# Is There Any Real Significance To Seiko Serial Numbers ?



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm not talking about the first 2 digits, which we all know (well most of us) gives you

the (last number of the) year (within a given decade) and the month of manufacture.

For those of you who aren't familiar with this fact, I suggest you check the sticky at the top of this section. :read:

No, what I'm taking about are *the last four digits of the case-back serial number.*

I've been thinking about starting such a topic for a little while. :think:

Indeed we nearly got off to a false start a week or so ago, in this Seiko Ladies Watch thread:

http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=66869&st=15

Below is a copy and paste of my post # 18, including partial quotes of Roamer Man's earlier posts:



Roamer Man said:


> SEIKO7A38Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Roamer Man said:
> ...





> Interesting how you worded those phrases. :lookaround: I think I'll beg to differ slightly, for the time being. :think:





Roamer Man said:


> Yep, it's complicated, so I could be mistaken! If anyone knows better, I'm sure we'd all be very interested to learn ....





SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> Definitely worth a separate topic in its own right. :thumbsup: Of more anon ....


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

What I was hoping, was ....

That it might be possible to work out an approximate total production number from the highest and lowest numbers seen.

I think I already know the answer. :smartass: Sadly, it would appear not. :no:

What prompted this exercise, was the recent emergence of that batch of 5 NOS 7A38-7270's from an Isreali eBay seller.

The first four had serial numbers beginning with 8N (November 1988), and the one I bought was 8D (December 1988).

But I've been collecting photos from eBay auction listings for 2Â½ years, so I had *a few more* case-back numbers. :grin:

I wanted to amass a decent amount of data to play around with first. I was aiming for ideally 50 serial numbers.

So I sent a few emails and PM's and made a few phone calls to people I knew had these watches. hone1:

Nearly got there too.  With thanks to everyone who replied :cheers:, and sod you to those that didn't. :tongue2:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

I think they are random.

I mainly say this cos of the paucity of low number variants.

If, every month there were watches numbered eg 110001, 110002, 110003 etc, then there would be a lot more seen to be available and the collectors market would use this to increase prices.

How many watches does Seiko make per month?

This numbering methodology seemily caps it at 9999 per month or, with an allowance for overspill 9999x12 per year. And with a paucity of low digit numbers that would be deemed 'collectable, maybe less than this. Factor in the wide variety of non-collectable types, and the chance of getting a 'desirable' number on a collectable watch must be thousands to one. Also, there's a paucity of 'patterned' numbers it seems ie 111234, 112222, 115000. These, via randomness, would be just as scarce as any other number. This makes me think that production levels might be lower than a perceived maximum.

I'm no statistician or pro amthematician but i'm sure someone could speculate!

Just my 2 cents/pence!


----------



## Roger the Dodger (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm sure I read somewhere that the last four digits are the watch's production run number...ie from 0001-9999...I think Seiko's production runs are in batches of 10,000. I stand to be corrected.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> I was aiming for ideally 50 serial numbers.


Like I say, I came up a few short of 50, no thanks to .... 

Plus a few names have been changed to protect the innocent. :bag:

Gentlemen, as Bamber Gascoine used to say, 'here is your starter for Ten':


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

So what do the lists of serial numbers in my previous post tell us ? :huh:

Well firstly, as James and Roger correctly implied, that ....

Seiko's production counter only went up to a maximum of 9999 every month, and was then re-set for the next month.

If we look at July 1987, the month when production of the 7A38-7270 first started, and rapidly ramped up ....

it's quite clear that both the stainless black-faced SAA0093J and two-tone cream-faced SAA094J were built concurrently,

because to a certain extent, their serial numbers were 'interleaved'.

Not only that, but the lower volume gold-tone version of the 7A38-7270, SAA096J had also started going down the line.

This rather tatty example came up on eBay in July 2010. It's serial number appears to be 770151.


----------



## Big Bad Boris (Dec 3, 2010)

Are all examples of a particular Seiko 7A38 model (ie a 7A38-7270) made in the same factory, or is there more than one assembly plant for any given model ?


