ausimax
Timekeeper
Kogan, Qld, Australia
Posts: 937 
|
Post by ausimax on Sept 13, 2015 4:45:09 GMT -8
Was there a particular time/year when the terminology changed on watches?
Max
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Sept 13, 2015 5:02:20 GMT -8
1968/69 I think was when the US made manufacturers change the labeling. Japan changed eventually in 1970 I think.
|
|
Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Sept 13, 2015 5:41:28 GMT -8
1970. The US changed labelling laws as watches aren't truly water proof, so the world followed.
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Sept 13, 2015 5:56:40 GMT -8
I wonder what court case happened at the time to make this a thing!
|
|
Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Sept 13, 2015 6:08:49 GMT -8
No idea, but if you had an afternoon you could find out. It should be a matter of checking the US legal database and maybe a call to the registrar. I wonder what court case happened at the time to make this a thing! |
|
|
|
Post by sweephand on Sept 13, 2015 8:59:43 GMT -8
For citizen I have seen 'proof' / 'parawater' up to 1973.
Stephen
|
|
ausimax
Timekeeper
Kogan, Qld, Australia
Posts: 937
|
Post by ausimax on Sept 13, 2015 16:51:41 GMT -8
Thanks for the info chaps, I had not a clue but thought it could help with dating watches.
Max
|
|
|
|
Post by 3Pedals6Speeds on Sept 13, 2015 17:29:13 GMT -8
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Sept 13, 2015 17:54:08 GMT -8
Max, excuse me if you know this already, but with Seiko, and I'm sure many others although with a different format, you can date a watch with the serial number. First number the year, second the month. 75 = May 77 or 87 etc. depending on model era. My proof 6105 is 06 which makes it June 1970. O N D instead of the first 9 numbers up to September denote the last three months. Eg. 9D for say a 6306 would be 1979 December. Thanks for the info chaps, I had not a clue but thought it could help with dating watches. Max |
|
normdiaz
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,643
|
Post by normdiaz on Sept 13, 2015 18:18:04 GMT -8
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Sept 13, 2015 18:50:35 GMT -8
I suppose I imagined that it would have been big business and their lawyers realising that there is an issue with the wording and meanings. This could have come about as a result of a false advertising claim of some sort? Did laws at the time change when it came to advertising laws etc and did business and the government see this as a potential issue?
No idea really norm but I often think that changes occur because someone realised there was a loophole and it's often about liability or finances. Maybe I'm way off the mark.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Sept 13, 2015 21:52:40 GMT -8
It is my understanding that a diver's-type watch which was ostensibly 'waterproof' leaked in 1967 or 1968, resulting in it's stoppage and the diver's death. No, it was NOT a Seiko. This incident resulted in a lawsuit against the manufacturer in US court. The industry responded by softening the language about just how 'water proof' their watches were in order to avoid such things in the future. Keep in mind that the "diver's watch" was a new thing at the time, as was recreational scuba diving itself, and there were no such things as ISO standards or tests for watch water resistance. Manufacturers were pretty much on the honor system back then.
It is important to understand that, in most cases, the watches themselves did not change at all. Only the labeling did. So a '70 6139-6000 marked "Water70mProof" is no more water resistant than a '71 6139-6005 marked "Water70mResist", and a '74 6139-6005 with no water resistance rating at all on the dial is no less water resistant than either of the earlier versions.
In the United States, Seiko instituted a rather immediate changeover from "Proof" to "Resist". Watches designated for North America began sporting a case number ending in '9' to differentiate them (and their particular markings) from those going to other markets. These watches are always marked "Resist", and only start appearing in '68-'69, which validates the theory. I have yet to see a 1967 Seiko, of any model, marked "Resist". However, this label change was not seen as quite so pressing in other markets around the world, so Seiko instituted the change more slowly...as did other marques. By 1971, nearly everything Seiko sold was being marked "Resist'.
Very shortly thereafter, Seiko went one step further and stopped putting rated water resistance on the dials of their watches AT ALL....and for all markets...save those intended to be used for actual diving.
|
|
GuyJ
Needs a Life!
Whitley Bay, UK
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by GuyJ on Sept 15, 2015 9:34:37 GMT -8
Very interesting, cheers cobrajet.
|
|
