|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 23, 2013 7:40:35 GMT -8
I try to do what I can...
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 23, 2013 14:27:57 GMT -8
Mine came unrestored from an estate. It's original. I've owned six of these over time, and handled many more than that. In all the 6138-001x's I've personally owned and handled, I've never seen one with the short hands installed stock. Doesn't mean they didn't come that way, just that I've never seen it. My impression is that it'd be a much rarer occurrence. While it's possible Seiko switched hands a few times halfway through a run inside one month in 1971, I'm still skeptical. I'm absolutely willing to be wrong however. I don't claim to know everything. I've just never seen one of these personally. We have a catalog pic of this model with the shorter hands. We have a vintage advertisement of this model with the short hands. We have examples in our hands of this model with the short hands. What more do we need?? Again, this info isn't exactly news... www.network54.com/Forum/78440/message/1208415813/Did+you+guys+note+the+%26quot%3Bshort%26quot%3B+hands+on+the+6138-001x...-%26gt%3B
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 23, 2013 16:06:17 GMT -8
Mine came unrestored from an estate. It's original. I've owned six of these over time, and handled many more than that. In all the 6138-001x's I've personally owned and handled, I've never seen one with the short hands installed stock. Doesn't mean they didn't come that way, just that I've never seen it. My impression is that it'd be a much rarer occurrence. While it's possible Seiko switched hands a few times halfway through a run inside one month in 1971, I'm still skeptical. I'm absolutely willing to be wrong however. I don't claim to know everything. I've just never seen one of these personally. We have a catalog pic of this model with the shorter hands. We have a vintage advertisement of this model with the short hands. We have examples in our hands of this model with the short hands. What more do we need?? Again, this info isn't exactly news... www.network54.com/Forum/78440/message/1208415813/Did+you+guys+note+the+%26quot%3Bshort%26quot%3B+hands+on+the+6138-001x...-%26gt%3BWhat I would particularly like to see, just for fun, are the following things: - Servicing marks inside Tim's watch, especially a COSERV stamp.
- A "bookend" example from before his but in the same month, same production run, original hands (long or short, whatever)
If we had a good original example from the same month/year, also a "resist" / 0011 (like mine) that was made before his (as mine was made after), we'd be able to see what hands were being used earlier that month. We know what hands were being used only 4000 units later - the long ones. Now interestingly, a google image search for "March 1971 6138-0011" shows a mix of hands - most are long, but a few are the short ones. You'd have to comb through and then make judgements on whether the pictured watches are in fact from the right time period and are original, and are the correct model / month / year. In the end, all that will matter is if Tim's watch is original, or shows signs of having been worked on. And even then, it'll be a guess. There's no right or wrong here - it's all just opinion and certainly nothing to get upset about.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 23, 2013 22:32:57 GMT -8
What I would particularly like to see, just for fun, are the following things: - Servicing marks inside Tim's watch, especially a COSERV stamp.
- A "bookend" example from before his but in the same month, same production run, original hands (long or short, whatever)
If we had a good original example from the same month/year, also a "resist" / 0011 (like mine) that was made before his (as mine was made after), we'd be able to see what hands were being used earlier that month. We know what hands were being used only 4000 units later - the long ones. Now interestingly, a google image search for "March 1971 6138-0011" shows a mix of hands - most are long, but a few are the short ones. You'd have to comb through and then make judgements on whether the pictured watches are in fact from the right time period and are original, and are the correct model / month / year. In the end, all that will matter is if Tim's watch is original, or shows signs of having been worked on. And even then, it'll be a guess. There's no right or wrong here - it's all just opinion and certainly nothing to get upset about. Well, I guess in vintage Seiko circles there is no such thing as "too much information", but I am not really sure what a COSERV stamp would prove. Changing the sweep hand was part of a service, but changing the hour/minute hands was probably only done on request or if the technician damaged them. That would be pretty unlikely. So far, we have one watch from June, '70, two from March, '71, and one from June, '71. Yours from March has the long hands...the other three have the short hands. One made nine months earlier, one made in the same month, and one made three months later. As I said before, I consider EITHER handset on this model to be correct, but only for 1971. For 1970 they should be short, and for 1972-1979 they should be long. Like you, I have seen numerous examples from 1971 with BOTH types (though I seem to see more with the "short"). As far as "bookends" and "production runs", "time periods" and counting "units"...well, brother, I think you just may be overthinking it a little and looking for a discernible pattern that isn't there. JMHO. I just don't think there was a hard changeover date for these hands, and Seiko made have just used what they had supplies of when the transition was being made. I just don't think there is much doubt that the "short" hands are absolutely correct for an early version of this model. However, this is not to say that the "long" hands are INCORRECT, because as you have pointed out we have seen examples of both.
|
|
donciccio
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,160
|
Post by donciccio on Jul 24, 2013 9:58:26 GMT -8
Great addition Tim! Enjoy brother. thunbsup.gif
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 24, 2013 10:06:06 GMT -8
What I would particularly like to see, just for fun, are the following things: - Servicing marks inside Tim's watch, especially a COSERV stamp.
