Picked this up the other day. The dial, case, crown, and movement all check out to my eye. The Denisteel marking and caseback indicates that it was cased in the UK, Baume being Longines' importer, there. The serial number on the movement dates it to around 1950. The problem that I'm having is finding any information about the caseback engraving/ ordinance numbers. The engraving itself looks genuine to me, based on some of the faked 'military engravings' that I've seen in the past, but that's about all I can say. Can anyone lend any insight? I'll post some better pics, these don't portray the dial in its best light, to say the least. It's much more attractive in person.
I saw that one listed and first thought the engravings to be fake. I've only seen The Hydrographic Service code, HS-4, on a Golay Deck watch. They do indeed look compelling though. Ill see if I can find anything more....
I think I'm on the same page with you, Larry. My internet sleuthing came up with a deck watch/clock with the HS-4 codes, but I haven't been able to locate another example on a wrist watch. Haven't been able to prove that the engravings are fake either, and the fact that it was a Baume (UK) case, lends credibility in my eyes. Per usual, I've requested additional info from Longines, but I doubt they'll have information on the military inscription. Let me know what you turn up. Appreciate your help!
Thinking a bit more about this one; how would it make sense to have both Air Ministry (RAF) markings and Royal Navy (HS) engravings?
I see that you've gotten a response also on MWR, confirming what just came to me. There have been some examples as foil guy pointed out of 6b/159 's that have been crossed out and reissued to Navy (HS8). but concurrent bran dings don't make sense. He also, which completely eluded me, pointed out that mov't dates to 1950 where engraving suggest 1940 . Sorry...
Live and learn. This was an avoidable mistake, however. Thanks for saving me from the expensive component of the mistake!!
The watch has been re-listed to be sold as parts, but I'm not sure why the seller had to do this to it. Really sad.
Wow! I urged her to list it as a parts watch without caseback, but to include it with a little note to the buyer about how it had fake engravings and to do the right thing with it. She told me she just wasn't going to include it. She also told me she was an almost 70 year old single woman. Apparently with some anger issues by the looks of that picture!!-- what did she bake it on 600F and then smash it with a hammer?
I should add that I spent a solid 24 hours of messaging etc wrangling with her to get her to accept the return. She demanded that I file an eBay case. She says--at least honestly-- that she lists things with a return policy stated on eBay for their listing discount, then adds her own fine print about how she won't accept a return unless she mis-described something. Since she's the one judging if something was misdescribed, she never accepts returns without eBay/PP forcing her. Not a pleasant experience, though to her credit she eventually did the right thing by me.
Anger is indeed the first thing that comes to mind seeing that smashed Dennison steel caseback. Buyer beware!
She did the right thing keeping the false marking from finding there way back into the market. But I've always preferred to microwave my watch cases.... far more exciting to watch!
Aw, come on. If you bought a watch for parts that did not come with a caseback and then got a nice note attached to the caseback explaining that the marks were faked, but could potentially be polished out, urging you to do the right thing just as had been done to you. You think that'd turn up on the market? I'm acknowledging my naivete: yes, it is possible! But I'd still take that bet in the decency of humanity. Guess I watched too much Pinocchio as a child. Jiminy Cricket has been with me ever since.
I spent years messing with, running and showing vintage bikes, the stories of rare factory racing engines and limited production bikes surfacing and later turning out to have falsified serial numbers, markings and codes are numerous. Often these tales started with people passing on honestly presented replica racing pieces or machines and the history denoting them as replicas later being lost along the way (honestly or dishonestly) I don't have a problem with replicas being made for personal use and enjoyment, how else can "Joe Average" ever afford to enjoy some of these things, but how does one assure that the replica doesn't become "genuine" with time.