You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
You’re correct. I should have checked the movement numbers. I’ll do that when I get home from work today. Leatherneck also suspected something didn’t add up. Thanks for the info.I was doing some research on this watch company and read that in trying to date the watch, do not use the serial
number on the case, but use the one on the movement.
If I hadn’t broken the glass, I might have considered it. Restoration sounds expensive.holy moly! wow, that is one great find. I have found a few watches in my time, but not that fine. have you thought about a possible restoration?
Jeff
That's one hell of a find!! HH Jim.If I hadn’t broken the glass, I might have considered it. Restoration sounds expensive.
On another note, I was waiting if anyone else agreed in whole or in part:On the back of the watch the numbers 207750 causes me to pause, and think, are those numbers
more indicative in identifying that particular watch?
With those numbers I am inclined to speculate: 1.) Those numbers, perhaps, as with other antiques indicate pre-occupied Japan?
2.) Those numbers considered with the fact other similar watches irrespective whether they have numbers on the back none I have
seen are 18 K?
Leatherneck
Great point!!!What amazes me is the fact that this was given or purchased in 1934 which was only one year after The Great Depression and a year after the government abandoned the gold standard...money had to still be incredibly tight for most people...