- A "bookend" example from before his but in the same month, same production run, original hands (long or short, whatever)
If we had a good original example from the same month/year, also a "resist" / 0011 (like mine) that was made before his (as mine was made after), we'd be able to see what hands were being used earlier that month. We know what hands were being used only 4000 units later - the long ones. Now interestingly, a google image search for "March 1971 6138-0011" shows a mix of hands - most are long, but a few are the short ones. You'd have to comb through and then make judgements on whether the pictured watches are in fact from the right time period and are original, and are the correct model / month / year. In the end, all that will matter is if Tim's watch is original, or shows signs of having been worked on. And even then, it'll be a guess. There's no right or wrong here - it's all just opinion and certainly nothing to get upset about. Well, I guess in vintage Seiko circles there is no such thing as "too much information", but I am not really sure what a COSERV stamp would prove. Changing the sweep hand was part of a service, but changing the hour/minute hands was probably only done on request or if the technician damaged them. That would be pretty unlikely. So far, we have one watch from June, '70, two from March, '71, and one from June, '71. Yours from March has the long hands...the other three have the short hands. One made nine months earlier, one made in the same month, and one made three months later. As I said before, I consider EITHER handset on this model to be correct, but only for 1971. For 1970 they should be short, and for 1972-1979 they should be long. Like you, I have seen numerous examples from 1971 with BOTH types (though I seem to see more with the "short"). As far as "bookends" and "production runs", "time periods" and counting "units"...well, brother, I think you just may be overthinking it a little and looking for a discernible pattern that isn't there. JMHO. I just don't think there was a hard changeover date for these hands, and Seiko made have just used what they had supplies of when the transition was being made. I just don't think there is much doubt that the "short" hands are absolutely correct for an early version of this model. However, this is not to say that the "long" hands are INCORRECT, because as you have pointed out we have seen examples of both. In the past when I've seen weird hand stuff in otherwise original watches, it was often in conjunction with a COSERV stamp inside the caseback. Examples of this were mis-matched or incorrect sweep replacements on 6139s with what clearly were original Seiko hands (specifically one-piece hands put in place where two-piece hands would have been what was on the watch originally - A versus B movement versions). Not every time, but often. Another example was the very late 6105-8110 with a 6139 handset that belonged to Adrian / Technoman - everything looked dead stock, but there was a COSERV stamp in the caseback. We theorized that the hands had been replaced since they weren't correct 6105 hands since it was unlikely that a 6105 had 6139 hands from new. I saw this watch personally, did a full service on it. The COSERV stamp was the only servicing mark inside the watch. Not that this proves that COSERV was the only servicer inside the watch ever, but it matched changes I'd seen in other watches worked on by COSERV.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 24, 2013 10:08:36 GMT -8
I just noticed the cheap bastard charged me $10 for shipping, and sent it USPS First Class
|
|
donciccio
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,160
|
Post by donciccio on Jul 24, 2013 10:13:24 GMT -8
I just noticed the cheap bastard charged me $10 for shipping, and sent it USPS First Class eBay feedback ... negative stars.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 24, 2013 10:23:01 GMT -8
I just noticed the cheap bastard charged me $10 for shipping, and sent it USPS First Class eBay feedback ... negative stars. I sent him a note asking if he planned on refunding me the difference, since he shipped First Class. He responded quickly, saying he would.
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 24, 2013 10:32:28 GMT -8
it's always amazing when people do that and expect to get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 24, 2013 10:46:06 GMT -8
it's always amazing when people do that and expect to get away with it. I would have gladly paid him $10 if he had shipped Priority, but definitely not for snail mail.
|
|
donciccio
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,160
|
Post by donciccio on Jul 24, 2013 10:58:08 GMT -8
How much did it cost him to ship?
