Two other watches tonight... My second oldest Seiko and Tudor...

Two other watches tonight... My second oldest Seiko and Tudor...

Joined: February 28th, 2006, 10:40 pm

December 4th, 2010, 3:48 am #1



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 19th, 2010, 10:45 pm

December 4th, 2010, 3:53 am #2

Love the oldies, but how small are they? 32mm for the tudor?
Nothing as simple as a hand wind.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 24th, 2007, 4:36 am

December 4th, 2010, 4:00 am #3



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.
Boomtown

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 29th, 2005, 8:21 pm

December 4th, 2010, 4:35 am #4



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.
.... nice Oyster Rolex case on that Tudor. The backs are great unless those ribs are buggered then it is HELL getting them off As for straps for your Seiko, have you checked with Rich at http://www.globalwatchband.com/items.php?group=56 as he carries the complete H-R line of straps in a wide variety of sizes
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 28th, 2006, 10:40 pm

December 4th, 2010, 5:01 am #5



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.


20 years or so seperate the restored post WWII Seiko and the 1968 Grand Seiko...


Here is the Tudor and older Seiko beside a 1963...


Seiko beside the tourbillon...


Seiko and Sea-gull M192S...


Now it is getting ridiculous... The Archer Aero 45 is 45mm wide before that awesome onion crown...


The venerable 6497 resides inside. Canadian watch with Swiss movement and German case and dial/hands. It all comes together in one very high quality package...


Then there is the crazy 1950 Panerai homage to throw into the mix... Look at how much watches have grown in the past 60 years. Then again the 1950 looked like that in... 1950... Then again, the original was never meant to be worn directly on the wrist; let alone in a day to day environment!


6497 resides in this one as well. It originally came with a Chinese 6497 clone but I had the real deal swapped in.


Then to start to go O.T. I had to take a pic of the Archer next to the Panny homage... That crown guard makes a very large watch even larger!


Not sure how helpful this all was... Hopefully some of the pics (like the 1963) help to give you some perspective as to the size of the Seiko and Tudor...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 29th, 2005, 8:21 pm

December 4th, 2010, 5:08 am #6

... 33 to 35mm ? I've probably 1/2 of my watches in that "normal" size! Nice variety BTW
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 1st, 2008, 1:36 pm

December 4th, 2010, 5:15 am #7



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.
....... you still have the Tudor? Cool! Figured you sold it and mad a fortune out of it... lol.
Glad to see you took care of it and fixed it. Any pics of the movement? What`s the accuracy of it now? i remember when I had it, it was loosing about 2 min a day....

I don`t make things. I make things better !
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 25th, 2005, 9:59 pm

December 4th, 2010, 7:58 am #8

... 33 to 35mm ? I've probably 1/2 of my watches in that "normal" size! Nice variety BTW
the mid 80s....in the background are the 41mm X33s and Tsunami and 41mm Seiko 8F56....
When I wear the 33mm Omega I think of it as a bracelet with a watch in it! haha!

Of course I love the Tudor for its vintage look and size! hehe! I could source a leather strap easily here for you but not the length! hahaha!

>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 15th, 2007, 11:07 am

December 4th, 2010, 8:04 am #9



Archer serviced this Tudor which I got from Les a while back. I suspect it is from the 1950s. You barely start to wind the crown and this watch starts to run. If this one was 34mm or larger it would have a regular spot in the rotation...


This one dates to post WW II and even though the movement is marked Seikosha it is a Swiss based ebache. This one is not a stainless steel case. It is plated brass and when I acquired it several bits of the plating had long gone. I sent it to Jack and IWW and he had it replated and then had the movement serviced. Later on I had a problem with the crown stem and Archer rectified that (of course):


Caseback on the Tudor. A great design will pass the test of time.


The caseback on the Seiko is a snap in affair. The Tudor was much more ahead of its time with this one...


The Seiko however has a larger size going for it which lends itself better to modern wrists. I just love the patina on this 60+ year old watch...


I have come to like and appreciate sub second hands more and more as my WIS years wear on...


Here you can see that the Seiko is wider; however, the Tudor is taller and thicker.


Ah, the headache of some older watches. Tiny lug width and limited strap choices. This one might need its own special strap made in an extra long length. This might make an awesome choice for some vintage Thursdays.



Thanks for looking.
Love the old Tudor.Nice to have those in the collection i bet Mark.

Theneilo uk

Quote
Like
Share