I am a bit of a fan of seiko digi-ana's ... but this one caused me indigestion!
this is a current listing # 321925916256
but I think it's a fake ... check out the pics, what concerns me is:
back cover ...I get flashing red lights everywhere i look,the font on SEIKO is rough, is that supposed to be a 'suwa' symbol?, and the 4 digit serial number?, SGP ... huh? where's the gold plate - the 'bezel' has a base-metal look to it?
And then to the dial ... the symbols 180 200 240 are not even in a uniform curve, the 'S' on Seiko seems un-balanced, the m on 50m is lower-case, the alignment of numbers 5,6 &7 (6 is slightly higher) and compare the placement of the number 1 to number 11
And anyway isn't a cal. 6431 ... an early 3-hand quartz movement dress watch?
This is a common fake. We've seen it before. There is absolutely nothing Seiko about it
The light once out Cool Monsters enter Oh, the lume, the lume!
Always fond of 5126's as I think that the JDM sport divers from this calibre are awesome, however this 8120 causes me a few concerns, which is a pity as I would like one of these ... am I overly cautious? am I too critical? .. or is it a cobblers attempt ...
a) hour markers seem a bit 'flat' as tho' the dial has been re-worked, and the way the watch presents ... it's all a bit 'to good to be true'
b) the case back markings seem to be less than Seiko standard ... - what is up with the '0' on the 8120??? - and the word 'waterproof' is not even, the last 'o' is egg shaped - the '9' on the serial number is just horrible - the 'O' in seiko is flat -bottomed, it should be a uniform oval shape
c) and then the case ...and this to me is a major 'red flag' ... seiko cases are beautifully machined, this one shows rather crude machining, especially evident with the radial scoring on the bottom lugs (below) and the cut between the lugs (above) doesn't appear to machined true and square (hold a ruler to the above photo and you can really see how rubbish it is)
This is a current listing on YJ ... and it's listed as a 5123 8120 (that was my first clue that something wasn't right)
I agree, the caseback is rubbish. If this is an original watch, then it fell out of the quality control trash bucket. In regard to the lugs - this could be a trick of perspective. If you use a wide-angle lens and center one end of the lugs, the other will be distorted like that. But the machining looks to be fresh.
I had a bid on this, but have just pulled it as concerned that the seller has no pictures of the sub dial clearly showing "60" and no case back shots showing serial number. Also a picture used many times by fake sellers showing the watch held in someone's hand. Am I right or just being overly cautious?
I've asked him to include a photo of the case back, which he's done. Very sus, as the first two photo's are from two different watches, if you look at the inner Chrono ring at the "9" indicie you notice that in the first picture it's damaged but in the second perfect.
And one of the watches has a 30/60 subdial, while the other has a 30/00 subdial. I can't remember which of those is the fake.
I always remember the subdial as being a count up dial, so 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and finally 60…I see that he has had the watch for sale on two other occasions, neither time it sold. I will be interesting to see what happens when (if) the watch sells
Rules are the tools used by fools to sharpen their swords
Let's make this a show you mine show me yours -7000 thread! Discussions of fakes becomes so disheartening after a while.
Here's a real one (mine, shameless I'm-so-happy-I-own-one pic). Chrono hands are painted (or maybe just the sweep, I can't remember, ask Spencer), cursor ring is Jonathan's (I have an original tucked away).