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> Not only that, but the lower volume gold-tone version of the 7A38-7270, SAA096J had also started going down the line.


As were the dark-grey-faced stainless 7A38-7260 SAA097J:



















and the light-grey-faced two-tone 7A38-7260 SAA098J:



















.... *both also* coming off the Seiko production line(*s?*) in *July 1987*. Kind of muddies the water, doesn't it ? :umnik2:



Big Bad Boris said:


> Are all examples of a particular Seiko 7A38 model (ie a 7A38-7270) made in the same factory, or is there more than one assembly plant for any given model ?


Good question. :good:

If so, how would they have co-related their use of serial numbers, in any given month, between the plants ? :huh:


----------



## Morris Minor (Oct 4, 2010)

Interestingly nerdy thread - I like :thumbsup:

Some earlier Seikos had 7 digit serial numbers - which would allow up to 99,999, eg. I have a Bell-Matic with s/n 7402783.

Old Citizens have 8 digit serials since they do the months differently, for example 04 for April and 11 for November, rather than '4' and 'N' as with Seiko. I just had to go through my collection to see what my lowest numbers were! The ones under 100 are 00086, 00044, 00039, 00013 (the one I've been wearing today as it happens) and best of all - 00005.

Stephen


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

It is a pleasing fact that EACH watch has a different code

And lends to a mild desire to get one entirely matched to your birth date

Not just ie August 77: 781234

but either: 27th August 1977 as 270877 / 082777

or 782708

or whatever you like!

Still think it's random though. Any evidence for a **0001?


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

It's also odd that these 7A38s in the example were made in two clear batches July 87 and Nov 88 (Christmas run/catalogues?) but then also in dribs and drabs throughout the rest of their run?

Makes you think they launched the watch and made a load but then what?

'Yeah H Samuel here, we sold a couple of those 7A38s last month, couldn't knock us up a few more, could yer?'

'No problem, we'll be banging a load out next Christmas if you want extra stock then, too...'

We need someone on the inside.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> Still think it's random though. Any evidence for a **0001?


How about a 7A48-7050 'Fishing Master' from September 1985 ?












jair1970 said:


> It's also odd that these 7A38s in the example were made in two clear batches July 87 and Nov 88 (Christmas run/catalogues?)
> 
> *but then also in dribs and drabs* throughout the rest of their run?


James. With respect, I think I can safely say that is an incorrect assumption on your part. Or possibly assumption*s* plural.

My small sample of 7A38-7270 serial numbers, based on recent eBay sightings (20+ odd years after their manufacture) ....

is probably just the very tip of the iceberg - for *every* month that the 7A38 was in production. I'm talking 10's of 1000's :wink2:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

I think that 'Roamer Man' was actually getting close, but his statements need a little qualification:



Roamer Man said:


> Roamer Man said:
> 
> 
> > The rest is the number in the manufacturing run. Yours being the 3884th.
> ...


I think it should read:

The next incremental serial number *for that month* (up to a maximum of 9999) *for that Calibre Operation.*

Reasoning ? :huh:

Well, we've already shown that Seiko were producing 3 versions of 7A38-7270 and 2 of 7A38-7260 during July 1987.

So would anybody like to throw a proverbial spanner in the works, and post photos of a case-back from July 1987 ....

for another caliber, besides the 7A38-xxxx. Maybe try a 7A28, 7A34, 7A36, or a 7A48 for starters ?

Better still, how about another totally different quartz calibre produced in July 1987 ....

Like a 5H23-xxxx or 5P32-xxxx with a 77xxxx serial number. They've gotta be out there somewhere too. :search:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Very nice example of a **0001 there! Is it yours? :notworthy:

Comparative dribs and drabs!

25 out of 43 are made in just two months and another 7 within 2 months.

That's over 3/4 made within just two short periods and 58% in two months. If anything can be inferred from the not insignificant sample it's that the second big batch's representation is maybe overinflated due to the 5 all coming from the same source.

