Forums Latest Members
  1. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 4, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    I came across a Kontiki that has me puzzled. I know the line was introduced in 1958 but the date on this one, according to the Eterna database, appears to be 1955. Fake comes to mind, as there are no movement photos, unless there's another explanation. Thoughts?
    upload_2016-6-4_5-0-30.png
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Mr Bing Jun 4, 2016

    Posts
    335
    Likes
    1,300
  3. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 4, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    I'm really wondering about the dating. How likely is it that a Eterna made a watch 3 years before the line was introduced? Would Eterna have stockpiled watches for a couple years before shipping? Would they have added Birks to the dial during production or just prior to shipping to Canada? Lots of questions.
     
  4. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Jun 4, 2016

    Posts
    7,380
    Likes
    24,175
    Probably original, in my view. I've seen far greater gaps between production of movements or cases and final assembly than that.
     
  5. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 4, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    Normally, I would agree. I'm wondering if they would have introduced a new line three years (approximately) after the first watches were produced?
     
  6. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,004
  7. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    I didn't think so but sold today for $2750. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eterna-Matic-KonTiki-1958-Thor-Original-Eterna-/351749893675?nma=true&si=XFlQO4cWfjVH7pDYNPJpQYpW5xU%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
    Is there something about this watch that I am missing?
     
  8. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,004
    What can I say? I really wanted it... as did one other madman, unfortunately. ;)
    I personally believe that there's something about these watches that everyone is missing... present company and @pitpro excluded.

    The seller eventually added some movement shots. The movement serial dates the movement to 1957 (probably late 1957). I don't believe that the chart cited in the original post applies to case numbers.
     
  9. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    Yeah, I finally figure that out, once the seller, at my request by the way, posted the movement photos. I loved that watch but wasn't willing to go that high. Congrats on the pick up. I never thought it would go for that kind of money.
     
    MMMD likes this.
  10. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,004
    Haha thanks. I asked him too. The result didn't surprise me very much. I think the KonTiki cat is slowly emerging from the bag. You may have missed this 34.5mm one (not sure how much value that Komfit bracelet added).

    image.png

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/262292831790Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
     
  11. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232
    I obviously did or I wouldn't have been so surprised.
     
  12. Bill Sohne Bill @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    3,873
    Likes
    8,945
    Love the early kontiki .

    I sold a mint example a few years ago.... Still have a first generation date kontiki

    Good hunting
    Bill
     
    MMMD likes this.
  13. pitpro Likes the game. Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    100% original except for the goofy looking crystal
    that's been replaced. Bracelet is correct and correctly dated, I
    contacted him, 1958 clasp stamp. I have a Birks on the
    dial exactly like this 60 serial numbers away from this one.
     
    MMMD likes this.
  14. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,004
    Yeah that crystal has got to go. What is it, mineral glass?
    Those Mark I crystals weren't signed, were they?
     
  15. pitpro Likes the game. Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    Looks like it.
    No they weren't signed.
    Here's a mint one like your's(?), No balls :)
    kontiki6.jpg kontiki3b.jpg
     
  16. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 8, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,004
  17. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Jun 9, 2016

    Posts
    8,658
    Likes
    14,232