Seiko 7A38 - by the numbers

Here's an interesting one. 

If you've followed this topic in the eBay section:

http://www.seiko7a38.com/apps/forums/topics/show/7488840-yet-another-7axx-on-an-undisclosed-non-original-bracelet-

.... then you'll probably have gathered that one of the most commonly seen Seiko 7A38's fitted with (usually patently obvious)

incorrect replacement bracelets is the stainless 7A38-7190, sales code model # SAA053J. Here's a UK catalogue illustration:

I've had a few pass through my hands, over the years - including a couple that were in almost NOS condition, that I still own:

I've also had a couple of other lesser examples, one of which I specifically remember buying with the intention of breaking it for parts.

What usually lets this particular model down is the bracelet. Although the main (folded) link sections themselves look fairly strong, it's the small 'U' channel section joining links between them that are weak and prone to stretching and breakage.

According to Seiko Oceania's database, there only ever was one bracelet part number used on the stainless 7A38-7190 SAA053J - B1405S. (They're actually stamped B1405.E on the underside of the end link joining tubes). Same for all three variants: J1, J8 and J9.

Those of you who have studied 7A38's in any great detail will no doubt have realized that the same basic lozenge shaped watch case of the 7A38-7190 was also used on other models in the range: the 7A38-7180 and 7A38-7290 (in black chrome) and right across all the different 7A38-7270 / -727A / -727B sub-range (in all-stainless, two-tone and SGP gold plated finishes).

So, as far as fitting goes, it's logical that all their 18mm lug width fixing bracelets would 'theoretically' be inter-changeable. Right ? 

What got me started thinking about this was a stainless 7A38-7190 listed by the well-known Italian eBay seller strega_68 earlier today:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281092574698

My initial reaction, because of the ridiculous Buy-it-Now asking price of $750 was to post it in the eBay 'Craziest Prices' thread. I was about to add it onto the other fairly well-trafficked topic in that section about incorrect replacement undisclosed non-original bracelets.

But then the eBay seller's frequently abused claim of MEGA RARE in their listing title (which a stainless 7A38-7190 certainly isn't) made me pause for thought - momentarily. Because, although 'on paper' this watch is theoretically a 'wrong un', it also 'looks right'. 

The reason the bracelet looks right, on this particular watch head, is because it's a Seiko p/n B1615S - as normally seen fitted to the stainless 7A38-7270. Zoom in on the photo of the case-back and you can see B1615.E stamped into the bracelet end link fixing tubes.

Problem is, if you do a reverse look-up (i.e. ask 'where used' ?) on Seiko Oceania's database, B1615S only returns these (3) results:

Being: the stainless black-faced 7A38-7270 (which presumably everyone is familiar with); the far-less-commonly seen stainless silver-faced 7A38-727A and the even scarcer off-white faced 7A38-727B. No reference to this bracelet being used on the 7A38-7190 at all.

So why didn't I just dismiss this as strega_68 being smarter than your average eBay watch-botching bracelet-swapping seller ? 

Because I've previously seen a couple of other stainless 7A38-7190's fitted with the B1615S bracelet - on eBay, back in October 2010:

Although photos may look similar, this is not the same 7A38-7190, but another listed by the same seller - note different serial number:

It took me a while to find them in the eBay seller's feedback, but here are what I believe were the original eBay listings in October 2010:

But do two wrongs (above history) - or in this case potentially three wrongs, with strega_68's 7A38-7190 on a B1615S make it right ?

I'm still not so sure, personally. 

You see, in the same month October 2010, this same seller - a US 7A38 collector who was off-loading a sizeable part of his collection, also sold this stainless 7A38-7190 fitted with the correct original (albeit somewhat stretched) Seiko p/n B1405S bracelet:

The eBay listing description used (and feedback he left) were identical to the previous two:

That 'correct' stainless 7A38-7190 was followed closely by the sale of yet another in November 2010, except this one was UNIQUE. 

Indeed it was !  

Although (apart from the 'UNIQUE' black Tachymeter ring) it may have looked very much like the two stainless 7A38-7190's fitted with 'wrong' B1615S bracelets previously sold by this same person, it was in all likelihood, originally a stainless (black-dialed) 7A38-7270 fitted with (the same) white 710L dial and movement and case-back from a stainless 7A38-7280 - in other words: a proper Franken !