Interestingly, we do know that the NOS Nov/Dec '88 bunch covers two different months and this suggests to me that maybe fewer watches were made than could be supposed.

What realistically could be an estimation of how many 7A38-7270's did that source originally purchase? Just the 5? 10? 20? 100?

I think you'll find that pretty good conclusions can be interpreted from even the limited information you hold. Trends can become significant from a very small sample but the one factor that may be impossible to infer in the original location of the samples in the set.

Seiko do indeed sell a hell of a lot of watches. They do also have a HUGE range. I think, having done a bit of rough and ready maths based on sales revenues and such that tens of thousands is probably an overestimation.

I'll happily pitch in at the bottom end of that for total 7A38-7270s made.

Good fun this. :thumbup:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

So would anybody like to throw a proverbial spanner in the works, and post photos of a case-back from July 1987 ...

Would love to but haven't got one! :crybaby:


----------



## 7A28lvr (May 19, 2011)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> I think that 'Roamer Man' was actually getting close, but his statements need a little qualification:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A Google search for "Seiko 7A48 July 1987" reveals that on May 23 Jose Sotto sold a 7A48-7020 Moonphase (on an olive NATO strap, no less) that was produced in 7/87. Ebay.ph completed listing #360366928644.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

Well spotted, Bruce. :thumbsup:



7A28lvr said:


> A Google search for "Seiko 7A48 July 1987" reveals that on ....


I did try a google search on just 'Seiko July 1987' late last night, but didn't manage to come up with anything myself. :blush:

But then by 1:00am, I was a little worse for wear. :wine:



7A28lvr said:


> .... May 23 Jose Sotto sold a 7A48-7020 Moonphase (on an olive NATO strap, no less) that was produced in 7/87.
> 
> Ebay.ph completed listing #360366928644.


He did indeed. :bad: Made over $160, too ! :shocking:

















Serial # *77*7929. So .... there's something besides a 7A38-xxxx in that sequence of 9999 serial numbers from July 1987.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

I did make a start going through the 7500+ images of 7A38's that I have on file, many saved from past eBay auction listings.

Got as far as the 7A38-6080's, and was about to call it a night, when I found this one, from an eBay listing in August 2010:



















Despite the darkish photo, and the butchered case-back :butcher:, you can still make out the serial number # *77*2328.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> SEIKO7A38Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, but the lower volume gold-tone version of the 7A38-7270, SAA096J had also started going down the line.
> ...


Oh - and remember these ? Of course, I've got two of them myself, on non-original, but 'matching' light grey lizard straps:



















Went through my collection spreadsheet this morning, and found that these two also had serial numbers from July 1987:

*77*2925 and *77*3627


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> .... is probably just the very tip of the iceberg - for *every* month that the 7A38 was in production. I'm talking 10's of 1000's :wink2:





jair1970 said:


> I'll happily pitch in at the bottom end of that for total 7A38-7270s made.


BTW, James, I think you may have misunderstood my statement in that previous post. :huh:

But then it was late, and I probably didn't word it as clearly as I might have. :wine:

I wasn't suggesting 10's of Thousands of stainless 7A38-7270 SAA093J's (or any other flavour of 7A38-7270) were produced.

I was talking *ALL* 7A38-xxxx case models - total production.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

Morris Minor said:


> Interestingly nerdy thread - I like :thumbsup:


Anyway. Who are you calling nerdy ?


----------



## new2the7A38 (Oct 6, 2010)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> What I was hoping, was ....
> 
> That it might be possible to work out an approximate total production number from the highest and lowest numbers seen.
> 
> ...


Didn't you get my reply to your PM? Don't see my two 7270's listed :crybaby:

778142 and 8N9917


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

new2the7A38 said:


> Didn't you get my reply to your PM? Don't see my two 7270's listed :crybaby:
> 
> 778142 and 8N9917


No, I didn't, John.  That's why I sent the request again, a second time. :dontgetit:

O.K.. Thanks, I'll belatedly add your serial #'s into the two-tone table.


