# Just Seeing If Anyone Has Been Paying Attention



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

What is wrong with this watch?

130802581372

:wink2:


----------



## PilotWatchLover (Sep 23, 2012)

That the guarantee is from Ingersoll and not Services?


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

PilotWatchLover said:


> That the guarantee is from Ingersoll and not Services?


True, but too obvious :wink2:


----------



## PilotWatchLover (Sep 23, 2012)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> PilotWatchLover said:
> 
> 
> > That the guarantee is from Ingersoll and not Services?
> ...


Damn! I thought I'd done well


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

PilotWatchLover said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > PilotWatchLover said:
> ...


Well it does indicate a more fundamental problem which should be apparent to those who have been following my posts about Services watches or is familiar with certain aspects of the watch in question :wink2:


----------



## kevkojak (May 14, 2009)

Would one find the answer in the 'dating vintage watches' thread?

Something about no " " marks being 1930's-1950's?


----------



## tall_tim (Jul 29, 2009)

1910?


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

You`re getting there.


----------



## harryblakes7 (Oct 1, 2010)

Services Dial but Ingersoll Movement?? :lol:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

harryblakes7 said:


> Services Dial but Ingersoll Movement?? :lol:


Services used Smiths/Ingersoll movements but you`re in the right area


----------



## JWL940 (Jun 11, 2010)

I'd say that movement is a lot younger than 100 years old. I'd expected a lot more tarnishing in keeping with the case if they were built together. Unfortunately i am not at home so can't compare the this movement with my Ingersoll movements.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

JWL940 said:


> I'd say that movement is a lot younger than 100 years old. I'd expected a lot more tarnishing in keeping with the case if they were built together. Unfortunately i am not at home so can't compare the this movement with my Ingersoll movements.


Give that man a cigar :thumbsup:

I don`t know but presume the case does date from 1910, the Sandown`s movement, dial & hands are from the mid 1950s. I can only surmise that the originals were found to be beyond repair & were replaced by the Services parts. I have sent the seller a message informing him of my observations, we`ll see if he modifies the listing :wink2:


----------



## JWL940 (Jun 11, 2010)

I don't smoke but the Lagavulin went down very well, I thank you Sir.


----------



## Will Fly (Apr 10, 2012)

Just caught this thread - and been pipped at the post with the answer! I know damn-all about Services watches or Ingersolls, but the movement just doesn't go with the case and I don't even think the hands quite match the quasi-military style of the numerals on the dial. It looks like a mash-up of bits and pieces.


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Aherm, personally, I like a watch to have a glass on the front :lol:

Nice lesson Mach! :yes:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

No reply



mach 0.0013137 said:


> I have sent the seller a message informing him of my observations, we`ll see if he modifies the listing :wink2:


Well there`s been no reply from the seller & checking his other sales I noticed this pair...

Two Vintage Pocket Watch Smiths Empire & Ingersol

I find it hard to believe that he hasn`t noticed that these three watches have identical movements & that the Smiths has the same hands as the Services.Then again, maybe I`m just looking at this from a watch nuts perspective & he really doesn`t see the similarities.


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Ganny must have had a use for the front glasses, none of 'em have a crystal/glass?


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

mel said:


> Ganny must have had a use for the front glasses, none of 'em have a crystal/glass?


I didn`t notice that Mel


----------



## JWL940 (Jun 11, 2010)

Shud ave gone to Specsavers ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

Edit: That should have been a winking smile, so how do you insert them???


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

JWL940 said:


> Shud ave gone to Specsavers ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
> 
> Edit: That should have been a winking smile, so how do you insert them???


Actually, I do need to make an appointment with the opticians as it`s been a few years since I last had my eyes tested :icon24: :lol:


----------