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 24, 2013 11:08:10 GMT -8
Well now he's telling me he will refund me the difference, and that amount is $3.13. I think he's just taking the difference between the cost of the shipping methods, not deducting the actual shipping cost from the $10 he charged.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 24, 2013 23:43:03 GMT -8
Well, I guess in vintage Seiko circles there is no such thing as "too much information", but I am not really sure what a COSERV stamp would prove. Changing the sweep hand was part of a service, but changing the hour/minute hands was probably only done on request or if the technician damaged them. That would be pretty unlikely. So far, we have one watch from June, '70, two from March, '71, and one from June, '71. Yours from March has the long hands...the other three have the short hands. One made nine months earlier, one made in the same month, and one made three months later. As I said before, I consider EITHER handset on this model to be correct, but only for 1971. For 1970 they should be short, and for 1972-1979 they should be long. Like you, I have seen numerous examples from 1971 with BOTH types (though I seem to see more with the "short"). As far as "bookends" and "production runs", "time periods" and counting "units"...well, brother, I think you just may be overthinking it a little and looking for a discernible pattern that isn't there. JMHO. I just don't think there was a hard changeover date for these hands, and Seiko made have just used what they had supplies of when the transition was being made. I just don't think there is much doubt that the "short" hands are absolutely correct for an early version of this model. However, this is not to say that the "long" hands are INCORRECT, because as you have pointed out we have seen examples of both. In the past when I've seen weird hand stuff in otherwise original watches, it was often in conjunction with a COSERV stamp inside the caseback. Examples of this were mis-matched or incorrect sweep replacements on 6139s with what clearly were original Seiko hands (specifically one-piece hands put in place where two-piece hands would have been what was on the watch originally - A versus B movement versions). Not every time, but often. Another example was the very late 6105-8110 with a 6139 handset that belonged to Adrian / Technoman - everything looked dead stock, but there was a COSERV stamp in the caseback. We theorized that the hands had been replaced since they weren't correct 6105 hands since it was unlikely that a 6105 had 6139 hands from new. I saw this watch personally, did a full service on it. The COSERV stamp was the only servicing mark inside the watch. Not that this proves that COSERV was the only servicer inside the watch ever, but it matched changes I'd seen in other watches worked on by COSERV. I see what you are saying with regard to COSERV, but keep in mind that: -Replacing sweep hands was considered a normal part of chronograph service at COSERV. Hour/minute hand replacement, to my knowledge, was not. -The 6105 divers had corrosion problems with the hands and dials that would necessitate hour/minute hand replacement on a much higher level than any other model. It would tend to explain why COSERV ran out of the 6105 hands and the 6139 hands were substituted in that particular instance. Extrapolating the 6105's hand problems out to any and all other models with regard to COSERV replacement is probably not accurate. Tim, your watch looks great!
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 25, 2013 5:06:34 GMT -8
In the past when I've seen weird hand stuff in otherwise original watches, it was often in conjunction with a COSERV stamp inside the caseback. Examples of this were mis-matched or incorrect sweep replacements on 6139s with what clearly were original Seiko hands (specifically one-piece hands put in place where two-piece hands would have been what was on the watch originally - A versus B movement versions). Not every time, but often. Another example was the very late 6105-8110 with a 6139 handset that belonged to Adrian / Technoman - everything looked dead stock, but there was a COSERV stamp in the caseback. We theorized that the hands had been replaced since they weren't correct 6105 hands since it was unlikely that a 6105 had 6139 hands from new. I saw this watch personally, did a full service on it. The COSERV stamp was the only servicing mark inside the watch. Not that this proves that COSERV was the only servicer inside the watch ever, but it matched changes I'd seen in other watches worked on by COSERV. I see what you are saying with regard to COSERV, but keep in mind that: -Replacing sweep hands was considered a normal part of chronograph service at COSERV. Hour/minute hand replacement, to my knowledge, was not. -The 6105 divers had corrosion problems with the hands and dials that would necessitate hour/minute hand replacement on a much higher level than any other model. It would tend to explain why COSERV ran out of the 6105 hands and the 6139 hands were substituted in that particular instance. Extrapolating the 6105's hand problems out to any and all other models with regard to COSERV replacement is probably not accurate. Tim, your watch looks great! What I'm saying is that COSERV has a demonstrated history of not worrying about what was originally on a watch when doing hand replacements. I've given examples for sweeps and H/M hands. That's why I am going to be interested to see servicing marks inside the caseback. I know that replacing the sweep was standard practice during chrono servicing. I own several examples where that happened, complete with COSERV stamps. I'm saying that when they replaced those sweeps they did not make any effort to put back what was there originally. That's the point. If a handset was damaged or compromised, they'd replace it with whatever they had available that was close.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 25, 2013 7:00:09 GMT -8
You guys have got me all geared up to pop the back off this one, I love a good mystery. Problem is, like many Seiko mysteries, I doubt there will be a definitive answer.
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 25, 2013 9:03:06 GMT -8
You guys have got me all geared up to pop the back off this one, I love a good mystery. Problem is, like many Seiko mysteries, I doubt there will be a definitive answer. As I said there's no real right or wrong here. There's no real way to be sure and in the end how much does it really matter. It's fun to talk about though.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 25, 2013 10:47:51 GMT -8
Out for Delivery Jul-25-13, 08:48 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550
Sorting Complete Jul-25-13, 08:38 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550
Arrival at Post Office Jul-25-13, 07:51 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550
Processed through USPS Sort Facility Jul-24-13, 22:13 PM, OAKLAND, CA 94615
woohoo-dancing-banana-smiley-emoticon
|
|
donciccio
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,160
|
Post by donciccio on Jul 25, 2013 10:51:44 GMT -8
Out for Delivery Jul-25-13, 08:48 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 Sorting Complete Jul-25-13, 08:38 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 Arrival at Post Office Jul-25-13, 07:51 AM, LIVERMORE, CA 94550 Processed through USPS Sort Facility Jul-24-13, 22:13 PM, OAKLAND, CA 94615 woohoo-dancing-banana-smiley-emoticon I'm happy for you buddy!
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Jul 25, 2013 10:58:29 GMT -8
Cool . . . pics ASAP PLEASE then break out the case back tool!
|
|