Ok who bought it!!

[Rod]

Lovely Proof from April 69.

[Deleted]

A shame about the dial damage but still I'd wear it How much did it make out of interest or was it one of those ended early auctions I seem to create a lot.

[Rod]

Mar 17, 2015 17:15:06 GMT -8 @cockroach said:

A shame about the dial damage but still I'd wear it How much did it make out of interest or was it one of those ended early auctions I seem to create a lot.

The "damage" around the sub-dial is quite common on these, well I've never seen one without some sort of marking. it went for $310ish

[Rod]

Just a note, there are a few theories on the various forums for the "marking" of the sub-dial. The truth is less than spectacular, the process for making these dials is simple, a) stamp out the base disc. b) anodize the disc the colour required. c) apply the transfer, it's a water transfer. d) fit the indices date window etc. e) apply the lume.

The issue with these is that the sid-dial is recess and the water transfer didn't "flow" over the edge as it was designed to do. So this causes a small amount of moisture to be trapped and the resulting marking several years later.

[69ChevelleSS]

Mar 18, 2015 1:01:45 GMT -8 Rod said:

Just a note, there are a few theories on the various forums for the "marking" of the sub-dial. The truth is less than spectacular, the process for making these dials is simple, a) stamp out the base disc. b) anodize the disc the colour required. c) apply the transfer, it's a water transfer. d) fit the indices date window etc. e) apply the lume.

The issue with these is that the sid-dial is recess and the water transfer didn't "flow" over the edge as it was designed to do. So this causes a small amount of moisture to be trapped and the resulting marking several years later.

Yup . . . most seem to have it.  This watch has been in my family since new.  Based on what I've been told, the movement is super pristine so I don't believe water intrusion to be an issue here as supported by the original lume without black mung.

[dasher]

Not me Rod - although $310 seems fairly reasonable for so rare a watch.  (Did I just agree to spending more than $50 for a watch???).


Nice catch to the buyer!


D.

[Groundhog66]

Mar 17, 2015 17:15:06 GMT -8 @cockroach said:

A shame about the dial damage but still I'd wear it How much did it make out of interest or was it one of those ended early auctions I seem to create a lot.

I'm with you on that one!

[Rod]

Mar 18, 2015 6:06:25 GMT -8 dasher said:

Not me Rod - although $310 seems fairly reasonable for so rare a watch.  (Did I just agree to spending more than $50 for a watch???).


Nice catch to the buyer!


D.

I was either you or Thomas  

[croolis]

I saw that and if i remember correctly final price was more like $600 than $300 ..
I do have a similar, early model and it has the same problem with black around the subdial.
I think it's a 'feature' that was solved later on ..

D.

[cobrajet25]

Mar 19, 2015 17:55:18 GMT -8 croolis said:

I saw that and if i remember correctly final price was more like $600 than $300 ..
I do have a similar, early model and it has the same problem with black around the subdial.
I think it's a 'feature' that was solved later on ..

D.

You are thinking of THIS ONE.  No?

[Rod]

Mar 19, 2015 17:55:18 GMT -8 croolis said:

I saw that and if i remember correctly final price was more like $600 than $300 ..
I do have a similar, early model and it has the same problem with black around the subdial.
I think it's a 'feature' that was solved later on ..

D.

Nope this is a different watch……April 69, 21J, satin hands and Blue Sports. Very different watch