Seiko 7A38 - by the numbers

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > 7Txx General Discussion Area > 7T32-6J60 SDWC67P3 NOS Head Only (Topic re-named and moved)

Rob Benham
Member
Posts: 221

Don and I both noticed this.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-OLD-STOCK-SEIKO-STAINLESS-CHRONOGRAPH-SDWC67P3-50M-WATER-RESIST-/231189206136


It seemed reasonable, and the one advertised was mint.  Utterly unblemished.  When it was put down to $72 I snapped it up.  When it finally arrived it had been worn and there were several marks on the bezel and even on on the glass.  The latter numbers were wrong.  i.e. 440 had become 404.  So, an honest mistake.  I got a refund and even a paid label, but not really anything resembling an apology.

.

Now, here's another one.  Marked here and there, but not too bad, though certainly not mint.  Back to $90 now.  The only thing is the number.  I'm bewildered, because I received.  811440 in lieu of 404.  One of the two in question.  I can't find a single message relating to the muddle.  Other messages, yes, but nothing quoting my explaining to them about the numbers.   Odd, because I've really seached for the couple of messages.  Anyway, here's the mint one I bid on.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/231156884942


I got 440, but the one that arrived here had the 30 swiped with a scratch, (not just a dent underneath) a mark at 3 O'clock and a chip in the crystal at 9 O'clock.  This does not tally with today's offering. 


It's no big deal, and doesn't really concern me, except for curiosity. 


March 27, 2014 at 2:26 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Rob Benham
Member
Posts: 221

Ten minutes to edit seems to wizz by for my old brain.    404 had become 440.  

March 27, 2014 at 2:39 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 9119

Yes, I agree with you Rob. A  timeout editing window of 10 minutes is not long enough to compose and edit a half decent post. :(

If I could, I would have increased it to a more reasonable 30 minutes from the outset. Unfortunately it's one of the parameters in Webs basic forum software I can't access, let alone change. However, you have all the time in the world before you start, to come up with a meaningful topic title - (one which means that someone else may actually stand a chance of finding the information at a future date).

Despite your wish to express your continued bewilderment, This is most strange simply doesn't cut it in my book. :roll:

So I've re-named your topic and moved it to the 7Txx forum section where it better belongs IMO.


March 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Rob Benham
Member
Posts: 221

I had wondered about a heading like:  Top name jewelers - can we trust them?   But it's probably better not to annoy folk.  I can only conclude they have removed the back from the one I returned and put it on another watch.  Or perhaps, just used the photo of the back, but they should know buyers want that specific watch confirmed by its number, and indeed, it was the number change that lifted the responsibilliy from my shoulders of proving it wasn't damaged while in my care.

March 27, 2014 at 1:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 9119

Rob. It can sometimes be down to sheer laziness on the part of the eBay seller, when they re-list a similar (but actually different) watch.

Think about the umpteen re-listings for YSL N7's by Hong Kong seller neverstrong - all using the same set of photos / serial number.

The watch I received (and subsequently returned for credit) was a different serial number - as I suspect were almost all they've sold.

Looking at the two listings you've cited for the two 7T32-6J60, they have used different photos / serial numbers so perhaps it was just a genuine mistake on their part. What you should also bear in mind that 'NOS' is a much abused term. Yes, such watches may well be 'new' old stock - implying they have never been sold or worn before. It doesn't mean that they have been stored in perfect condtions for 20 odd years. They may well have been chucked loose in a box with a number of other watches and left on the stockroom shelf.


March 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.