----------



## new2the7A38 (Oct 6, 2010)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> new2the7A38 said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you get my reply to your PM? Don't see my two 7270's listed :crybaby:
> ...


Sorry you didn't get my original response. I emailed back to you using your "admin" addy on 6/21 from my

AOL address. Spam folder maybe?


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Well, well!

Two more randomly chosen 7270s from... wait for it... July '87 and Nov '88!

We'll be able to 'psychically' predict the numbers on the back of these soon


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

new2the7A38 said:


> I emailed back to you using your "admin" addy on 6/21 from my AOL address. Spam folder maybe?


You mean '[email protected] ....', John ? Probably in Roy's SPAM folder then, not mine. Never mind. :grin:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> Well, well!
> 
> Two more randomly chosen 7270s from... wait for it... July '87 and Nov '88!


Get away, James. It's a pure fluke. :tongue2:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> O.K.. Thanks, I'll belatedly add your serial #'s into the two-tone table.


Done. 



















But other than confirming that more Stainless and Two-tone 7A38-7270's were made in those 2 months (than others) ....

What does it actually tell us. 

As we've already gathered more 7A38-7270 serial numbers (and other models too) for the production month of July 1987 ....

What does anybody make of this ? :huh:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> We need someone on the inside.


Well, this afternoon, I asked the question of someone in Seiko UK, who I thought might know. 

He didn't.  He added that he doubted that even Seiko HQ in Japan still kept production records that far back. :lookaround:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

A bit more useless trivia / food for thought - depending on your point of view. :lookaround:

The Seiko 7Axx family of calibers had a fairly short life-span, by Seiko's standards.

I suspect that had something to do with manufacturing costs for the all-metal movement.

It was superceded by Seiko's 7T32 movement which predominantly uses plastic gears in 1989.

The 7A38 followed closely on the heels of the 7A28, and out-lived both that, and the 7A48 'moonphase'.

Best I can tell, from serial numbers seen, 7A38 production began in August 1983, and ended in September 1989.

*That's just 6 years*. $64K question - How many 7A38's did Seiko manufacture in total ? :huh:

We've majored on the Stainless 7A38-7270 SAA093J, because that's the model which partly prompted this exercise.

But there is another far more popular 7A38 model - indeed many people's favourite. :man_in_love:

The Stainless Taupe / grey-faced 7A38-7020 SAA009J, also sold as the 7A38-7029 SAA013J:










This is one of my 7A38-7029's:










.... built up from a salesman's sample case dated September 1983:










I also have a 7A38-7020 dated October 1983, and have seen a few others, and also 7A38-7029's from the same month.

The latest / highest serial number for a 7A38-7029 that I've seen to date is this one, sold on eBay in July last year:



















*7D*4373 from December 1987.

That gives the stainless 7A38-7020/-7029 a production lifespan of *4 years and 3 months*. :shocking:

Makes the eighteen months production run of the stainless 7A38-7270 look quite insignificant.


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Well, well

771650 just landed on the bay tonight, from the Phillipenes.

Another tick in the box for July '87. Although the seller appears unsure!


----------



## 7A28lvr (May 19, 2011)

jair1970 said:


> Well, well
> 
> 771650 just landed on the bay tonight, from the Phillipenes.
> 
> Another tick in the box for July '87. Although the seller appears unsure!


Paul,

Were you able to determine the serial# of that mint Seiko 7A38-7270 that recently sold for 281 Euros?


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

7A28lvr said:


> Paul,
> 
> Were you able to determine the serial# of that mint Seiko 7A38-7270 that recently sold for 281 Euros?


Not really, Bruce. :no: The seller's photo of the case-back was too far out of focus to read the serial number:










It may even have been yet another 77xxxx, but what would that prove anyway ?


----------



## 7A28lvr (May 19, 2011)

SEIKO7A38Fan said:


> 7A28lvr said:
> 
> 
> > Paul,
> ...


