# Tickaticka Timex



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

I collect old Hampden mechanical wristwatches and when I took a chance to buy a Hampden Electric watch I did not know what to expect. Having had it serviced by Paul I'm totally gobsmacked by it and I started to find out more by reading the Electric Forum posts.

So now I've just bought this Timex, thinking it would be rubbish, to bring me back down to earth. It hasn't... it arrived gleaming like new, ticking away in-time and the worst (or best) thing about it is that it only cost Â£13 - and there are loads of them out there at that price.

So are they a Gift Horse, who's mouth I should not look in, or have I been lucky and Timex Dynabeat's are rubbish?

I feel an addiction coming on.

Cheers

Worzel


----------



## Robin S (Nov 1, 2008)

Worzel said:


> So are they a Gift Horse, who's mouth I should not look in, or have I been lucky and Timex Dynabeat's are rubbish?


Definately not rubbish IMHO. In fact I am wearing this one today


----------



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

Robin,

Two questions.

1. What age is your watch?

2. Your watch says Electronic, mine says Electric. Stupid question perhaps but is there a difference?

Cheers

Worzel


----------



## Robin S (Nov 1, 2008)

Not sure on this one, hasn't got the usual Timex coding on the botton of the dial - I would guess mid to late 70's. I have a few.

Paul will give a far better answer to your second question, but my understanding is electronic watches had a diode fitted to reduce contact wear that the earlier electrics didn't have.

I have a feeling the Dynabeats were actually Electronic.

Here's a qad of an earlier Timex backset Electric.


----------



## watchnutz (Jan 18, 2008)

The numbers that identify the model, movement and year are only visable when the crystal is removed on Dynabeats. I think yours is a 1976 off hand. The Dynabeats (movements 253,254,and 255) are electric and not electronic. What makes them different from the earlier Timex electrics is the beat. They are a high frequency and have a beat of 28,800 versus 21,600 on the model 40. The sound when running is distinctive.

While many look down on the Timex electrics, I find (I own over 60) that they are more bulletproof than most of their more expensive breathren. For instance the highly regarded Hamiltons seem to have many more contact problems then Timex and very seldom do the Timexes have coil problems. The other nice things about Timexes is the low cost and the ease in which an amateur can swap out parts such as movements, dials, etc.


----------



## Drum2000 (Apr 2, 2010)

Worzel said:


> ...it is that it only cost Â£13 - and there are loads of them out there at that price...
> 
> S


Point the way please!


----------



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

Drum2000,

Do I have your assurance that all Electric forum members are gentlemen and that if I do "POINT THE WAY..." nobody will rush-in before me?

I did say 'loads' in my excitement and I should have put that into context. Compared with what I normally look for, there are loads - perhaps not all at that price and condition, but that was my original question - was I just very lucky.

For example, this week an Antique Shop had a couple of boxes containing about 25 mixed watches each and there were 2 Timex, a gents and a ladies. The boxes said 'Any one Â£20 sold as seen'.

Worzel


----------



## Drum2000 (Apr 2, 2010)

I think that you were very lucky as that one is in very good condition indeed. I like the difference in "electric" and electronic" - each are little graduations in the evolution of watch history. From a collectors point of view (or even an obsessive boffin for that matter) this is quite enchanting. Besides, if it weren't for watches we'd all be standing beside the tracks writing down the numbers on passing locomotives. Count your lucky stars!


----------



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

watchnutz said:


> While many look down on the Timex electrics, I find (I own over 60) that they are more bulletproof than most of their more expensive breathren. For instance the highly regarded Hamiltons seem to have many more contact problems then Timex and very seldom do the Timexes have coil problems. The other nice things about Timexes is the low cost and the ease in which an amateur can swap out parts such as movements, dials, etc.


Has the plural of Timex (TIMEXES) been discussed previously? Something about it doesn't seem right.

Cheers

Worzel

Edit: Of course Worzel is known for ims grama.


----------



## watchnutz (Jan 18, 2008)

> Has the plural of Timex (TIMEXES) been discussed previously? Something about it doesn't seem right.


You forgot your emoticon. :smartass:

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? You recognized it as plural. I can't be so anile as to point out every mistake in language usage and spelling errors I see every day including in this thread.

Sorry I bothered to enter the Timex discussion with pertinent information. I'll see it doesn't happen again.


----------



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

watchnutz said:


> > Has the plural of Timex (TIMEXES) been discussed previously? Something about it doesn't seem right.
> 
> 
> You forgot your emoticon. :smartass:
> ...


I can only apologise, I really wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was sincerely fascinated to know if that was the excepted plural.

I am glad you did bother to enter the discussion and I thank you for the very good and interesting reply.

Again sorry if I upset you, it was not my intention. I will back off and refrain from posting.

Cheers

Worzel


----------



## watchnutz (Jan 18, 2008)

The word is accepted.







:wink2:

One thing about emoticons is they offer an idea of intent where the written phrase may be interpreted different ways.

The board needs posters, so post away! :cheers:


----------



## Drum2000 (Apr 2, 2010)

Poor Worzel! And he was only three posts from his required 50!

Worzel come baaaaaack! All is forgiven!


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

IMO (which is *NEVER* Humble! :lol, both Timex and Timexes are acceptable plurals. Usage will determine which to use and when.

Bill says "very seldom do the Timexes have coil problems" and would be equally correct to say "very seldom do Timex have coil problems"

OTOH, Timex's is definitely wrong, and Timex' would be correct for sort of possessive forms - like "I have a box of Timex' Brass stems" - but equally so would be "Timex" by itself. :yes:

And, let's not forget one of the lesser makers from a very small country who must have exactly the same grammar problems - namely "Rolex" :rofl2:

Oh, what the hair-oil, we all know what we mean! us "Timexicans" <- collective noun for Timex afficionados. "Rolexicans" doesn't have the same ring somehow! :lol:


----------



## Worzel (Jan 12, 2010)

watchnutz said:


> One thing about emoticons is they offer an idea of intent where the written phrase may be interpreted different ways.
> 
> The board needs posters, so post away! :cheers:


:friends: :wink2:



Drum2000 said:


> Poor Worzel! And he was only three posts from his required 50!
> 
> Worzel come baaaaaack! All is forgiven!


Make that 2 away, and thanks.



mel said:


> IMO (which is *NEVER* Humble! :lol, both Timex and Timexes are acceptable plurals. Usage will determine which to use and when.
> 
> Bill says "very seldom do the Timexes have coil problems" and would be equally correct to say "very seldom do Timex have coil problems"
> 
> ...


Mel,

That makes a lot of sense and your right about the 'ex' endings. I guess Kleenex and Durex would be the same (not the same as in wear it on your wrist).

I love Timexicans, having just picked up another Dynabeat today (without day/date this time), I think I'm heading that way.

Cheers

Worzel


----------



## luddite (Dec 11, 2009)

I propose that, as the plural of mouse is mice, the plural hencefoth is Tice.


----------

