Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Nigelp last won the day on May 14

Nigelp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,066 Awesome

About Nigelp

  • Rank
  • Birthday 17/12/1972

Recent Profile Visitors

14,251 profile views
  1. I had a 2015 Hydro Conquest Automatic the one with the full number dial not just 12, 3, 6, 9. My affection for it was well documented here. It was the black dial version. I paid £790 at Goldsmiths and at the time thought it was the best value Swiss Diver from a brand with a long lineage and a renowned name. I probably should have bought a Seiko for 500.
  2. we always will always have
  3. Thanks, thats probably sufficient then, i didnt know. I guess if they were brought to Law the framework is in place and it looks like a lot do need bringing to law from what @WRENCH is turning up! Its just they probably wont be because it costs to much. I think the term Swiss is being put on as willy nilly as quartz
  4. i know i said it on purpose, still cant beat these for cool, im not bothering with the emojis theyre too slow. im not a welsh englander im an englishman in wales like this im more like this though eh @mcb2007
  5. might explain why most non watch fan Brits think they are a posh watch, still. British Army in World War 2: Rotary Rotary became the official watch supplier to the British Army in 1940. Despite being a proud Swiss company since 1895, Rotary didn’t stay neutral throughout World War 2! Rotary opened an office in Britain during the 1920’s in order to import Rotary watches into the country. They were already popular when, in 1940, they became the official watch supplier to the British Army. With the Second World War in full swing this move put a Rotary watch into almost every single household in the country. When young men returned to the UK following the war Rotary became a household name in the UK and, despite their proud Swiss heritage, they are a very British brand today.
  6. has it ever been challenged? Do we know of any case Law? Has a watch or manufacturer ever fallen foul of these? Have they been applied to modern watches claiming to be Swiss? Showing these watches to either comply or not in a Court of Law? we can probably discuss it until the cows come home but its an area open to abuse. Pretty much like most things in life.
  7. where did your dad serve his time? My dad served his time at Nelson Engineering in the 1960's, they did admiralty and aeronautical work too. They made the divots for life boats on war ships etc. I know what you mean and most of my push bikes that got fixed never looked the same again. I wanted cee dubs on one BMX and ended up with normal handle bars. https://bmxmuseum.com/bikes/cw_racing/41210
  8. im sorry @WRENCH i don't mean to sound horrible and what youve said is fine, but when it comes to what Legislation may say and What manufacturers may claim. It means nothing unless it is proven, in a dispute between one and the other and it can only be done in that way when a test case sets a precedent and i dont think there is one. The legislation is typical Euro Law and rather than governing, it ends up creating what ive always seen exploited as 'gaps' in the Law. In effect it actually gives manufacturers a right to say something is swiss when most judges at common law under English Law would say it wasnt Swiss on the balance of probabilities. Scottish Law by the way would reach a similar conclusion to that of English Law in the absence of a governing European Statute, but thats just my Legal view. If we could time travel to a Court of Appeal sitting in say 1972 and ask them to look at a swiss watch made now and one then and ask them to look at the law then and the legislation now. Then more likely than not they would find it hard to say for definite that all claims to swiss made in the new watch however loose were wrong against the new legislation. They would be too bound by the new legislation and its gaps and tied in knots by clever lawyers possibly. The old basic law of what would be considered reasonable, would more likely than not find more of the swiss claims made now a days to be unreasonable. The legislation as with most Euro Legislation isnt a match for Judge made Law and precedent based on the Common Law in the UK...Constitutional Lecture over.
  9. Thank you Roger! Very much appreciated! Well done in finding that. Do you fancy a bit of part time work as an Internal Auditor during your retirement? No i really appreciate that my searches turned up nothing. Cheers Rog. As an aside Roger do you know anything about these seiko 'royal oaks'? From what i can gather its a nick name given from the Audemars Piguet royal oak off shore due to a slight similarity in bezel shape but with more sides from my reckoning? Heres mine seller pics