So, if this collector (or the watchmaker he used) was capable of nailing together something like the above - who is to say that he wasn't equally as capable of swapping knackered or broken p/n B1405S bracelets on two stainless 7A38-7190's for a couple of p/n B1615S bracelets off stainless 7A38-7270's ? Ergo - three wrongs (even if they're the same wrongs) don't necessarily make it right, do they ?

Thoughts anybody ? 

O.K. How about 4 wrongs ? 

Because tonight, another stainless 7A38-7190 fitted with the same 'wrong' p/n B1615S bracelet was listed by a Portuguese seller:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221215790943

But is this actually another, or in reality just a simple case of Déjà vu ? 

Looking at this seller's photo of his watch's case-back, the serial number, relative position of the yellowed JWC inspection sticker ....

.... suddenly look all too familiar. This appears to be one of the 7A38-7190's + B1615S bracelet sold by pgpmd back in October 2010:

Hard to quite make out the serial number in both photos, but it's something like 651231. Other than that, everything else points to it.

For me, apart from the perfectly identical alignment of the case-back, this small scratch under the 'A' of the 7A38-7190 clinches it. 

Only problem being that this Portuguese eBay seller's ID doesn't match any of those who purchased 7A38-7190's from pgpmd in late 2010. But then again, one of those buyers was watch-co-usa - a prolific eBay watch dealer, who likely sold it to the current Portuguese seller. Unfortunately there's no proving it conclusively from feedback. Then again, like many of us, he may use another ID for buying.

Although I'd already proven it was the same 7A38-7190 fitted with a 'wrong' B1615S bracelet, s/n 651231 from the two sets of photos,

.... I will admit that it was bugging the hell out of me that I couldn't tie the current seller to pgpmd through the eBay feedback chain. 

So I thought I'd try messaging the Portuguese seller, and ask him directly who he'd bought if from. You can but try. 

He was a bit evasive at first, but we got there in the end:

I buy in Ebay on 15-10-2010.

Seller: pgpmd ( Bid history - Bidders: 10, Bids: 22 )

Item location: Wild Wonderful West Virginia, United States

Post to: Worldwide

Which ties in perfectly with the dates I saved the photos from pgpmd's eBay listing - 7 days earlier on 8-10-2010. Case closed M'Lud. 

Case re-opened, persuant to new evidence. 

Here follows a slightly edited copy and paste of something very much related, that I posted earlier this morning in another thread in eBay forum section (before I also rembered the existence of this one).

Had I not remembered the existence of this thread, I probably otherwise would have posted this here: Yet another 7Axx on an undisclosed non-original bracelet ....

5 years on since Don and I last discussed it, another Seiko p/n B1339S bracelet (stamped B1339.E) turned up fitted to a stainless 7A38-7190 (as opposed to the previous stainless 7A38-7270's), listed by a German seller, earlier this morning:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233652447542

I'm only going to bother up loading the eBay seller's last two photos:

The seller's description states: Mit dem original Seiko Edelstahl Band.

Funnily enough, only yesterday I'd posted this wrist shot in the WRUW thread, of my second string stainless 7A38-7190 SAA053J fitted with what is generally accepted as being the correct Seiko p/n B1405S bracelet (i.e. as shown on their database):

Of course the stainless 7A38-7190 and stainless 7A38-7270 share the exact same hooded lug watch case, with 18mm lug width fitting. But thinking way back (7 years ago) this isn't the only instance I've seen of something very similar. Indeed, I asked myself the question back then in what was effectively a dedicated topic (i.e. here).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where this example differs from those previously discussed in this thread, 7 years ago, is that this 7A38-7190 is fitted with a very similar appearing Seiko p/n B1339S bracelet, which is normally found on the quartz analogue 8C23-6050 or -6059.

I know for a fact, that some Seiko service centres have retro-fitted alternative similar appearing replacement bracelets to customers' watches, when stocks of the correct original bracelet were no longer available. But would Seiko manufacturing have done the same, had there been a supply problem during a production batch run ? Perhaps they may have done so under the guidance of a temporary manufacturing deviation / exception notice. I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of it.