|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 21, 2013 10:13:39 GMT -8
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 21, 2013 21:43:30 GMT -8
The Unimetrics "Yachtsman" ad pretty much has to be from '70. This was the last year for the 6105-8000, and the first year for the caliber 6138.
I would put the first ad (pictured) at 1972, because I don't think I have ever seen a 6139-802x that dated to before late 1971, or a goldtone 6139-601x that was made before 1972, or a 6139-703x made before 1972? In fact, the vast majority of 6139-703x watches I have seen seem to have been made during just three months: April, May, and June, 1972.
The second ad (linked) probably dates to 1970-1971 because it features the EL-370s (not out in '69 or '70), a 6105-811x (not out in '69, out in '70), early WR-marked versions of the 6139, and very early WR-marked versions of the 6138 (not introduced until mid-'70). It is interesting that the 6138-001x in this ad features a one-piece seconds hand, while the three 6139s next to it all still have two-piece seconds hands.
6138-001x models using "short hands" is not exactly news. While the catalog pic is certainly the Holy Grail of evidence with regard to variants amongst collectors, this info goes back at least 4-5 years.
|
|
serdal22
Timekeeper
Master Mariner
Posts: 591
|
Post by serdal22 on Jul 21, 2013 23:42:35 GMT -8
It is a wonderful piece, Tim.
Wear it in good health, my friend . . .
Capt. Serdal
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 22, 2013 4:54:48 GMT -8
I'll be curious to see if there's a COSERV stamp under the caseback. But if the watch looks all original, who knows. It's still a great pickup, regardless. That price was outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Jul 22, 2013 6:47:31 GMT -8
Congrats Tim . . . great looking watch. The more I see that model, the more I think I'd like one!
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 22, 2013 6:57:46 GMT -8
The Unimetrics "Yachtsman" ad pretty much has to be from '70. This was the last year for the 6105-8000, and the first year for the caliber 6138. I would put the first ad (pictured) at 1972, because I don't think I have ever seen a 6139-802x that dated to before late 1971, or a goldtone 6139-601x that was made before 1972, or a 6139-703x made before 1972? In fact, the vast majority of 6139-703x watches I have seen seem to have been made during just three months: April, May, and June, 1972. The second ad (linked) probably dates to 1970-1971 because it features the EL-370s (not out in '69 or '70), a 6105-811x (not out in '69, out in '70), early WR-marked versions of the 6139, and very early WR-marked versions of the 6138 (not introduced until mid-'70). It is interesting that the 6138-001x in this ad features a one-piece seconds hand, while the three 6139s next to it all still have two-piece seconds hands. 6138-001x models using "short hands" is not exactly news. While the catalog pic is certainly the Holy Grail of evidence with regard to variants amongst collectors, this info goes back at least 4-5 years. Interesting bit of detective work, I have no idea how you guys remember all that...but thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 22, 2013 6:59:18 GMT -8
I'll be curious to see if there's a COSERV stamp under the caseback. But if the watch looks all original, who knows. It's still a great pickup, regardless. That price was outstanding. I will have a look when it arrives, that would certainly explain a lot. And I agree, it was definitely a nice buy either way IMO.
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 22, 2013 7:16:02 GMT -8
The Unimetrics "Yachtsman" ad pretty much has to be from '70. This was the last year for the 6105-8000, and the first year for the caliber 6138. I would put the first ad (pictured) at 1972, because I don't think I have ever seen a 6139-802x that dated to before late 1971, or a goldtone 6139-601x that was made before 1972, or a 6139-703x made before 1972? In fact, the vast majority of 6139-703x watches I have seen seem to have been made during just three months: April, May, and June, 1972. The second ad (linked) probably dates to 1970-1971 because it features the EL-370s (not out in '69 or '70), a 6105-811x (not out in '69, out in '70), early WR-marked versions of the 6139, and very early WR-marked versions of the 6138 (not introduced until mid-'70). It is interesting that the 6138-001x in this ad features a one-piece seconds hand, while the three 6139s next to it all still have two-piece seconds hands. 6138-001x models using "short hands" is not exactly news. While the catalog pic is certainly the Holy Grail of evidence with regard to variants amongst collectors, this info goes back at least 4-5 years. but the catalog picture is for very early proof models - it's contradicted by a ton of later observable production examples. As we know, Seiko catalog shots aren't always representative of production models either. Remember that S. American catalog that showed a 6139-600x with the baton handset for another model. I've never seen anyone say they thought that was anything other than a catalog fever dream. Question about the "resist" dial photo you've linked - that's a resist but note the two-piece early hand. What's the date on that one?
