8900 Aqua Terra movement with 2008 serial #

Posts
1,023
Likes
1,018
After using a serial number search engine, I come up with this watch being manufactured in 2008. Another website has a chart also confirming 2008 for a 84XXXXXX serial. But wasn't the 8900 introduced in 2015? I'm guessing I'm reading the serial number charts wrong.
 
Posts
6,334
Likes
26,214
I'm guessing I'm reading the serial number charts wrong.
No, where you went wrong was using one of these charts to begin with 馃槣

They are not a reliable resource for modern pieces as they were not intended for them. Using one of these charts to date a modern watch will lead to confusion, such as you are experiencing. These charts are better for dating vintage watches.
 
Posts
1,023
Likes
1,018
No, where you went wrong was using one of these charts to begin with 馃槣

They are not a reliable resource for modern pieces as they were not intended for them. Using one of these charts to date a modern watch will lead to confusion, such as you are experiencing. These charts are better for dating vintage watches.
The same database is correct dating my 2018 speedmaster and my 2007 railmaster. Both watches have paperwork amd cards to confirm manufactured dates.... seems fairly accurate to me.
 
Posts
1,023
Likes
1,018
Did you perhaps use this one?

https://www.emmywatch.com/db/serial...tY3pGffm34WPiT5HPT4oA0LyIlmqAmBTZfSnigFOy-Kkb

If so it dates my Seamaster trilogy to 2008 which is clearly wrong as it was only introduced in 2017.

Also it has this stated;
Not that website specifically but I see another similar style search that also has the disclaimer. I went down a rabbit hole, and although I can't find the exact site, it wasn't one where you enter the number yourself but rather a chart with 84,xxxxxx -84,999999 and lists a date. But that disclaimer from the link you provided answers my question. I'm sure the info in list form is derived from the same source and falls under the same disclaimer.

I guess what thru me off was the final date range encompassed this watches serial number. So I figured it was accurate. It would have been more accurate to say anything 84 and higher is anyone's guess, like the link you provided states.

Thanks for the info