|
Post by oscillon on Sept 2, 2021 14:16:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by 6105foreva on Jan 17, 2022 15:51:47 GMT -8
Hi all, Decided to further contribute to this amazing seiko history, i been lucky to own a transition piece from June 1970 the serial number is 060618. If anyone has any idea how to attached a photo, do let me know. An old dinasour here.
|
|
|
Post by oscillon on Apr 20, 2022 7:07:33 GMT -8
Ok Everyone. I have tracked down another, and this time from everyone's favorite Horology Blog. Yes, that's right, Hondinkee has recently sold a Resist/Proof 6105 in the vintage part of their online retail space. I've put the link to the listing here and I updated the list in the thread. Remarkably, this one is also from June 1970! Hondinkee 6105 Diver (Resist/Proof)
|
|
|
Post by oscillon on Apr 20, 2022 7:08:52 GMT -8
This is great. Thanks for the information, I'll update the list in the thread. Hi all, Decided to further contribute to this amazing seiko history, i been lucky to own a transition piece from June 1970 the serial number is 060618. If anyone has any idea how to attached a photo, do let me know. An old dinasour here.
|
|
DanS
WS Benefactor
Posts: 333
|
Post by DanS on Oct 27, 2022 4:49:38 GMT -8
|
|
saldog
WS Benefactor
Aspiring to be a savant, but for now just a watch idiot
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by saldog on Oct 27, 2022 6:53:40 GMT -8
I wanted to bump this thread with a bit of an oddball 6105-8000 I acquired from Japan, I'm aware that it could be put together from parts, but I think it's still interesting, especially the dial. It is a resist (dial) / proof (caseback). The (proof) caseback is February 1969, and the (resist) dial appears to be June 1968! I suppose I could be reading the date code upside down, which would make it August 1969, but the shapes of the numerals really make me think it's June '68, since the smaller loops should be at the top (I included two photos, so you can judge). And even August '69 would be quite early for a resist dial based on the posts earlier in the thread. Unless we believe that the dial stamp was a total error by Seiko, it seems that the use of these parts may have been more variable than usually believed. Thoughts? What’s also possible is that the person rubber stamping the dial actually set the numbers upside down. I mean, that is an 86 for sure, but the person stamping it may have set their stamper wrong and stamped away.
|
|
DanS
WS Benefactor
Posts: 333
|
Post by DanS on Oct 27, 2022 7:09:02 GMT -8
I was just interested to see it, because it seems quite early for a Resist dial according to the conventional wisdom. For example, I have seen threads in other forums where the owner of a 6105-8000 was told that a Resist dial could not be correct in a watch with a 1969 caseback. I know that in many areas of collecting we tend to get very dogmatic about what is correct and possible, I have certainly been guilty of this myself.
|
|
saldog
WS Benefactor
Aspiring to be a savant, but for now just a watch idiot
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by saldog on Oct 27, 2022 8:29:12 GMT -8
Actually, looking at the crown, it looks like it is from an -811X or something. Someone was doing some mixing and matching, so either the dial or case back could be from another watch.
|
|
DanS
WS Benefactor
Posts: 333
|
Post by DanS on Oct 27, 2022 8:47:29 GMT -8
Actually, looking at the crown, it looks like it is from an -811X or something. Someone was doing some mixing and matching, so either the dial or case back could be from another watch. Yes, the crown is an incorrect replacement and if you look closely you'll see even bigger concerns. And clearly a February 1969 case-back and a June 1968 dial are not a perfect match. I'm not trying to claim that the watch is all-original, in fact when I bought the watch I expected the dial to be LATER than the case-back. It's just a fun watch to wear for me. Respectfully, I think you're missing the point here, and your previous comment about an upside-down stamp also missed the point. The June 1968 date stamp is on the back of a RESIST dial, and it came from Japan! Useful data in the context of this thread.
