# Oh Dear!



## Scouse (Jan 6, 2011)

This just showed up on one of my Ebay searches. Someone is going to be unhappy.....

Item: 220730331730


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

Serves the mug punter(s) right. 

Some idiots will always fall for that 'military' tag. :comando:

The current high bidder has a feedback rating of over 500, too. :duh:

Hmmm .... :think:

I'm personally fed up to the back teeth of seeing the term 'Military' used to mis-represent watches that clearly ain't. :angry:

It's probably more abused / mis-used than 'Vintage', if the truth be known.

Check out eBay item # 260726477119 for another classic example. :rofl2:

Rant over. :taz:


----------



## Scouse (Jan 6, 2011)

Just had a look at that one. That's another one which is as "Military" as a conscientious objector. Although, if people are that stupid as to not research an item before they spend their cash, it's their own fault.

I'm in agreement that the words "Vintage" and "Military" are used far too freely now. For myself, vintage should be over 25 years old and for a watch to be military, it should be marked correctly as such, with a recognised emblem, wording or set of numbers, etc and be of correct style, age and construction. Ideally, (But by no means, always) it should be included, listed or mentioned within one of the internationally recognised books on the subject matter. The attachment of a military *style* strap to a commercially marketed watch does not constitute a "Military Watch".

Who's next for the soap box...........I've finished!


----------



## The Canon Man (Apr 9, 2010)

What? Non-military items being described as military.

Not this one surely? Ebay item # 300524009480.


----------



## Scouse (Jan 6, 2011)

Ha, Ha! All it needs is a speedometer, altimeter and barometer  I'm sure they could fit them in somewhere, between all the other rubbish! I really wish these jokers would "Go forth and multiply". Another one as military as a conscientious objector!


----------

