A good thread about this over at mwr
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...iths-but-still
Cheers
Am bying some NATO straps, so i would order for this one also.....
If you want a sub-seconds watch then the Smiths Mk X is an handsome and interesting beast.
Made in Cheltenham in WW2 for the RAF it is the only British-made wartime wristwatch
Case is a Dennison 13322, fixed bars
Movement is a forerunner of the Smiths "1215" (12''' and 15 jewels) with a 13''' baseplate and hole for centre seconds (as was the original intention)
Dial and hands clearly owe a lot to LeCoultre (Smiths' top man Robert Lenoir was an ex-Jaeger boss)
I believe that 11 of these are known to exist: 9 subseconds, 2 centre seconds. Two are marked (i.e. issue engravings, 6B 1942) the rest have sterile backs -- either scrubbed (rough finish) or never issued (smooth / polished)
More info here: http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showt...dy-Smiths-Mk-X
Thread on these here:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...W2-for-the-RAF
Miyota 8245 ?
See
https://wornandwound.com/review/mara...ilot-hands-on/
Update: sorry this is small seconds at 4:00 movement ... bah!
You can get some of the 9xxx movements with small seconds but they all have Date and power reserve that would have to be obscured.
e.g.
Last edited by redhed18; 23rd June 2019 at 00:20.
The Sellita 216 would work if people didn't mind the ghost date position but the ETA/Peseux 7001 is a small movement and not particularly robust.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Case diameter is 33.5mm (W10 is about 35.25)
The Mk X wear large due to minimal bezel and light-coloured dial, giving it "open face" look.
WW2 (1943?) Smiths Mk X next to a 1967 RAF ("6B") version of the W10; father and son, one served in the age of pistons and props, the other in the age of supersonic jets.
Would the hands on the Mk X have originally been luminous filled?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Good question. Almost certainly not. Smiths did do some sword hands with lune in-fill for their first run of retail civilian watches in 1947 & '48 but these also had luminous numerals (it only really makes for both hands and dial to be lumed).
These hands are very very similar to the (J)LC handsets of the same period, except they were solid not skeleton. Both are blind steel and the same (or very nearly the same) size; whether the canon pinions the same I don't know so I'm not sure if the two are interchangeable.
The screwed-on dial (at 12 and 6) is another (J)LC "tell"; whether Smiths copied or bought-in I don't know. Copied in-house I would say by the quality of the printing compared with their Swiss counterparts.
The dial (and baseplate of the moment to which it affixes) is 13''' whereas the rest of the watch is 12'''. That might have been done to meet the MoS spec sheet or to allow the use of (J)LC dials or copies thereof.
Interesting, too, that they are completely sterile (apart from the Dennison inside the caseback). Whether they were trying pass as (J)LC or anonymous to disguise their provenance (and therefore the fact that we had on-shore wristwatch making capabilities) is an interesting question, bearing in mind that RAF watches could easily fall (literally) into enemy hands.
Finally, another interesting fact: the jewels for these were smuggled from Switzerland via Lisbon in a specially made suit. (They were sewn into the lining of an MA1 operative called Ted Pitman. After the fall of France and before America entered the war we had no access to synthetic rubies and no capacity to make them. Smiths eventually set up a furnace at Carfin in Scotland to turn aluminium oxide into the much-coveted jewels, a place requisitioned to be out of the range of the V1 flying bombs.)
For more info on the smuggling see James Nye's "A Long Time in Making: The History of Smiths" p. 103
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...q=suit&f=false
Last edited by Rev-O; 23rd June 2019 at 19:29.
I agree the Dennison 13322 case that the Mk X is in wears large, well beyond 33.5mm. I don't really notice much difference visually from my Smiths W10 or even the Hamilton 6B. Omega and Longines also used the case, I have even seen an IWC cal 89 in a 9ct gold Dennison 13322 and a Movado triple calendar would you believe. A great case design.
I’d like to see it in it’s original case size 33.5mm although i’m sure many will disagree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The case of the Explorer in 36mm is perfect IMO for this project with small second at "6" !