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Oct 31, 2022 9:06:00 GMT -8
Interesting one Dan..never say never with seiko but my guess is that is a late service replacement dial from 78, at the end of the run for the 6105. That in itself is a just-as-cool alternative to it being 68, which I do doubt. Cool watch.
|
|
DanS
WS Benefactor
Posts: 333
|
Post by DanS on Oct 31, 2022 9:47:06 GMT -8
Oh, interesting! I didn't think of that, but it makes perfect sense. I honestly didn't realize that the 6105 extended to '78. Thank you.
|
|
saldog
WS Benefactor
Aspiring to be a savant, but for now just a watch idiot
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by saldog on Oct 31, 2022 10:09:22 GMT -8
Actually, looking at the crown, it looks like it is from an -811X or something. Someone was doing some mixing and matching, so either the dial or case back could be from another watch. Yes, the crown is an incorrect replacement and if you look closely you'll see even bigger concerns. And clearly a February 1969 case-back and a June 1968 dial are not a perfect match. I'm not trying to claim that the watch is all-original, in fact when I bought the watch I expected the dial to be LATER than the case-back. It's just a fun watch to wear for me. Respectfully, I think you're missing the point here, and your previous comment about an upside-down stamp also missed the point. The June 1968 date stamp is on the back of a RESIST dial, and it came from Japan! Useful data in the context of this thread. True, but it is also possible that a Seiko service center replaced the dial in 1986. What I'm not clear on is if a dial like that would have been rubber stamped at the SC or are those dates stamped at the time the dial is made or when they are used? But I think by 1986, Seiko stopped stamping dial backs anyway. Whoever the faker was clearly wasn't too swift.
|
|
DanS
WS Benefactor
Posts: 333
|
Post by DanS on Oct 31, 2022 18:14:57 GMT -8
True, but it is also possible that a Seiko service center replaced the dial in 1986. What I'm not clear on is if a dial like that would have been rubber stamped at the SC or are those dates stamped at the time the dial is made or when they are used? But I think by 1986, Seiko stopped stamping dial backs anyway. Whoever the faker was clearly wasn't too swift. What a strange comment. 1986? That would require the first digit to be a "6", which it is not. And of course, dials for this reference were not made in that decade. Guy's suggestion is by far the most plausible, a 1978 Resist dial, and not particularly interesting.
|
|
Fergus
Needs a Life!
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by Fergus on Oct 31, 2022 22:19:38 GMT -8
To throw in my 10c worth, It's well documented here, there and almost everywhere that 6105-80## were manufactured from 1968 to 1977. With evidence from other models, we also know dials were date stamped at the point and time of manufacture. A while back I came across an article on 6105's and in particular the discussion touched on the dials where it was stated that towards the end of the production period dial construction changed from 100% one piece, rear stamped, to fabricated construction i.e. bonded on square markers. Now I wish I had kept the link. Would a 78 dial fit this criteria. The answer is...we'll never know so sometimes we must agree to disagree. Now my Proof case, resist dial, dial is not date stamped...yet....where's my John Bull set. Bloody watches. Good tinkering all......
|
|
saldog
WS Benefactor
Aspiring to be a savant, but for now just a watch idiot
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by saldog on Nov 1, 2022 5:10:30 GMT -8
True, but it is also possible that a Seiko service center replaced the dial in 1986. What I'm not clear on is if a dial like that would have been rubber stamped at the SC or are those dates stamped at the time the dial is made or when they are used? But I think by 1986, Seiko stopped stamping dial backs anyway. Whoever the faker was clearly wasn't too swift. What a strange comment. 1986? That would require the first digit to be a "6", which it is not. And of course, dials for this reference were not made in that decade. Guy's suggestion is by far the most plausible, a 1978 Resist dial, and not particularly interesting. Edit. I regret my lame ass contributions to this thread. Sorry.
