6139-6002: good deal or hard pass?

Hi guys,

I hope my message finds everyone well. First post on the Seiko subforum 😀 and have been giving consideration into buying a vintage piece and was hoping some help from the honorable gentlemen here.

It is a 6139-6002 with a blue dial.



I am a newbie when it comes to vintage Seikos but I find some 6139 references awesome and have been wanting to add one to my collection for a while. This one, so far as I unterstood correctly, has a matching case with "Water Resistant", 17 jewel 6139B movement, and tapered bracelet, which are all consistent with the watch being from 1974, according to what I have been reading. The condition of the case and bracelet do please me with a nice sharp but used charm and character with a clean dial and hands with nicely coloured lume as well.

I just talked to the seller and he claims a service has been done. On the timegrapher the watch loses 16 seconds a day and has an applitude of 185.



Regarding originality... The one thing I still am not able to truly see is if the bezel is AM. It looks authentic to my untrained eye though. After corresponding with more experienced @bardamu , I hope others could share their opinion. The shape of the 1 and the 4 on 140 might look a bit aftermarket but like Alessandro, I don't find the font odd and I like the general look of it, which seems to be consistent with the condition of the watch itself. There is a tiny bevel on the insert but I am not 100% sold on it.



It would come from a seller in South America and since I have a friend there at the moment, he could bring the watch to me personally, so I would spare shipping costs as well.

I believe I could negotiate the price down to around 750€-ish with the seller. Is this alright, fair, steep or too much? Recent sales both here and on ebay show such a different range of prices I often get confused.

Thank you all beforehand,

Rudi

I am no expert but go by a few rules a friend taught me when looking at the bezels.
the bezel insert:
the 60 at the top - the division between blue and red should be right down the middle, exactly
a block under the 60 means 1976+, not before
the 4 in 140 - the cross of the 4 should almost kiss the 0

Also I was shown to look at the subdial and make sure the indices go the the edge. Again, stating I am not expert, but first dial is my 1970 Proof dial so might have differences, second is yours, and third is aftermarket. Font is quite different to mine and yours is different to the aftermarket one too.

I suspect that bracelet is aftermarket. Nice but not genuine. The links are not solid steel.

Edit: I recently sold a similar and 100% original blue dialed version here on the marketplace so you might try taking a peek at those pictures although granted I never seem to get the hang of snapping pictures, but they might help you out. 👍

I also think there should be a space between Japan and 6139

Hi Fred and thanks for chiming in. I indeed just had another look at your example and was comparing the two. Even with the blurry fotos one can spot the space between "Japan" and "6139" and the subdial does look a bit like the first foto from @Arancio601 ...

And I thought vintage Omega was a minefield... Damn. 🤦 I will not give up though!

Nice to know I have at least a small use to you fellas 😁

I thought the originals h-link bracelets were folded not solid links? I have a Stelux on mine which is solid links.

Thanks a lot for you input. I also saw the sales thread of your watch and I think it looks awesome being an early variant with the different dial, small crown-recess and different hands.

Regarding the inner bezel of the one I might buy I also feel kinda positive about it and that lume darkening on the minute hand is also a positive sign for me. But I now feel skeptical about the dial given the subdial looks kinda towards aftermarket, maybe...

Are you kidding??? You're the greatest asset to this community. 😁 still laughing from your post on that thread about architecture...

FIFY 😁

This is an R dial, not a T dial, so some of the comments about the space between Japan and 6139 and the length of the subdial markers do not apply. I'm not the expert though. Paging @ewand !

After @bradurani (thank you very much!) has commented on the fact that R dials and T dials should not be compared, I sourced images of a few examples of R dials with vastly different conditions, some being even strongly degraded/patinated.

They are all consistent and show a pointy A in "Japan", no gap between "Japan" and "6139" and the font of the subdials, as the size of it's markers seem to be also the same.

It still does not mean the one I posted is genuine, since a redial might also be consistent, but I wanted to share. It does give me now a more positive feeling in combination with the lume degradation on the hands and looks of the inner bezel.

Thanks for the invocation, guys 😀

As commented above, there are differences in R and T dials (see Seiko Pogue authentication part ii – Dials – Vintage Watch Advisors), but IMO the OP watch is all good. Dial, bezel, bracelet - all as I would expect. If it was a $10,000 watch I'd probably want some clearer photos of some parts of the bezel and so on, but it looks like a good 'un to me.

As mentioned by a fellow member, simply enjoy your watch. It is indeed a nice looker 👍

I am always amazed by this community. So much passion, knowledge and often times good humor. Thank you guys specially the latest contribution by @ewand .

Let's see how I do with the negotiations. The seller is a dealer and not a collector.