Incoming and the my story continues with another military watch

Posts
494
Likes
239
That's what you can read about those from Jeff Stein (who should be good with those... 😀)
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,966
That's how it should look (the picture is a random google search picture!). There are a lot of strange/questionable casebacks for military watches out there.

Hmm, yes I would include that one too. Thats not a style of engraving I recognise as correct.
 
Posts
494
Likes
239
Hmm, yes I would include that one too. Thats not a style of engraving I recognise as correct.

Why so?
I'd say the caseback is correct for (later) 113.603 references.
If it is correct for the IDF... most people don't know. There are like 50 different style of engravings out there...
And my guess is that 49 of them are fake... 😀
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,966
Why so?
I'd say the caseback is correct for (later) 113.603 references.
If it is correct for the IDF... most people don't know. There are like 50 different style of engravings out there...
And my guess is that 49 of them are fake... 😀


There is only one correct style that I have seen, and it is consistent. The M number engravings are much finer and the 'm' is sloped, possibly to represent the Hebrew Tzadi, hence 'drunken M'. These pictures are of the correct style, also stolen from the web.


 
Posts
494
Likes
239
You sure?
I mean the caseback is just not correct for watches after 1982 or so...
And if you would like to sell a 113.603 with a blank caseback you will have a lot of potential buyers having trouble with that (just made those experiences... 😀)
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,966
It is not the Heuer case back I have a problem with, just the military engraving.
 
Posts
494
Likes
239
So you think a blank caseback with engravings could be correct? What's with a blank caseback without military engravings?
Did Heuer produce such (maybe in 1980 or so) - as the 113.603 case is stemped with 10630v and not with 113.603...
Collecting vintage watches pretty absurde sometimes 😀😀😀
 
Posts
494
Likes
239
As I said... my guess is that about 90% of all military engravings are fake...
There are not many ways to make your watches worth more with such little effort...
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,966
That is why due diligence is needed with the engravings. Coping military engravings accurately is not easy, fonts, sizes, depth of engraving and correct issue number consistent with age, etc.

Inconsistency in a Military engraving must be viewed with huge skepticism. I have photo records of both real and fake and this helps me a lot.
 
Posts
494
Likes
239
That is why due diligence is needed with the engravings. Coping military engravings accurately is not easy, fonts, sizes, depth of engraving and correct issue number consistent with age, etc.

Inconsistency in a Military engraving must be viewed with huge skepticism. I have photo records of both real and fake and this helps me a lot.

Well whether it is easy or not: a lot of people "pimp" their watches like that... And when I see another "unique" watch with a "very special" engraving - of course a "prototype" - for totally crazy prices on christies or philipps I am wondering...

How do you know what is real and what is fake for your photo gallery?
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,966
Well whether it is easy or not: a lot of people "pimp" their watches like that... And when I see another "unique" watch with a "very special" engraving - of course a "prototype" - for totally crazy prices on christies or philipps I am wondering...

How do you know what is real and what is fake for your photo gallery?


Without sounding pompous, it’s experience. The more you see the more you understand what is right and what is wrong. Newer watches with early issue numbers, repeats, but mainly variations away from the verified examples.

‘Unique’ engravings are not what you are looking for!