Some of you will recall (and possibly still wish to forget) my introductory post on this forum which was basically a page-long screed questioning why a watch intended to pay tribute to Smiths single greatest historical claim to fame was essentially a 1016 with a sapphire crystal and the word Smiths printed on it. As well-made as the watch clearly was, it just didn't make any sense to me.
But this, this is different. This is exactly what I was hoping for. You've taken everything that was great about those 50's Smiths expedition watches and made something just a little bit better suited to everyday wear: bigger (but not too big), shockproof, waterproof, legible in the dark, and without that awful chrome plating that, let's face it, is just going to rub off on your way up the Eiger.
Bravo, Eddie. This and the PRS-29 is easily your best work. I cannot wait for this to go on sale. Seriously, mate, this is brilliant.
Last edited by Waveman; 25th June 2019 at 15:03.
In the link below (halfway down) there is a civilian Mk X (on the left above) also with skeleton hands...
LeCoultre-Smiths Mark X-Jaeger LeCoultre (c 1943-1947)
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...-(c-1943-1947)
Pity that all the other pics are missing.
I'll see your two and raise you one
Source: https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...miths-content)
Last edited by Rev-O; 25th June 2019 at 17:44.
Eddie sent me the pre-production prototype. The only differences between it and final, finished version will be 1.) all text bigger (+10%) and 2.) better bracelet.
I've just sent him this message:
"First impressions: the colour of the seconds hand is wrong and the gap between DE and LUXE is too big. But actually the colour of yours is nicer (the originals are an odd sort of orangey red like cheap tinned tomato soup) and there should be a gap between DE and LUXE because they are separate words so I actually like yours better. The "SMITHS" is fine, too: there's so much variation between originals that while some look on the small side there are plenty that look too big. I can see that +10% or even 15% would be a good addition but I'm beginning to think that the suggestion of +20% would not be an improvement. So the Smiths as it is on the prototype is fine, not too small. The three lines of text on the lower half do need to be a tad bigger, but again not much. The shoulderless spring bars that the strap was (sorry! -- yes, that's WAS) on are a nice touch.
All in all this is the best TF watch I've seen. I'm trying hard to find some area where it drops marks, just so I have something negative to say just to give a "balanced" review but I actually can't think of anything. I never give anything 10/10 -- and such reviews alway look either lazy or suspicious as nothing is perfect -- but this might be it.
My daily wear either is one of your old PRS-3 (the CWC diver homage) or a Rolex OP. This might replace both as robust, rugged, accurate and altogether adorable re-make of the A453/404. I shall carrying on wearing it until I can see some way to fault it but that might take a while!"
So it’s okay then?
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Lucky man,can you post some photos?
The overall impression is of seeing an old girlfriend who's aged very well indeed or maybe the curvaceous daughter of a petite 1950s film star who has all her mother's good looks and a bit more about her physically and intellectually. A very pretty AND practical piece.
Pics to follow
Sorry if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick but is it 35.5mm?
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Even more convinced that the DE_______LUXE doesn’t look right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If its now in production, it is what it is! :)
I prefer the beefed up numerals of the original, but the TF is looking like to be one of the classics of the brand.
I’ve wondered about that but prefer the slimmer ones otherwise they look a bit . . . homemade? Amateur? Fisher Price? Smiths dials aren’t, imho, their strongest point with the possible exception of the very early ones (1947-51) and the W10. There are exceptions (a gilt printed one, the Bensons) but most are charming, cottage industry, and cute at best.
The overall look is Smiths with a dash of
Nomos
All text will be +10% on the final version so the three lines on the lower half should stand out more abs the gap between DE and LUXE will be decreased.
Edit: look at the spacing of the numerals on the original! The 7 and 8 are too high on the right, like a Tory drug user. Also that bloody cuff-shredding roller on the buckle is easy to remove
Last edited by Rev-O; 27th June 2019 at 16:05.
I’m not sure how many Eddie will produce but would suggest however many it won’t be enough. Whilst it is not how timefactors operate I am many of these would be snapped up on pre order.
I have never wanted to own a 36mm watch before but I do want one of these.
Right, I'm leaving this forum. I'm going to block Eddie and ignore any emails etc and forget to return the watch.
What Smiths De Luxe? I have so many. Time Factors? Nope, never heard of them.