hi fellow forumers,

I found an interesting watch on eBay and I am interested in it. I have been looking for a bullseye dial military watch for a while. However, I can't seem to find references on the watch online and I would like to seek your opinions on it.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/RARE-VINTAGE-...TIMAGNETIQUE-/162640328021?nav=BIDDING_ACTIVEPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

What makes it military

 

Hahah would love to know that too

 

Old watches with Arabic numerals are for some reason often labelled as "military" for no reason at all, especially if they have a black dial.

The Tissot looks good, and the price is, IMO, about right, perhaps a tad high. I just bought one for half the cost of this one, but that wasn't "military", nor did it have a black dial

 

I see! Thanks for sharing sir.

 

Bullseye Tissot show up regularly on the 'Bay. The dial is original with nice painted numbers (most are lume), and is in reasonable shape for its age. Note the loss of black paint in spots along the outer ring, especially between 7 and 8. I think the hour and minute hands are wrong, but the subdial second hand is OK. Crown is the correct style. It's hard to evaluate the movement from the one photo available, but it looks like it's from the caliber 27 family. The movement serial number can be used to date the watch - I cannot read it, but I'd guess the watch is circa 1942. The case is probably chrome plated, but it looks in OK shape. If it is a true 35mm without crown, it's a nice size for the era. But the watch seems a bit overpriced for what it is. I'd ask for pictures of the lugs and case sides to look for chrome wear, and better movement shots.

Example from above link captured here for posterity:

 

Thank you Vitezi for the detailed analysis.

 

I don't think the hands are original

 

I was just going to say the same thing.

PS: Just saw that @Vitezi already pointed that out.

 

I forgot to mention the hands - as @Vitezi says they are incorrect. I don't think the crown is correct, as I'd expect either a more pronounced bowler hat style or a more prominent toothing (is that even a word?) instead of the pretty vague, rounded off style shown here.

 

Thanks for the inputs sir. That cleared a lot of doubts.