  10. unless there is a precedent set from statute in case law, we've nothing to go of. I don't know if there is or isnt. If not and no one challenges it, Its all make believe. Swiss made means nothing unless we can show all these watches are described in accordance with that precedent. Can we? its the same with made in Japan. And else where. I expect legislation means little without precedent give us some case law see what was decided. without case law they are all just unproven claims and facts as indicated in the article in the link its not been tested has it? The claims? They can say what they want until it comes before a Judge making a decision on those claims and facts and we dont have that do we? We would need a test case and then to apply the claims made in the article to determine whether they had any truth in Law. reading that legislation has created a legal minefield at best unreliable. the article in the link is totally meaningless. Its just an advertisement in effect and legally in such what is said is always taken with a pinch of salt, these manufacturers know that and are unlikely to be bound by it. Advertisers Puff was the old lingo, but might be unacceptable now. but to answer your supposition are they being honest? Hard one.
  11. ive noticed! the look is more 1985 than it was in 1985 now, in 1985 it was sort of 1967 Amercia and Elvis. Now its... You and Billy Joel setting the trend! Agian. Nice pumps. I thought of piano man but the modern trend to jeans is more spanners man in't it?
  12. @WRENCH my old Law lecturers from many moons ago would probably have told the theatre it was ok to put Swiss on the dial or swiss made if there was a fundamental part of the watch, which was. I can imagine my Commercial Law lecturer back in Leeds circa 1993 a certain Ms Peat. Lecturing along the lines. What is a fundamental part of the watch and what constitutes made? There is no definite answer is the conclusion i expect would have been reached. I expect it would these days come down to the judge interpreting a European Legal statutory Instrument. Then it depends whether they use the Literal rule, purposive approach, or golden rule. You can google those. Most judges would take a common sense approach and look at the cost of the watch. If it was low value with swiss made on then a movement may be enough. If it was high value then, it probably wouldnt and the all watch would have needed at least some element of swiss input except strap or bracelet maybe. Im not up to date on Commercial Law or its statutes or case law precedents these days. Your best bet is to look at All England Law Reports in your local uni law library or their replacement depending on case age. So legally its a case of common sense based on the value of the watch and what a reasonable buyer would expect for that price, knowing swiss watches to be expensive. What do i think? 'swiss made' well if they put the swiss movement in in Japan its been made in Japan. If they put it in in Switzerland then its been put in in Switzerland and made in Japan. If the Swiss movement was made in Switzerland and put in in Switzerland into a case made in Japan, its edging on swiss made. If the swiss movement is put in in switzerland and was swiss made its swiss aslong as the case dial hands and crown are also swiss. However if the company based in Switzerland using the swiss components in their entirety uses staff trained in Japan and is a Japanese Company. Then its Swiss made by the Japanese. Especially if they assembled the parts of the swiss made movement as the crux is where the skill came in. Was it making the parts? Or making them into a watch? Meaning the Swiss made the parts in the manual worker sense, but it was the Japanese who assembled them in the more skilled sense...arguable both ways i know. However, what if the entire watch was made assembled and its parts in Switzerland, all the hands on work was done there...BUT...the design was done by a Japanese company in Japan and they own the rights. Like Nissan say building cars on the Tyne. Then in fact despite the fact the physical watch didnot exist until the first cog was created in Switzerland? It to me is still a Japanese and not a swiss watch. or original for me
  13. you are a cruel hard! man tell her she looks very nice! You need one to match like these lads instead of the new age 2020 look! 1984 is cool! You need to get with it, here bit of advice in this.
  14. sorry yes it is my mistake, i'll add more when it arrives, cheers Nigel. full ref is a 7T34-7A10 000259. @Roger the Dodger i can't date the seiko from the above case back numbers on sleuth? Any ideas of age? Cheers Nigel. all i can get is this. Results for movement 7T34 with serial number 000259 :-The watch was made in October 1970,1980,1990,2000,2010 any way of narrowing it down?
  15. Tanya and mum Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
  • Create New...