sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Nov 3, 2013 12:11:59 GMT -8
|
|
cartshed
WIS
Veins of Vodka
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by cartshed on Nov 3, 2013 12:36:01 GMT -8
thunbsup.gif Looks a great dial & I'm sure the mechanical side of things will be an easy fix. I've got a bit of a thing about Proof/Proofs too, mainly because they're earlier but also, I think 'Water Proof' just looks better & more balanced than 'Water Resist'. But where's the Kanji day wheel
|
|
|
Post by 69ChevelleSS on Nov 3, 2013 12:45:45 GMT -8
Great looking watch . . . I wouldn't mind one of those taking up a slot in my watch box.
Congrats on a nice catch! Enjoy it!
|
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Nov 3, 2013 13:02:09 GMT -8
thunbsup.gif Looks a great dial & I'm sure the mechanical side of things will be an easy fix. I've got a bit of a thing about Proof/Proofs too, mainly because they're earlier but also, I think 'Water Proof' just looks better & more balanced than 'Water Resist'. But where's the Kanji day wheel Well I have a little egg on my face, I forgot to set the day to Kanji.
|
|
|
Post by J. F. Sebastian on Nov 3, 2013 13:25:19 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other?
|
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Nov 3, 2013 13:28:05 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other? Back in the day Seiko listed Water Proof on all of their water proof watches. Due to what I think was complaints by several governments they stopped using water proof and started using water resist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 13:32:07 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other? Prior to 1971 or 1972, warches could have proof on the dial and on the back. When the labeling laws changed, everything was supposed to switch over to resist/resist. But Seiko had inventories to exhaust and some times during the transition watches got proof/resist or resist/proof but this was for a rather short production period of only months The resist/proof models are scarce.
|
|
|
Post by seikoholic on Nov 3, 2013 13:45:47 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other? Prior to 1971 or 1972, warches could have proof on the dial and on the back. When the labeling laws changed, everything was supposed to switch over to resist/resist. But Seiko had inventories to exhaust and some times during the transition watches got proof/resist or resist/proof but this was for a rather short production period of only months The resist/proof models are scarce. and IIRC, "proof/proof" was really only a big deal for 6105-811x models - not many of those were made. But the "proof/proof" thing has crept into other areas. As for this watch, nice catch. It looks like the minute-counter and sweep hands have been overpainted with white paint, but notice the sweep is the correct two-parter. I wonder if they're orange under that paint. that would be a huge win.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Nov 4, 2013 0:43:20 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other? "Proof/proof" does indeed mean "Waterproof" on the dial and "Waterproof" on the caseback. Around 1968, a supposedly "waterproof" watch which was used for diving leaked, and there was a fatality. A lawsuit ensued, and a U.S. court mandated that no watches sold in the States could be marked "waterproof". These watches were marked "water resist" instead. But this only affected Seikos that were sent to the U.S...the rest of the world continued with "waterproof". This is the main difference between, say, a '69 6105-8000 and a '69 6105-8009, or a '69 6139-6000 and a '69 6139-6009. One is marked "waterproof" and the other is marked "water resist". Cases ending in "9" were destined for North America. But in 1970, some watches were not marked just one way. Seiko was transitioning to marking all their watches "resist" no matter where they were headed, but there was no hard-and-fast rule mandating that they do so. Consequently, there were watches sent across the rest of the world with a "proof" caseback and a "resist" dial, and vice-versa. These watches seem to only be from 1970, at least by what I have seen. In 1971, "resist" became "resistant" on casebacks, and "proof" had all but disappeared. By 1973, Seiko was not putting water resistance indications on the dial at all, except for actual scuba diver's watches.
|
|
Rod
WS Benefactor
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Rod on Nov 4, 2013 1:31:50 GMT -8
Forgive a noob question: what makes them "proof/proof"? Is it having "proof" instead of "resist" on the dial and caseback? Is it more common to have "proof" on one and "resist" on the other? "Proof/proof" does indeed mean "Waterproof" on the dial and "Waterproof" on the caseback. Around 1968, a supposedly "waterproof" watch which was used for diving leaked, and there was a fatality. A lawsuit ensued, and a U.S. court mandated that no watches sold in the States could be marked "waterproof". These watches were marked "water resist" instead. But this only affected Seikos that were sent to the U.S...the rest of the world continued with "waterproof". This is the main difference between, say, a '69 6105-8000 and a '69 6105-8009, or a '69 6139-6000 and a '69 6139-6009. One is marked "waterproof" and the other is marked "water resist". Cases ending in "9" were destined for North America. But in 1970, some watches were not marked just one way. Seiko was transitioning to marking all their watches "resist" no matter where they were headed, but there was no hard-and-fast rule mandating that they do so. Consequently, there were watches sent across the rest of the world with a "proof" caseback and a "resist" dial, and vice-versa. These watches seem to only be from 1970, at least by what I have seen. In 1971, "resist" became "resistant" on casebacks, and "proof" had all but disappeared. By 1973, Seiko was not putting water resistance indications on the dial at all, except for actual scuba diver's watches. And all this gave birth to the ISO for watches....this is worth a read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
|
|
|
Post by J. F. Sebastian on Nov 4, 2013 8:30:59 GMT -8
Thanks, everyone, for the very thorough background on Seiko's labelling of watches with regards to water! I had been vaguely aware of the proof -> resist shift, but had no idea that the transition was so uncoordinated! Congrats to sdoocms on what I now understand is a rare find.