All it would prove is that Seiko manufactured one more 7A38-7270 in 7/87. It would also add one more serial# to a very small dataset. I know that there is a language barrier, but are there not any retired employees of Seiko (now collectors participating in Japanese forums) who could shed some light on the matter? Are these trade secrets to be taken to the grave or is the information regarding Seiko's serial numbering system and manufacturing numbers so mundane as to only be of interest to a handful of die hard collectors? There are, after all, over 20,000 Seikos listed on eBay at any given time and several forums with sections dedicated to Seiko collecting. The interest is there.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

7A28lvr said:


> I know that there is a language barrier, but are there not any retired employees of Seiko (now collectors participating in Japanese forums) who could shed some light on the matter?


Perhaps Tokunaga-San may read this, and honour us with his input. :notworthy: See: http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php/topic,457.0.html


----------



## 7A28lvr (May 19, 2011)

It would be nice if we could simply correlate the annual frequency of listing on eBay to total numbers manufactured, but there are too many variables involved (lifespan of quartz vs automatic, availability of factory or aftermarket parts, Sports 100 models more likely to suffer water ingress, etc.).


----------



## gamarp (Jun 10, 2011)

Paul,

You can add my 7A38-7020 serial number to your list if you want.

It`s: 411387


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

By the way, if anybody thought I was verging on border-line 'anorak' :nerd: for even comtemplating starting such a thread ....

Check out this recent thread, in a similar vein, posted on SCWF: Rarity of Vintage Seikos? A caseback study - update :shocking:



> Fellow seikoholics,
> 
> I would like to give an update on my caseback studies project. I am studying calibres 4005/4006, 5619, 6117, 6138/9, 6217 (4-hand) and 7015/6/7/8. *The eventual goal is to track down production periods, production batches and production numbers* (to +/- 10 % accuracy) *for ALL the cases with these calibres*. The research is based on caseback photographs, in the meanwhile, *the archive has grown to over 2500 caseback photographs without duplicates*.


Impressive stuff, but .... :umnik2:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Hey Paul!

Ever since I bought one of those NOS 7A38-7270s, i've been on the lookout for a WEARABLE 7A38

And whilst there are a variety of more interesting or stylish 7A38s, it seems i'm destined not to find one ...yet. They get expensive or are too battered or whatever.

Anyway, i've been home all day and sporadically refreshing my 'Seiko' ebay search, and had a funny feeling something might turn up... Sometimes you just sense something in the offing, y'know?

Lo and behold at 20:57:59 BST, this turned up wuith a BIN of Â£49:

7A38-7270

I'll admit, I got excited and spent far too little time working out if it was a good buy and 'pulled the trigger'.

You've gotta move fast with these 7A38s or else they get snapped up quickly.  It's almost as if there's a community of people being steered towards these watches by a mysterious guru figure. But I digress... 

With the addition of time and reflection, I think i've done OK and hopefully i've got 1. a wearer, 2. a box for my NOS one and 3. another one for your list!

Weirdly, and i'm sure you've already seen this one, at 20:40:02 BST (ie. 17 minutes prior) this was put up:

Another one?

You wait for one and 2 land at the same time. Odd innit! Fuzzy back photo but it's definitely a July model!


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

...and it seems that broken one is already on the list 

'Seen on Ebay Ocotber 2010'


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> Ever since I bought one of those NOS 7A38-7270s, I've been on the lookout for a WEARABLE 7A38
> 
> And whilst there are a variety of more interesting or stylish 7A38s, it seems i'm destined not to find one ...yet.
> 
> ...


Well done, that man, James. :clap:

Looks indeed like you may have snagged yourself a decent 'wearer' - cheaply too. :thumbsup:

I was out for the evening :band: so I missed it. :taz:

But seriously, much as I love them, I didn't really need another of these, even at Â£49. :no:

Having said that, had I been home, and seen it, I probably would have snaffled it anyway. :naughty:



jair1970 said:


> You've gotta move fast with these 7A38s or else they get snapped up quickly.


Had you not noticed how many views some 7A38 eBay listings are receiving lately ? :huh:

Figures of 500 - 650 hits (on 10-day listings) are not uncommon. :shocking:



jair1970 said:


> It's almost as if there's a community of people being steered towards these watches by a mysterious guru figure.


Yeh, me and my big mouth. :blush: Maybe I ought to stop posting about them. :secret: :shutup: Bit late, I suspect.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> Weirdly, and i'm sure you've already seen this one, at 20:40:02 BST (ie. 17 minutes prior) this was put up:
> 
> Another one?


I hadn't actually, James, because I was out last night - but thanks (again) for the 'heads up'. :thumbsup:

In fact, unless it goes very cheaply, I think I'll probably pass on this one :thumbsdown: .... of more anon. :wink2:



jair1970 said:


> You wait for one and 2 land at the same time. Odd innit! Fuzzy back photo but it's definitely a July model!


It's the 'London Bus syndrome', of course. :dontgetit:

I don't know why, but these things definitely turn up on eBay in cycles.

In case you hadn't noticed there's another on eBay Germany - item # 330617395578.

Described as 'fÃ¼r Sammler kleiner defekt!', but already at 52 Euros with 8 hours to go before auction end.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> ...and it seems that broken one is already on the list
> 
> 'Seen on Ebay Ocotber 2010'


I wonder how that got there ? :huh:

Especially as the seller didn't include any photos of the case-back, nor the serial number in her previous description. 

It must be an age thing, 'cos I seem to be making more typo's lately







....

but that comment against serial # 770172 'Seen on eBay October 2010' in the first line of the table is *wrong*.









It should actually read 'October *2009*'.

I don't know if you're familiar with using MS Excel, James, but when you drag / auto-fill cells ....

it can sometimes increment the number / date in the next cell - even if you hadn't wanted it to ! :angry:

I suspect that (before I sorted the data into serial number order), I had inadvertently dragged the previous cell.

That's my excuse, anyway.  That one should definitely read October 2009 - because I remember it well.

Here's a few of the seller's original eBay listing (21st-28th) photos from October 2009:














































She did subsequently add a couple more, but her standard of photography hasn't really improved:










This 7A38-7270 was previously eBay item # 250517624601 and sold for Â£112 + postage. :shocking:

I know this, simply because I didn't just 'see this on eBay in October 2009' - I won the auction. :blush:

It was a 'fuzzy photo gamble', where I got carried away, and simply bid too much for, in the heat of the moment. 

Not only did it have significant internal issues (IIRC, the movement has been damaged by an old leaking battery),

but it wasn't in the best of cosmetic condition - the watch case has a very heavy ding on the 12 o'clock end. 

So I returned it to the seller and got a full refund. Nearly two years later, she's eventually put it back on eBay.

PS - By the way, James. I was thinking of you on Friday. :think: I need to 'update' yet another 7A38 thread. :grin:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Heh! Good story!

Thank the lord your exuberent purchase wasn't punished too.

I've no idea why the life story of a 7A38 is so intriguing, but it is :thumbup: I trawled through her feedback trying to work out how it had gone from Ebay Oct '10 to Ebay Oct '11 and had no luck (now I know why!) and by your description selling it as 'spares or repairs' appears ambitious. 'Spares' alone maybe!

Like I said I wasn't desperate to get another 7A38-7270, it's just the way it's turned out.

As a quick aside, I know you've posted quite extensively on crystals and such (well, everything to do with 7A38s, to be honest!). I may or may not get the crystal replaced on this one and I see there are a few Singaporean crystals on the bay . Where would you advise I (or indeed anyone else) purchase a crystal from?

Cheers


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> I've no idea why the life story of a 7A38 is so intriguing, but it is :thumbup:
> 
> I trawled through her feedback trying to work out how it had gone from Ebay Oct '10 to Ebay Oct '11
> 
> and had no luck (now I know why!)


James, even if you'd trawled through her feedback, all the way to October *2009*, I doubt you'd have found it. :no:

In cases where I'm disappointed by an eBay purchase, I tend just to not leave any feedback at all. :schmoll:

If I'm really p1ssed off, then I'll make sure that the seller really knows about it, in no uncertain terms. 

It's surprising how condemning you can be in that 80 character field. :naughty:

As it was, I explained to her, and she agreed to a full refund, so it went back.

Had I only paid 50 Quid (or less) I might even have kept and repaired it myself. :hammer:



jair1970 said:


> and by your description selling it as 'spares or repairs' appears ambitious. 'Spares' alone maybe!


It is repairable, certainly - possibly needs a new PCB - just that the top end of the watch case has had a helluva knock. 



jair1970 said:


> Like I said I wasn't desperate to get another 7A38-7270, it's just the way it's turned out.


I'm pleased for you.  About time you grabbed one for yourself. :thumbsup: Honestly, James. :taz:



jair1970 said:


> As a quick aside, I know you've posted quite extensively on crystals and such (well, everything to do with 7A38s, to be honest!).
> 
> I may or may not get the crystal replaced on this one and I see there are a few Singaporean crystals on the bay.
> 
> Where would you advise I (or indeed anyone else) purchase a crystal from?


I'd normally advise you get a Sternkreuz p/n MSM310 from Cousins ....

But seeing as they still don't appear to have resolved that 'under-thickness' problem (from May) 

.... you might want to try one of their own brand - Cousins p/n F150CMH310.

They're not bad quality, just not as hard as Sternkreuz - I found I was breaking too many when fitting them.

The ones from Singapore on eBay are a complete unknown quantity - and quality to me. 

They (all) appear to have a slightly bevelled (and polished) top edge in their illustrations.

I suspect that they may be made in China. At least Cousins' own brand are Japanese made. :thumbsup:


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Cheers Paul,

I'm catching up now having moved from 1 7A38 to 2 7A38s 

Will report back with serial number, as and when.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> I'm catching up now having moved from 1 7A38 to 2 7A38s
> 
> Will report back with serial number, as and when.


Thanks for the offer, James, but there's really no point. As we've already discussed, it's not going to prove anything. :no:



jair1970 said:


> Looks pretty mint that...
> 
> Mine's the same. Very pleasing purchase. Did the ones from Italy arrive?


But, there is something else you could do. 

How's about you posting a couple of photos of your *2* (NOS + incoming 'wearer') 7A38-7270's together in this other thread ?

Happy 5Th Anniversary â€" Seiko 7A38 And Maxell #394 !


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

Well, it's arrived and lo and behold it's July '87 model!


----------



## jair1970 (Jun 6, 2011)

However, there's one or two issues that need attention before it starts modelling!


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

jair1970 said:


> Well, it's arrived and lo and behold it's July '87 model!





jair1970 said:


> I hadn't realised that my modest post count was hindering my interaction!


Now you've reached the 'magic 50 post mark', I've just sent you a PM with another one.


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38 said:


> She did subsequently add a couple more, but her standard of photography hasn't really improved:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That 7A38-7270 we were referring to (serial # 770172) just resold on eBay for Â£56.50: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/250902800954?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_500wt_1076



> *VINTAGE SEIKO QUARTZ WATCH (SPARES OR REPAIRS)*






























Like I said:



SEIKO7A38 said:


> She did subsequently add a couple more, but her standard of photography hasn't really improved.


Trust me, I've seen this one in the metal, and it ain't pretty. :thumbsdown:


----------



## SEIKO7A38 (Feb 12, 2009)

SEIKO7A38 said:


> jair1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's arrived and lo and behold it's July '87 model!
> ...


In case anybody was wondering (or missed) what I was referring to, it was another stainless 7A38-7260 (SAA097J) ....

In rather better condition than the previous one in post # 8 of this thread, and again with a July 1987 777xxx serial number:



















The eBay auction for it ended last night about 11:00pm: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360398767194?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_1589wt_899 - sold for $117.50.


----------

