# Time Marlin 1978 (Incoming)



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

Ive just bought this 1978 Timex 35mm manual wind, the numbers on the bottom of the dial date it to 1978 (10679 10478) I used this guide to navigate the old Timex models https://watchesyoucanafford.com/the-unofficial-guide-to-vintage-timex-watches/

From the numbers on the dial of mine and applying the guide its a timex catalogue reference 10679 model 104 and year 78 (so 1978). It seems from the article that the watches described as Marlins were made throughout the 1960s and 70's. The 60s watches were all marked 'waterproof' a term which was obsolete by the end of the 70s as depth ratings came in and was dropped and being a basic watches no depth rating was added.

The essence of a Marlin is the manually wound and very basic twin plate movement which is very easy to maintain and service and credited with being a venerable work horse. The basic no date 3 hander is considered the classic Marlin.

Mines a simple no date white dial in chrome case 35mm Marlin from the end of the series in the late 70s with the manual wind twin plate movement which has just been serviced. I think its a charmingly simple classy little watch. Which has the benefited of having been fitted with a new acrylic crystal.

[IMG alt="No photo description available." data-ratio="133.33"]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74232863_181483443017031_3136389564277456896_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQnJSFMzhMEg79UCfkpWXopwARD-9TUte0TS2Rd8eXI4gBc2HMIq8Vr0CNcAxyzV5RrvNzEJsHKklnjg61mxdkAt&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=81346ef8d79c31b1e5bf615bc257dd0a&oe=5E1A34CD[/IMG]

[IMG alt="Image may contain: ring" data-ratio="133.33"]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74842688_181483483017027_4598909676132761600_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQmxjidDqPYVlGw8-y33qcx6uOsyAmbPiGhJD5YUYIMVoMXOdfUd8UD9eHe1NdpdDBgmgtjlaYGpvWVEwdjqPBWV&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=2107b0400611bffa369a1c7927d3b5db&oe=5E2E1EE2[/IMG]

[IMG alt="No photo description available." data-ratio="133.33"]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74333189_181483413017034_4043923137539080192_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_oc=AQm2QSvoKtHC-jGnBP4b5h-WaCcaa9kKmOqPH1cBN3HFbxP21vPVi2ce2c9Mtq3l4MXLyR_DKeqieffTfllfr5xS&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=b7e923d92c88a1c2050bc8a27f4fe6f4&oe=5E285D6D[/IMG]

the lines can clearly be seen in the recent reissue especially in the case shape and recessed crown at 3. [IMG alt="Image result for timex marlin reissue" data-ratio="120.00"]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0186/1574/products/TW2R47900ZBK01-05_R.jpg?v=1558403099[/IMG]


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

im thinking now that the correct name going off the catalogue may be mercury? Anyone can confirm? Thanks Nigel...http://www.timexcollecting.com/catalogs/

there seems a lot of confusion over the naming given the fact it hasnt got waterproof on the dial but has the seal in the back around the movement as seen in the pic? So is it a Marlin a Mercury?

not the reissue doesnt say waterproof but is still called a marlin but thats irrelevant.

im thinking at the moment my vintage one is a mercury? @Decker any thoughts?


----------



## tick-tock-tittle-tattle (Aug 4, 2018)

I think a Mercury also, I think Marlins start with 23 or 25.

I have a 1975 manual wind, I will check the numbers and get back to you.


----------



## tick-tock-tittle-tattle (Aug 4, 2018)

Last block of numbers on mine read 02575.

I have seen Marlins on Ebay which have 023, 024, and 025

I am unsure of the Mercury numbers.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

agreed everything points to marlin except the lack of waterproof on the dial, big thick seal is in the back...weird.


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

its amazing how smooth the sweep of the seconds hand on this is, i'd swear it was high beat if i didnt know differently, it just floats round the dial with no noticeable stagger at all. I was amazed as soon as i wound it. Ive had mechanical omegas, tudors, longines to name but a few and to the eye this is smoother how? :jawdrop1:

we need @mel


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

Dear @Nigelp, what a nice Timex watch; a neat little purchase. 

It's funny but I was thinking the other day how "sniffy" we can be over watches that are chrome plated on alloy rather than stainless steel (and I don't mean those over-bright cheap-looking Chinese watches). In my case, the thought came when I donned a lovely little Casio classic analogue white dial watch with arabic numerals and small digital display beneath. This Casio has a steel strap but a chrome plated case; none the worse for that and still a lovely watch. It is true that stainless steel is generally more corrosion resistant than chrome plate, especially on the back of the case, and most frequent where a steel caseback interfaces with the base metal case. Nevertheless, we would eschew many collectible and pleasing watches if we restricted ourselves to only those formed from materials that give the impression that they are "indestructible."










(Pic from images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com)


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

thanks Honour @Always"watching", yes im getting a lot of pleasure from wearing it today, i like it much more than the modest sum asked for it which i think is a lot of its charm it feels very honest and humble, which is a breath of fresh air and antidote to the often over ostentatious offerings in the watch world, it has an endearing charm for its Cinderella charms handsome and classy combined with good honest toughness and nothing unnecessary, it doesn't have a single jewel for example, but is running perfectly and telling the time correctly, agricultural it maybe? Its the perfect tool watch, waterproof to boot.

Ive discovered from a few videos that the catalogue number suggests its a Timex Viscount.

The dial is a lovely porcelain white like a Victorian scullery maids face, pure and innocent and lovely. Just getting on with doing her job of telling the time, still perfectly after over 30 years, no song no dance.

....... :yes:

[IMG alt="Image result for scullery maid" data-ratio="120.12"]https://i0.wp.com/bp2.blogger.com/_LCVZWFAEodk/RqVAw8TElOI/AAAAAAAAGK8/ivn07d3J1iY/s400/laundry+maid+ironing+morland+1785.jpg[/IMG]


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

What a lovely post, @Nigelp.


----------



## Paul H. (Nov 18, 2008)

My understanding.....water proof / resistant on the dial = Marlin

Not on the dial = Mercury

Cheers p


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

Paul H. said:


> My understanding.....water proof / resistant on the dial = Marlin
> 
> Not on the dial = Mercury
> 
> Cheers p


 thanks Paul, I think thats correct too mines either a mercury or a viscount, it seems the only real difference is a thick rubber seal gasket in the back which i dont think mine has and yes the words waterproof on the dial, some people even say that water resistant isnt a marlin.

but im not sure they are right.


----------



## spinynorman (Apr 2, 2014)

Nigelp said:


> lovely porcelain white like a Victorian scullery maids face,


 Her cheeks look red to me. The porcelain white is, er, lower down.

Well, someone needed to lower the tone.


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

ah ah you intercepted me there i was getting my comment to merge, yes i was looking at the bit lower down to be fair.


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

Better mvmt shot case back has a seal but not a big thick one over the movement






























Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul H. (Nov 18, 2008)

Nigelp said:


> thanks Paul, I think thats correct too mines either a mercury or a viscount, it seems the only real difference is a thick rubber seal gasket in the back which i dont think mine has and yes the words waterproof on the dial, some people even say that water resistant isnt a marlin.
> 
> but im not sure they are right.


 Viscount is an automatic......cheers p


----------

