47 specification for the '234, but I'd expect the '52 specification for the '346 to conform to this form. So you can authoritatively tell me that they make no sense and do not conform to MOD standards, but clearly they do conform, to the letter, to the MOS specification. As I pointed out earlier, there are plenty of cases of cases with extra numbers on them as well as the specified ones. The specification in no way disallows this.


    Finally, all other Smiths prototypes and experimental pieces are documented even if they seldom show up (the Mk X and Mk XI, the Quasar, etc.). When something utterly unknown sudden appears (and two of the them at that) the default position has to be caution if not downright cynicism.
    Absolutely

    I'm surprised you are so convinced (? well, at least curious) about them. I mean, it's good to be open-minded and not accept received wisdom but really these are rubbish, probably from somewhere in SE Asia.
    I'm certainly not convinced and never once said I was. I'm certainly curious about the cases for reasons I've explained in detail already. However, I've found that, in the company of experts, it's not a bad idea to push for deeper explanations and evidence. At this point, fairly clearly, you have been relying on memory and common knowledge, but about now, I'm rather hoping you will start to properly concentrate and we can, between us, both learn something new and interesting. For example, I have always rather suspected that a well known Swiss movement used by Bensons and a few others was in fact a Bensons' movement that they farmed out after their factory was destroyed... I wouldn't mind exploring that idea at some point.

    Anyway, I'll return to the Benson case. It's fourteen sided, almost identical and, having established that the relationship between Smiths and Benson is not quite as shallow as you thought, perhaps you might want to give me your thoughts on the two cases, because I'm not sure about the SE Asian capacity for case manufacture when that case was made.
    Last edited by M4tt; 22nd June 2019 at 09:23.

  39. #39
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Incidentally, I meant to say that Benson retailed watches by half a dozen makers and Smiths made watches for half dozen retailers so it's far from an exclusive monogamous relationship.
    That's fine, as I explicitly stated that it wasn't, I wouldn't expect you to think it was either.

  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    I'd be delighted to see one. I have looked quite carefully myself, to no avail.

    https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...in-Vietnam-war

  41. #41
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    That nails that one shut then! Thank you. Suddenly I'm very glad I lost the auction.

  42. #42
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Mind you, I suddenly realised that I'm actually having a discussion with a committee...

    So to respond to another strand in that thread:

    P.S. The ‘Bulova’ that M4tt bought for 20 USD was an OK buy, depending on what was inside. The upper case was a replacement case and Whitney shows one with an ORD DEPT case back, which is a bit odd but plausible. The (likely Bulova) ORD CORPS case back is more typically matched with the sturdier Parkerised/passivated design, which wears very well on the wrist, but ORD CORPS watches aren’t often seen.
    As I said elsewhere when I bought it: The case is easy - it's one of Bulova's very early passivated stainless cases with that wonderfully art deco and slightly oddball, for a military watch, belt running around the bottom of the case, stabilising it and flowing all the way from lug to lug. These are generally found in 'frankens' in their own right as they were produced not only to house new watches, but also as a replacement for the earlier chromed nickel cases which, while fundamentally indestructible, look as if they are about to fall apart as the chrome falls off and the substrate underneath gently rots causing some nasty chemical sensitivities on the vulnerable. As such, like the '56 Dennison cases for the 6b/159, these were the solution, as replacements, towards the end of the war and immediately post war. Should one call a '56 Omega a Franken? This is more of a philosophical question.

    Normally, in a waterproof Bulova Ordinance Department case with an OF or OFA rating, you'd expect to see a 15 - 17 jewel movement of similar standard to the A11. In this case I'd expect to find a Bulova 10AK in here. you'd also expect a range of dials that fulfil the specification. This one doesn't. I doubt it is even radioactive! As it happens, I have a remarkably tatty A11 of the same vintage that could drop straight in and not be wrong - Mind you, it would confuse people long after I'm dead as the contents of an A11 would have gone into a OFA and this is an OF.

    Here's an example of precisely how the watch should look from ten seconds on google:

    https://picclick.com/Bulova-WWII-US-Army-Ordinance-Watch-Original-173912644277.html

    Just out of curiousity, was there a thread on the 'Everest' discussions? I'd be curious to read it if there was.
    Last edited by M4tt; 22nd June 2019 at 16:39.

  43. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post

    Just out of curiousity, was there a thread on the 'Everest' discussions? I'd be curious to read it if there was.
    Hi Matt do you mean this

    https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...iths-but-still

    ?

    Cheers

  44. #44
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Not as such, although you can count me as enthusiastic and a bit excited, but I was thinking of the who wore what on Everest thread.

  45. #45
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •