Note: Thread title change.
From time to time, we see watches that we may wish to acquire, but I also find it interesting to identify watches that are unusual and may be genuine - or not.
This one is made of genuine components, but . . .
It seems to me to be a Mark Ic in all respects except that it appears to have a Mark IV case. It is listed as a Mark II, so perhaps the seller is "averaging the references."
I'm curious about what the more knowledgeable among us think . . .
It's described as a Mark II with 1963 production year.
My later Mark Id is stamped June of 1962, so this watch is (mostly) an early 1962 watch with radium luminous.
The coppery movement is correct for a Mark I watch, with weighted balance and fixed stud carrier:
(click to enlarge)
But, here is the case back:
It's hard to tell to to a certainly, but the S/N appears to be 1261603, which fits right in with the range Nico has identified for a Mark IV.
I don't actually see the leading 1 and the "3" is a best guess.
If the leading number were a 2, then the watch would be numbered earlier than the earliest Mark Is that Nico has identified, so the 1 is likely there.
Thoughts?
~ Joe
Listing here:
From time to time, we see watches that we may wish to acquire, but I also find it interesting to identify watches that are unusual and may be genuine - or not.
This one is made of genuine components, but . . .
It seems to me to be a Mark Ic in all respects except that it appears to have a Mark IV case. It is listed as a Mark II, so perhaps the seller is "averaging the references."
I'm curious about what the more knowledgeable among us think . . .
It's described as a Mark II with 1963 production year.
My later Mark Id is stamped June of 1962, so this watch is (mostly) an early 1962 watch with radium luminous.
The coppery movement is correct for a Mark I watch, with weighted balance and fixed stud carrier:
(click to enlarge)
But, here is the case back:
It's hard to tell to to a certainly, but the S/N appears to be 1261603, which fits right in with the range Nico has identified for a Mark IV.
I don't actually see the leading 1 and the "3" is a best guess.
If the leading number were a 2, then the watch would be numbered earlier than the earliest Mark Is that Nico has identified, so the 1 is likely there.
Thoughts?
~ Joe
Listing here:
Enicar Sherpa Graph 072-02-01 | Ref. 072-02-01 Watches on Chrono24
Find low prices for 11 Enicar ref. 072-02-01 watches on Chrono24. Compare deals and buy a ref. 072-02-01 watch.
www.chrono24.com
Last edited: