Seiko 7A38 - by the numbers

Answer: When (according to the seller) it’s an Orient HFA ! 

For those not familiar with the terminology, a quick re-cap: the J39 was Orient Watch Co.’s equivalent of the Seiko 7A38 and the HFA was their 7T32 equivalent. Both used Orient re-branded versions of the Seiko movements: J3920 and HFA00. Orient Watch Co. also manufactured both the J39 and HFA re-branded as RACER (only printed on the dial) for the Spanish market. Racer and Orient J39's sometimes (but not always) share the same Orient J39xxx-xx case-back model stampings. When they ceased production of the J39, Orient carried over some of the case designs to their HFA’s.

As I’ve written previously in this thread in the 7Txx section (and maybe others), I frequently come across Orient HFA’s when I’m searching for J39’s. This time it was almost  the opposite way round. 

Not wishing to give away ‘trade secrets’, my regular saved favourite eBay searches on Orient include: Chronograph, Cronografo, J3920 and J39* (wild card) – all with various exceptions designed to remove superfluous crap. Usually they’ll find any J39’s that are out there, which are anything like properly listed – an exception being eBay Germany where naïve sellers sometimes list them as Orient Herrenuhr (or such-like). So every once in a while I’ll run a manual search on there.

Anyway, without further ado, I’ve just bought a couple of unusual and obscure (dare I say ‘rare’ ) Orient J39 variants from an Italian eBay seller pinup50miss. Not wishing to pre-judge the outcome, prior to their arrival, one is supposedly ‘New Old Stock’ and the other is a ‘spares or repairs’ parts watch – a head only without bracelet, which has evidently already been messed about with. Neither watch is particularly attractive. Worse, simply because neither watch looks right (to my eyes) I have a sneaking suspicion that one or both may possibly be Franken combinations.

The things I do in the name of research. 

I found the first one, almost by accident, running that manual search on Orient (within category Uhren & Schmuck) on eBay Germany on Monday. The seller actually had the same watch listed 4 times across different eBay geographies (of more anon). The listings had been there at least a week before I stumbled across them, simply because of the peculiar manner in which it had been listed.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231887587295

The red WARNING in the description and poor quality grainy photos should have been enough to deter me. But No. 

Note the peculiar listing title:

ORIENT hfa042 70hfa017 ORIGINAL OROLOGIO WATCH UHR VINTAGE NEW OLD STOCK OR66 UK

You'll see it again soon, or at least other partial variations on it ....

Despite the seller's grainy photos, it was abundantly clear it was not any kind of HFA (7T32), but an Orient J39 (7A38) of some sort.

The black dial with it's strange round dot marker at 12 (reminiscent of the Seiko 7A38-6090) looks completely at odds with the white radially printed Tachymeter ring. It's almost as if it should rightfully belong in something else; another much darker and quirkier case.

But the style of the watch case (and that white Tachymeter ring) looked very familiar. It's an all-over gold plated version of the two-tone Palladium plated watch case used in my Racer J39028-70, which I wrote up on page 4 of the RACER thread:

Intrigued, although at first reticent, I made the seller an offer (somewhat less than the 'pie-in-the-sky' Buy-it-Now asking price) ....

As I wrote previously, I may be pre-judging the outcome: whether this allegedly NOS watch is a Franken cobbled together to make a sale to some gullible punter, or simply an oddball model. I have no idea what the Orient case-back model number might be. It could be J39028-70 (same as my Racer), but as Orient Watch Co. aren't particularly consistent in their model number allocation - especially when you start looking at their J38's (7A48 equivalent), it could equally be something like J39928-70 or J39029-70, J39030-70, etc..

Then again (and I have a horrible suspicion - you'll see the reason why presently) the watch may come fitted with the wrong case-back off an Orient HFA. Another 'sanity' check as to whether it's a 'wrong un' (or not) will be the dial part number, which usually bears some relationship to the case-back number (as can be seen in the above photos: J392028R-031 dial p/n versus J39028-70 case-back).

Here's the second mis-represented (as HFA) Orient J39 I found, by searching on the seller's other items - and also purchased:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231885110433

Again, a variation on the strange listing title:

ORIENT hfa042 70 hfa017 70 ORIGINAL OROLOGIO RELOJ WATCH UHR REPAIR ST916 DE

At least the case-back on this one may be correct. The J39 part of the model number is obscured by the JWC inspection and Orient hologram stickers, but I'm guessing it reads J39016-70 CS - a case / model number I've not seen before. Also reassuring, the watch case finish / material 'IPA' appears to be correct. It's that same dark gunmetal coating used on other models like the J39601-70.

However, this watch has clearly been messed about with, because it has a Seiko 7Axx movement back-plate instead of the correct Orient J3920 stamped item. Somehow I think that champagne / gold dial might look more at home in a gold case - and visa-versa.

On Monday, having found those 2 mis-titled listings for Orient J39's, I carried on scrolling through the seller's other items in case there might be anything else of interest. Remember, in my quick re-cap in the first post, I wrote ....

When they ceased production of the J39, Orient carried over some of the case designs to their HFA’s.

The first Orient non-J39 listing I came across which immediately caught my eye was this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331797616672

It's what started my possibly unfounded  fears about the gold-tone J39 which I'd just purchased, having been fitted with an incorrect (HFA) case-back. Although there's no mention of 'HFA' anywhere in the title or description of this particular listing, this is clearly the watch case from the 7T32 equivalent of my two-tone Racer J39028-70. The gold-plated bezel ring, crystal and Tachymeter ring may even be the exact same components. But where did the missing case-back go ?

The second one I found partly answers the question about the seller's peculiar listing titles:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331536055068

These two watch cases are clearly the 7T32 equivalent of what I've assumed (prior to its arrival) of the Orient J39016-70.

One is obviously the same gunmetal finish and the other gold tone. Oddly they share the same unusual Tachymeter ring.

Note the listing title:

ORIENT CASE HFA042 70 HFA017 70 VINTAGE WATCHES OROLOGIO MONTRE RELOJ ST101 DE

Zoom in on the case-backs in the seller's second photo above and you'll see they're stamped HFA042-70 and HFA017-70 ....

The same incorrect model numbers the seller had used in the two mis-titled J39 listings ! 

Whether this was just laziness (cloning a previous listing), ignorance on the seller's part, or possibly some misguided attempt at deception remains to be seen. I'll be in a better position to judge once I've received the two J39's and had a chance to examine them closely - particularly after checking their respective dial and case-back numbers. I suspect the seller (presumably the bearded gentleman whose reflection can be seen in some of his photos) will be hearing from me in due course, one way or another.

A word of warning to anyone else who might be considering a purchase from Italian eBay seller pinup50miss ....

He / she has an annoying and somewhat misleading habit of listing the same watch on eBay up to four times ! 

But on different eBay geographies, usually: eBay.de / eBay.fr / eBay.com and eBay.co.uk. with slightly different titles (suffixes).

Presumably he does this in an attempt to gain proper full worldwide visibility (which eBay seems incapable of providing).

I'd suspected it for some time - and indeed when I first found the gold-tone Orient J39 (HFA), it was listed 4 times:

No great surprise - the day after I'd made an offer (on the UK listing) and purchased it, the seller ended the other three listings. 

Seiko7A38 at April 6, 2016 at 4:46 AM

Answer: When (according to the seller) it’s an Orient HFA ! 

 

Not wishing to pre-judge the outcome, prior to their arrival, one is supposedly ‘New Old Stock’ and the other is a ‘spares or repairs’ parts watch – a head only without bracelet, which has evidently already been messed about with. Neither watch is particularly attractive. Worse, simply because neither watch looks right (to my eyes) I have a sneaking suspicion that one or both may possibly be Franken combinations.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my original (title) question and answer. 

Question (Riddle): When is an 'original vintage' NOS Orient J39 not a NOS J39 ?

Answer: When it's a Franken J39 - or should I correctly say 2 Frankens - of an ex-NOS and a J39 parts watch ! 

The watches arrived yesterday.

I've only had a brief opportunity to examine them, but so far my sneaking suspicions were absolutely spot on. 

Here's a couple of Q&D side-by-side photos I took earlier this morning - as received. Apologies for the quality, but I was pressed for time. That said, the images of the gold-tone watch are far sharper than any of the Italian seller's grainy eBay listing photos. 

I'd had a quick play with them yesterday evening. The gold-tone watch was fully functional, with nice crisp pusher actions - and as you can see, by this morning, the day / date has changed over. The gunmetal coated watch's chronograph functions all work, but the time is totally dead. As can be seen in the photos, the double-domed crystal, which is (factory) glued in, is badly cracked at the bottom.

My first priority was to establish the correct true identities of these two J39 models.

There was a handy clue attached to the gold tone watch, in the form of a paper hang tag tied to the strap buckle. 

You may remember in my third post, I wrote:

.... but as Orient Watch Co. aren't particularly consistent in their model number allocation - especially when you start looking at their J38's (7A48 equivalent), it could equally be something like J39928-70 or J39029-70, J39030-70, etc.

Close, but no cigar.  I told you Orient were inconsistent.  How about J39930-70 ? (The 'Y' suffix stands for 'Yellow' = Gold).

So I flipped the watch over to see how it might be stamped. At first it looked encouraging ....

The Orient hologram was mysteriously partly obsuring the case-back model number, but you could make out J399 - and it was correctly stamped GP. Now, remembering my earlier concern that this watch might be fitted with a wrong case-back (off an Orient HFA 7T32), at this stage, I breathed a temporary sigh of relief. But then I noticed that the protective sticker looked like it had might have been tampered with or even been peeled off before, so curiosity got the better of me and I did the same, only to find ....

That it was indeed fitted with a wrong case-back - but off an Orient J39908-70 !! 

For those readers not familiar with this other dressy Orient J39 model, I already own quite a few of them: both Racer and Orient versions (7 at the last count). See this other thread: My newest incoming J39908-70 - Variations on a theme: Part V

So it appears that a third Orient J39 had been involved in this clandestine parts swapping exercise. 

Needless to say, I was less than impressed at discovering this wilful deception - and the air briefly turned blue !!   

Incidentally, that wrong J39908-70 case-back was only screwed on finger tight - and the O-ring case-back gasket was missing ! 

Not what you'd expect from an allegedly NOS watch. 

Still I suppose I should be grateful this one had the correctly stamped Orient J3920 movement. 

I then turned my attention to the gunmetal coated J39.

No real nasty surprises with this one. The eBay seller's photos were pretty clear, so I had a good idea what to expect.

Peeling off the case-back protective sticker, the full model number was indeed J39016-70 - as I'd already surmised.

The replacement Seiko 7A38A movement that had been fitted looked very secondhand in the cold light of day.

And so to the burning question ....

Had the Italian eBay seller swapped the dial / movements around between these two watches to make one of them more saleable ?

OK - so I'd more or less pre-judged the outcome from almost the first moment I clapped eyes on them (per my first post), but such allegations need to be proven. The evidence is provided by Orient Watch Co., in the relationship that exists between the dial part number and the watch case it is intended to be used in. They're not always consistent in the format they allocate dial part numbers, but the dial part number always includes J392 (from the J3920 movement caliber) and a partial of the case-back model number.

I did try to photograph the dial part numbers with the movements in situ, but as both watches have domed crystals and the gunmetal coloured one had a nasty crack in the crystal right above the dial part number, there was only one thing for it - pop them out.

This is the dial / movement that came out of the allegedly NOS gold-tone J39930-70 (fitted with the wrong J39908-70 case-back).

The dial part number is J392 0167-015. The 0167 part indicates that it correctly belongs in the gunmetal J39016-70 watch case.

This is the champagne / gold coloured dial (mounted on a Seiko 7A38A movement) that came out of the gunmetal J39016-70 case.

The dial part number is J3929307-AO8 from which the 9307 part indicates it rightfully belongs in the gold-tone J39930-70 case.

Only reason I posted that second close-up photo is that it better shows some paint loss around the boss of the constant seconds sub-dial hand, where it had been pulled. You can also see the 30 minute sub-dial hand has been re-fitted badly - well off its marks.

As a direct comparison with the two 'as received' side-by-side photos I posted yesterday morning ....

Here are the two dial / movements fitted in their correct respective J39 watch cases - just as Orient Watch Co. originally intended.

The J39016-70 looking dark and slightly quirky (but right, nevertheless) ....

.... and the delightfully pretty J39930-70 looking like the classic dress watch it was meant to be:

The plaintiff's case against Italian eBay seller pinup50miss conclusively proven, M'Lud .... 

Viz: That they knowingly listed and sold a Franken watch (made from 3 watches) mis-represented as NOS and original vintage.

Needless to say I shall be emailing the seller, expressing my displeasure - and including a link to this thread. 

Dependent on their response, they may be looking at one, or possibly two strongly worded VERY Negative feedbacks ! 

Over the last couple of days I had sent the Italian eBay seller pinup50miss a total of 4 messages via eBay and one direct email.

My demands were quite clear and concise:

I wanted a substantial partial refund against the (Best Offer) price I had paid for the J39930-70 Franken ....

and for them to supply the missing parts removed: the correct J39930-70 case-back and Orient J3920 movement / back-plate.

Late last night they finally replied to one of my eBay messages - inviting me to return both watches for a refund.  

They had clearly either not understood / bothered to read, or had deliberately chosen to ignore what I had written. 

Big mistake.   They how have two factually worded Negative feedbacks, which I believe they rightfully deserve:

I felt justified in leaving the second negative feedback (against the mis-represented J39016-70 listing) for the simple reason that they had included the word 'ORIGINAL' in their listing title, when watch was clearly not (at all) original.

Incidentally, their eBay business seller details are as false as their watch descriptions:

The seller is actually Francesco Crispino (presumably the bearded 'gent' whose reflection is visible in some of his photos).

I suspect Anonetta Palumbo (if indeed she was a pin-up in 1950) is his grandmother's name ! 

I plan to make a start at rectifying these two Orient J39's this weekend. I'm really looking forward to restoring the J39016-70 to its former albeit slightly quirky-looking glory. However I'm also a little nervous because of one particularly tricky task that will involve.

Meantime, I've been busy googling - trying to find any reference to (let alone a picture of) either J39 model .... without success. 

However, I did get somewhat lucky with the Orient HFA (7T32) equivalents of the J39016-70, which use a very similar case design.

Remember I wrote this two weeks ago:

The second one I found partly answers the question about the seller's peculiar listing titles:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331536055068

These two watch cases are clearly the 7T32 equivalent of what I've assumed (prior to its arrival) of the Orient J39016-70.

One is obviously the same gunmetal finish and the other gold tone. Oddly they share the same unusual Tachymeter ring.

Yesterday (more by luck than judgement), I found another eBay listing by Italian seller pinup50miss for a complete HFA017-70 ! 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231870474533

I'd missed it before simply because this seemingly incompetent seller has rolled the model number 'HFA042' into 'Orient', in his efforts to cram as many words into the title as possible.  Although the case-back model number is obscured by a paper sticker - and despite the seller's demonstrated * propensity for swapping dials and case-backs, I think it's safe to assume this is a HFA017-70.

My next '7T32 equivalent' find really was a fluke. I'd meant to type Orient J39016-70 into the Google search window ....

Instead, I subconsciously typed Orient HFA016-70 .... and found this ended CataWiki auction from Februray 2016:

http://auction.catawiki.co.uk/kavels/4362101-orient-chronograph-gentlemen-s-wrist-watch-1990-s

Quartz - Gun-colour steel - without box or papers. 

Gentlemen's Orient chronograph watch with alarm.

Gun-colour with grey dial and gold-coloured seconds hand, minutes and alarm.

Number: HFA016-70CS.

Case diameter excluding crown is 40 mm.

Case thickness: 12 mm

Length of the black leather strap is 21 cm including the case.

Water resistant to 5 ATM.

Year: 1992

Convex mineral glass.

The watch is worn and has minor signs of wear. A new battery has been supplied by a registered jeweller.

The watch is in perfect condition. It will be carefully packed and sent by recorded delivery.

* Although I hadn't written anything at the time, I had previously spotted that the empty gunmetal (HFA042-70) watch case listed by pinup50miss was stamped SS+GP (and CA), when it should of course correctly read IPA (and CS) - like the HFA016-70 above. During my recent Google searches on Orient HFA, I was reminded what a HFA042-70 should actually look like. There really was no excuse for my memory lapse.  I already had one in my pile of 7T32 restoration projects. It's another of those Breitbling clones. 

So yet another instance of this wilfully deceitful Italian eBay seller irresponsibly slapping on any old case-back to make a sale. 

Apart from Italian eBay seller pinup50miss erroneous use of HFA in his listing titles for the two Orient J39's ....

My interest in comparing them stems from a belief that the HFA and J39 may share some common components.

I'd already written earlier (referring to the two empty HFA cases): Oddly they share the same unusual Tachymeter ring.

But of course what I need to restore the J39016-70, more than anything, is to find a replacement for that badly cracked crystal.

The only place I've ever found any Orient J39 case parts information is Boley.de's database.

But it's clearly missing the data for literally dozens of other Racer and Orient variants - not to mention the J39016-70.

Fortunately a search on their database returns rather more HFA's: 

So if I'm correct in my assumption that they share common parts, the crystal for the J39016-70 could  be Orient p/n 16-6177c. 

That said, knowing what the Orient crystal part number might be is not likely to buy me anything. 

I've known the part numbers 16-4578c (used on a number of Racer / Orient J39's and HFA's and Puma Y19's) and 16-4085c (used on the J39908-70) for years. I've never managed to find any stock of them and instead have resorted to using a variety of generic replacement crystals. Orient Watch Co. have been no help. Neither have Seiko Instruments who probably supplied them. 

This crystal used in the J39016-70 is a bit of an oddball too. It's certainly by far the biggest crystal I've seen used in any 7A38 to date.

With it still in situ, I reckon it's 35.0mm diameter - compared to the 38.5mm diameter of the watch case. It's a high double convex with a polished bevel edge, presumably intended to refract some of the Tachymeter scale printing. Haven't yet managed to measure how thick it is, but I'm assuming it's between 1.0mm - 1.5mm. Oh Yes - and as signified by CS on the case-back it's glued in ! 

I had a look through my stock of domed crystals and found these two Seiko crystals I'd purchased way back and never used ....

They're both double-domed and have polished bevel edges - but although the right proportions are way too small @ 30.5mm Ø.

So once I've got it out, I suspect I'll end up taking pot luck from Cousins UK range of double-domed replacement crystals.

Worse still the Tachymeter ring doesn't seem to be removable; it appears to be an integral machined part of the watch case:

So next step will be to go and re-read this old thread in The Workshop section. Wish me luck this afternoon ! 

Last couple of pics for now, before I go and hit the workbench, plus a belated correction to something I wrote in my original post:

Not wishing to pre-judge the outcome, prior to their arrival, one is supposedly ‘New Old Stock’ and the other is a ‘spares or repairs’ parts watch – a head only without bracelet, which has evidently already been messed about with.

Now I've had a chance to closely examine the J39016-70 (and having seen photos of the equivalent HFA016-70 and HFA017-70) ....

It's abundantly clear that those slender lugs were meant to hold a leather strap - not any kind of bracelet. 

Typically, as with virtually all Racer / Orient J39 models I've encountered that came on leather straps, it's that odd 19mm lug width.

I wanted something fairly slim (and ideally glossy) that would match the black dial and / or gunmetal watch case.

For the time being at least, I've found this very plain matt black Condor strap:

Something of a belated footnote to this thread ....

Those of you who've read through it will, no doubt, have gathered my annoyance at the Italian pinup50miss eBay seller's deceiptful tactics. To briefly recap, they'd fitted the champagne / gold dial from a gold-tone Orient J39930-70 into the gunmetal black coated watch case of a J39016-70 (and visa versa) in their efforts to sell two watches as allegedly 'NOS'. There were other issues besides, including a wrong case-back and a distinctly suspect duff Seiko 7A38 movement fitted.

Amusingly as it transpires, it seems there was actually a bone fide version of the Orient J39016-70 that came fitted with a champagne / gold coloured dial - the correct dial being easily recognizable from that large round gold dot at '12'.

Every now and then, I'll google the various known Racer / Orient model numbers (and other permutations of them) to see if any new information has been posted elsewhere. Earlier this evening, I got as far as J39016-70 and found a fairly recent thread on the Swedish watch forum Klocksnack.se. It starts with a post by a newbie asking for help in identifying a watch which belonged to his grandfather. I've used Google to translate from the original Swedish.

http://klocksnack.se/threads/hjälp-att-identifiera-klocka.80179

Hjälp att identifiera klocka

The photos in the OP's link aren't the best. That said, the first image was, much to my surprise, actually sharp enough to enable me to zoom in and read the part number off the bottom of the dial. See crop below.

Zoom and crop from first photo reveals the dial part number to be J392 0167-015. That it's exactly the same part number as the black dial in my watch isn't any great surprise. Seiko Instruments (SI), who made these dials, don't seem to differentiate between dial colours - at least not by their dial p/n markings; although there may well have been other control documents covering this. Instead, the last 2 or 3 digit suffix appears to signify the dial design. That said (as I've pointed out previously), Orient Watch Co. don't appear to have been particularly consistent in their allocation of case model numbers. 

Further down that thread another member of Klocksnack.se had posted a link to this thread. I took exception to the OP's response: 

I look further down the thread that he actually has a watch that has the same model number as my "gunmetal coated J39". However, it did not give much information.

There's no pleasing some people !!