# Wtf!!!



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Am I missing something here...item 300298303082  :blink:


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

that is an odd price for that isnt it,but i do like the look of it though.he has some very nice looking watches in there.have you seen the alpha?


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

His prices usually aren't so out of touch. He clearly doesn't grasp that you'd need bullet-proof and impressive provenance - e.g. found on Cdr Crabb's wrist - to ask that kind of price.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Wow! Is it just me or does everything seem wrong with that auction. Looks like some kind of hodge podge. 

Later,

William


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

I'm awake now and looked this "CWC" over again. The "original" dial looks like a relume. The caseback that is "full military marked" does not seem to have any military numbers at all. The second hand looks more like an Omega. The movement does not look very ETA. The supposed issue date of '84 sounds wrong, I think they were all quartz by then. Is there something I'm not aware of going on here? :blink:

Later,

William


----------



## Filterlab (Nov 13, 2008)

William_Wilson said:


> I'm awake now and looked this "CWC" over again. The "original" dial looks like a relume. The caseback that is "full military marked" does not seem to have any military numbers at all. The second hand looks more like an Omega. The movement does not look very ETA. The supposed issue date of '84 sounds wrong, I think they were all quartz by then.


Other than that, it's fine. :lol:


----------



## bobjames (Mar 26, 2008)

he has some real crackers though in amongst his lots


----------



## dazaa (Feb 28, 2009)

bobjames said:


> he has some real crackers though in amongst his lots


But funny how none are tested or garunteed to keep time,pressure or water resistance. Somthing funny going on, perhaps he is buying damaged originals and sticking in random movements??

Still you can only laugh at the "yellowish patina"


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

William_Wilson said:


> The caseback that is "full military marked" does not seem to have any military numbers at all.


It does - but you have to look hard.


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

potz said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> > William_Wilson said:
> ...


I wasn't meaning they were real - just that there are numbers. Engraving looks poor.


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

Don't all British issue watches have the arrow or "chickenfoot" stamped on the caseback?


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

Thought so. That was the first thing I spotted. Also the quasi-military issue no's are far too faint IMO. If I remember correctly whoever did the

military engraving on case backs was never shy. They did them deep.

On some vintage models I've seen the manufacturers markings were almost worn off & the military markings were still clearly legible.


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

That's terrible. I can't see it being worth that. HK traders are to be avoided, in my opinion. Some might be alright, but they have a terrible reputation. Maybe he just put the decimal point in the wrong place? Be interesting to see if any mug actually buys it.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

I'd like to know what that movement is, it looks Asian to me. It isn't an ETA 278x which I think is more along the lines of what should be in there. :huh:

Later,

William


----------