|
|
Rod
WS Benefactor
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Rod on Nov 4, 2013 14:25:40 GMT -8
Prior to 1971 or 1972, warches could have proof on the dial and on the back. When the labeling laws changed, everything was supposed to switch over to resist/resist. But Seiko had inventories to exhaust and some times during the transition watches got proof/resist or resist/proof but this was for a rather short production period of only months The resist/proof models are scarce. and IIRC, "proof/proof" was really only a big deal for 6105-811x models - not many of those were made. But the "proof/proof" thing has crept into other areas. As for this watch, nice catch. It looks like the minute-counter and sweep hands have been overpainted with white paint, but notice the sweep is the correct two-parter. I wonder if they're orange under that paint. that would be a huge win. A great and very unusual 6139, you won't find many of these in peoples collections. Seikoholic is right the hands have been overpainted and should be yellow. Excuse this one (crud on the dial) as I'm working on it at the moment (crystal retaining ring was cracked) you can see the difference between the sweep and sub dial hands on yours and mine.
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Nov 4, 2013 15:31:04 GMT -8
Really nice looking model, enjoy it!
|
|
donciccio
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,160
|
Post by donciccio on Nov 4, 2013 17:08:41 GMT -8
SHe's a real beauty!! Enjoy!!!
|
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Nov 4, 2013 18:44:45 GMT -8
For OTR002 and Seikoholic...One of you says yellow hands and the other says orange. Is there more than one color? What do you mean when you say that the second hand is two parter? Is the second piece the button or cap that attaches the second hand to the movement? By the way when I look at the second hand with the picture a full size it appears that an orange or red color is trying to bleed through.
|
|
Rod
WS Benefactor
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Rod on Nov 4, 2013 20:04:23 GMT -8
Ha Ha Ha, welcome to the world of Seiko. Yes you are correct the two piece hand refers to the centre button/attachment and the rest, being the hand itself, this is important as they get changed with other hands and if you like originality then these thing matter. Also Seiko upgraded the hands without changing the part number and this can make thing interesting. This is another example of a two piece hand, these are the same model watch but one is early (69 Proof) and the other is later (74 Resist) Mine is a 6139-7011 and was fitted with yellow hands and has no evidence of being tampered with. Yours being a 6139-7010 (the 10 or 11 generally indicate different markets e.g the US or Japan) may have had red or orange hands. Remember that the red can fade to orange or in extreme cases yellow. The part numbers for your "sub dial" hand is 03E02A and sweep hand is 14SM06A (1971 parts book). The same part number is listed for both watches, so what to do?....research and draw your own conclusion. smileys-drinking-beer As for what colour yours were originally, remove the sweep hand and carefully strip the white paint to expose the underlining factory finish. Rod
|
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Nov 4, 2013 20:11:32 GMT -8
Ha Ha Ha, welcome to the world of Seiko. Yes you are correct the two piece hand refers to the centre button/attachment and the rest, being the hand itself, this is important as they get changed with other hands and if you like originality then these thing matter. Also Seiko upgraded the hands without changing the part number and this can make thing interesting. This is another example of a two piece hand, these are the same model watch but one is early (69 Proof) and the other is later (74 Resist) Mine is a 6139-7011 and was fitted with yellow hands and has no evidence of being tampered with. Yours being a 6139-7010 (the 10 or 11 generally indicate different markets e.g the US or Japan) may have had red or orange hands. Remember that the red can fade to orange or in extreme cases yellow. The part numbers for your "sub dial" hand is 03E02A and sweep hand is 14SM06A (1971 parts book). The same part number is listed for both watches, so what to do....research and draw your own conclusion. smileys-drinking-beer As for what colour yours were originally, remove the sweep hand and carefully strip the white paint to expose the underlining factory finish. Rod Thanks for the info, Rod. After the first of the year I will send this watch out to be serviced and at that time I will see what they say about cleaning up the second and minute hand.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Nov 5, 2013 1:47:35 GMT -8
Also Seiko upgraded the hands without changing the part number and this can make thing interesting. Believe it or not, Seiko actually downgraded the hands. The early two-piece hand is adjustable, the later one-piece is not. The hand itself turns on the silver "hub", allowing it to be adjusted to zero. Too bad they did it...the earlier hands can be swapped easily from watch to watch.
|
|
Rod
WS Benefactor
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Rod on Nov 5, 2013 4:00:02 GMT -8
Also Seiko upgraded the hands without changing the part number and this can make thing interesting. Believe it or not, Seiko actually downgraded the hands. The early two-piece hand is adjustable, the later one-piece is not. The hand itself turns on the silver "hub", allowing it to be adjusted to zero. Too bad they did it...the earlier hands can be swapped easily from watch to watch. Wow, I didn't know that! a063 I'm going to have to try that on day. Rod
|
|
martog
WIS
“I want to know how watches can hold all the time in the world using only two hands.” ― Jarod Kintz
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by martog on Nov 5, 2013 5:04:52 GMT -8
Sweet piece although just a tad small for me but beautiful.
Cheers Mark
|
|