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 22, 2013 18:56:33 GMT -8
The Unimetrics "Yachtsman" ad pretty much has to be from '70. This was the last year for the 6105-8000, and the first year for the caliber 6138. I would put the first ad (pictured) at 1972, because I don't think I have ever seen a 6139-802x that dated to before late 1971, or a goldtone 6139-601x that was made before 1972, or a 6139-703x made before 1972? In fact, the vast majority of 6139-703x watches I have seen seem to have been made during just three months: April, May, and June, 1972. The second ad (linked) probably dates to 1970-1971 because it features the EL-370s (not out in '69 or '70), a 6105-811x (not out in '69, out in '70), early WR-marked versions of the 6139, and very early WR-marked versions of the 6138 (not introduced until mid-'70). It is interesting that the 6138-001x in this ad features a one-piece seconds hand, while the three 6139s next to it all still have two-piece seconds hands. 6138-001x models using "short hands" is not exactly news. While the catalog pic is certainly the Holy Grail of evidence with regard to variants amongst collectors, this info goes back at least 4-5 years. but the catalog picture is for very early proof models - it's contradicted by a ton of later observable production examples. As we know, Seiko catalog shots aren't always representative of production models either. Remember that S. American catalog that showed a 6139-600x with the baton handset for another model. I've never seen anyone say they thought that was anything other than a catalog fever dream. Question about the "resist" dial photo you've linked - that's a resist but note the two-piece early hand. What's the date on that one? "Contradicted"? I am not sure what contradiction you are talking about. Early production examples are the only ones that use the short hands. Later models are not the issue here. From about '72 on, they use the "long" hands. As I said, the change seems to have occurred sometime in 1971...maybe even early '72. Near as I can tell, the ad and linked catalog are from '70-'71 and have the "short" hands. The pictured '72 catalog has the "long" hands. The watch in the pic is a near-NOS 6138-0019 from June, 1970. I bought it a few years ago and, ironically, thought the hands on it were wrong at the time. But they are not. Which is why this watch has the "short" hands, two piece sweep, and "Resist" dial...just what you would expect a 6/70 6138-00 19 to have.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 22, 2013 20:27:08 GMT -8
I love these kinds of debates, they always bring forth all kinds of information I was not aware of.
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 22, 2013 20:38:51 GMT -8
but then the 0019 doesn't really have bearing on Tim's watch. Different timeframe, different sub-model. Ditto for the "proof" catalog page, at least for the timeframe. However, his is only a few thousand away from mine, which is totally original and has the long hands. I'm not saying that no Yachtman ever had the short hands, but I don't believe that Tim's would have had them originally. But we won't know until we get better shots. I'm going to be very curious about whether there's a COSERV stamp in the caseback.
This reminds me of that very very late 6105-811x that Derek / Technoman picked up. It had 6139 hands on it, apparently from new. I saw that watch in person, and the hands appeared original to the watch. So like always gets said at this time, you can never tell with Seiko, right?
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Jul 22, 2013 21:34:23 GMT -8
"Different timeframe"? What constitutes a "timeframe" for you? A month? Two? Six? These three watches were only made nine months apart in a model run that lasted ten years. I don't consider that a different time frame. Tim's watch, your watch, and my watch would all be considered "early". Let's try to remember that Seiko is NOT like Rolex or Omega. They weren't prone to making set-in-stone, flip-of-the-switch changes from one serial number to the next. They did not make the same changes to all models, and did not make changes to different models at the same time. Changes tended to be phased in over months or even years. Did you buy your watch from another collector? Or an estate? Ebay? Another collector might have swapped the hands on your watch, thinking they were incorrect. The watch below is my "daily wear" 6138-0011, and dates to June, 1971. All original except a NOS bezel and crystal which I installed. As you can see, it has the "short" hands. The serial number on this watch is 164596. June, 1971...after both yours and Tim's. I have no doubt that the hands are original. When it comes to hands on this model, I consider most of 1971 to be a transitional period. I would consider both styles correct. Maybe one assembly line got the "long" hands a little sooner than another? Maybe one factory got them sooner? Maybe the hands were lengthened in certain markets first? Maybe the 6139 "short" hands were put on early versions because the "long" hands were not available yet? Who knows. One thing is for sure...it seems Seiko is not as predictable with these things as we'd like!
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 23, 2013 4:46:14 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.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 23, 2013 5:04:15 GMT -8
It's supposedly being shipped today via USPS Priority, so we should have more info soon.
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Jul 23, 2013 5:53:07 GMT -8
Great information here guys . . . . THANKS!
But you've got to STOP POSTING PICS OF THESE BEAUTIES . . . . you're really making me want one!
Can't wait to see pics of Tim's on arrival . . . . wait . . . . on second thought . . . .
|
|
|
Post by C4L18R3 on Jul 23, 2013 6:11:39 GMT -8
Great information here guys . . . . THANKS! But you've got to STOP POSTING PICS OF THESE BEAUTIES . . . . you're really making me want one! Can't wait to see pics of Tim's on arrival . . . . wait . . . . on second thought . . . . +1
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Jul 23, 2013 7:00:06 GMT -8
Great information here guys . . . . THANKS! But you've got to STOP POSTING PICS OF THESE BEAUTIES . . . . you're really making me want one! Can't wait to see pics of Tim's on arrival . . . . wait . . . . on second thought . . . . Wait, you don't own one yet?
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Jul 23, 2013 7:08:03 GMT -8
Great information here guys . . . . THANKS! But you've got to STOP POSTING PICS OF THESE BEAUTIES . . . . you're really making me want one! Can't wait to see pics of Tim's on arrival . . . . wait . . . . on second thought . . . . Wait, you don't own one yet? Sadly . . . . no . . . . I'm a 6138 loser-sign
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Jul 23, 2013 7:20:32 GMT -8
Wait, you don't own one yet? Sadly . . . . no . . . . I'm a 6138 loser-sign Everyone needs at least one, better get after it!
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Jul 23, 2013 7:32:42 GMT -8
Sadly . . . . no . . . . I'm a 6138 loser-sign Everyone needs at least one, better get after it! Enabler!
|
|