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Nov 1, 2022 10:13:18 GMT -8
To throw in my 10c worth, It's well documented here, there and almost everywhere that 6105-80## were manufactured from 1968 to 1977. With evidence from other models, we also know dials were date stamped at the point and time of manufacture. A while back I came across an article on 6105's and in particular the discussion touched on the dials where it was stated that towards the end of the production period dial construction changed from 100% one piece, rear stamped, to fabricated construction i.e. bonded on square markers. Now I wish I had kept the link. Would a 78 dial fit this criteria. The answer is...we'll never know so sometimes we must agree to disagree. Now my Proof case, resist dial, dial is not date stamped...yet....where's my John Bull set. Bloody watches. Good tinkering all...... I've seen random 6105 dials from random periods that have the non rear stamps visible Don, so not entirely sure if later mean one type. In fact I'm sure I've seen 62mas dials with the smooth rear (oo er), but I haven't thought they were bonded plots... but then how would it be made?! One thing to bear in mind with 77 being the cut off is the following image, and who knows at what point service replacement parts stopped production? My guess is their dates were stamped when made, not when used. Supposedly this was a service caseback but who knows. Pic Credit to bbilford83
|
|
Fergus
Needs a Life!
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by Fergus on Nov 1, 2022 10:58:37 GMT -8
What we need Guy is to see the back of the dial in that watch.
There's one thing for sure the Seiko workers, at that time and this, left/leave their work at work cos I've never seen or heard from one on any forum. How we could do with one now who worked from 1960 to 1980.
|
|
HiBeat
Global Moderator
SEIKO Iko Iko GDTRWS
Posts: 8,667
|
Post by HiBeat on Nov 1, 2022 14:15:06 GMT -8
What a strange comment. 1986? That would require the first digit to be a "6", which it is not. And of course, dials for this reference were not made in that decade. Guy's suggestion is by far the most plausible, a 1978 Resist dial, and not particularly interesting. Edit. I regret my lame ass contributions to this thread. Sorry. I will take this as a sarcastic come back, please never regret any post. We are all learning all the time. I look back on my posts from 10 years ago and it is amazing what I would be asking about that is second nature now.
|
|
HiBeat
Global Moderator
SEIKO Iko Iko GDTRWS
Posts: 8,667
|
Post by HiBeat on Nov 1, 2022 14:19:01 GMT -8
To throw in my 10c worth, It's well documented here, there and almost everywhere that 6105-80## were manufactured from 1968 to 1977. With evidence from other models, we also know dials were date stamped at the point and time of manufacture. A while back I came across an article on 6105's and in particular the discussion touched on the dials where it was stated that towards the end of the production period dial construction changed from 100% one piece, rear stamped, to fabricated construction i.e. bonded on square markers. Now I wish I had kept the link. Would a 78 dial fit this criteria. The answer is...we'll never know so sometimes we must agree to disagree. Now my Proof case, resist dial, dial is not date stamped...yet....where's my John Bull set. Bloody watches. Good tinkering all...... One really good take away from out interaction with Ryugo-san via akable who authored several vintage SEIKO books is that at the end of a production run, SEIKO made a pile of extra dials, that went into storage undated. Then they were manually stamped at the time of departure from the factory as a spare dial. This also explains why some of the outlier dated dials we see have 'fuzzy' date code stamps.
|
|
saldog
WS Benefactor
Aspiring to be a savant, but for now just a watch idiot
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by saldog on Nov 1, 2022 19:32:44 GMT -8
Edit. I regret my lame ass contributions to this thread. Sorry. I will take this as a sarcastic come back, please never regret any post. We are all learning all the time. I look back on my posts from 10 years ago and it is amazing what I would be asking about that is second nature now. I had a sarcastic come back first and edited it. I sometimes make many rapid replies while multitasking. I should be more deliberate on conversations like this one that get technical and speculative and think before posting or not post at all. I don't really think I'm a dumb shit, but sometimes I say some dumb things, usually because I'm not reading everything thoroughly and going too fast. It's embarrassing but at least you know I'm shooting straight with you. Thanks HiBeat.
|
|