Seiko 7A38 - by the numbers

It seems to be an accepted norm amongst watch enthusiasts, to give nicknames to certain models, rather than correctly refer to them by their manufacturers' catalogue reference. I'm not just talking about Seiko - the practice is widespread in the Rolex community, with nicknames like 'Batman', 'Double Red' 'Pepsi', 'Root Beer', 'Kermit', 'Hulk', etc. in common parlance. I came across this blog article documenting some, if not all of them.

I'll admit to having used a few myself, for certain Yema N8 variants, including 'Breguet Classique Clone' for the N81W63; 'Pseudo Plongeur' for the N80P896 and 'La bête grande couronne vissée' for the N81X26 - but only as descriptors. They're all far too long to ever catch on.

I also had a momentary lapse and once used 'Darth Maul' to refer to the 7A38-6070 SAA073J (before Seiko introduced their Star Wars limited edition).

However, I suspect most readers have already sussed that I'm a bit of a stickler. Call me a pedant, if you like. When referring to a specific Seiko 7A38 variant, I'll regularly not only quote the case-back model number, but also the Seiko sales code, for example '7A38-7020 SAA009J' and sometimes include the watch's finish, in this case 'stainless', to differentiate it from the two-tone variant with the same case-back model number (SAA010J). But that's just me.

The use of nicknames on other Seiko models is endemic. Some, like 'Arnie', 'Pogue', 'Ripley', 'Willard' can be attributed to real persons or actors in films who wore them, but a few like Pogue and Ripley are often misused to describe other variants. Then you've got the other kind, like 'Ashtray', 'Monster', 'Samurai', 'Stargate', 'Sumo', 'Turtle', 'Tuna' etc., etc. There are a large number of online blog articles, which attempt to document them all. Just Google 'Seiko Nicknames'.

Whether people use them to be seen as part of 'the in crowd', out of sheer laziness, or simply have the memory span of a goldfish, I have no absolutely no idea.

Many of these Seiko nicknames emanate from the SCWF. One that has come to prominence in recent years, used to annotate, hype and misrepresent Seiko 7A38-702x variants, which quite frankly makes my piss boil is 'Royal Oak'.

It's regularly used in eBay listings (and on just about every other sales platform) to describe (I use that term advisedly) the stainless 7A38-7020 SAA009J and US export equivalent 7A38-7029 SAA013J. Not just them exclusively, but also the two-tone 7A38-7020/A/H variants and wherever else any keyword-spamming seller decides to chuck it into the mix. Having been produced in volume over a number years, these watches are relatively common. Despite that, their prices continue to spiral in response to increasing demand. Some of this is undoubtedly due to speculators and a certain few profiteering eBay re-sellers, who have attempted to monopolize them solely for their own financial gain. Although not entirely to blame, I believe the 'Royal Oak' association may also be a contributory factor - for gullible first time buyers who might aspire to owning the real thing. Here's a prime example of the 'Royal Oak' effect that I spotted recently.

Earlier this week, a German eBay seller listed a stainless 7A38-7020 in average worn condition, with a Buy-it-Now price of 325 Euros. Compared to some other recent examples, that almost seemed reasonable. I added it to my eBay watching page, expecting it to be gone by the morning - it was, withdrawn by the seller because of an alleged error in the listing.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SEIKO-PANDA- ... 3894116502


He subsequently re-listed it the following afternoon, with the Buy-it-Now price increased to 495 Euros !!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SEIKO-PANDA- ... 3894973832


Seems he'd omitted to include the 'Royal Oak' value adder first time around.

Thing is, when used or abused in the context of Seiko 7A38-702x's, the 'Royal Oak' moniker is a complete misnomer.
Here's a handy side-by-side comparison shot which was posted on Instagram a few days ago, by the self-appointed lord_of.the_watches (another misnomer), which aptly demonstrates my point.


The late Gerald Genta's clean original design for the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, conceived in 1970, was introduced to much acclaim at the Basel watch fair in 1972, as a simple two hander with date, in stainless steel, as the model 4502.


It wasn't until 1993 (10 years after the Seiko 7A38) that the first chronograph version appeared as the 'Offshore'.


The smaller 39mm diameter version of Audemars Piguet Royal Oak chronograph, with conventional tri-compax subdials @ 3, 6 and 9 (and date @ 4:30) didn't appear until another 5 years later in 1998. Having spent a considerable time googling them, the closest-appearing AP Royal Oak that I could find (to the eponymous Seiko 7A38), is this current slightly larger 41mm diameter model 26320, which incidentally retails for £20,500 !!

(Cropped image courtesy of and copyright aBlogtoWatch - full article here: Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Chronograph 41mm watch review)

To quote Audemars Piguet, from their own website: The most iconic aspect of the Royal Oak collection is its recognizable octagonal bezel shape attached with eight hexagonal screws.


It also has hexagonal crown and pusher cups and a fully integrated bracelet, unlike our much loved Seiko 7A38.


For the benefit of the partially sighted and those of limited arithmetic ability, the most recognisable feature of the 7A38-7020 SAA009J (and its siblings) is a 12-sided dodecahedral bezel with 12 dummy rivets cast into it ! The angled ends of its watch case may taper in a similar manner to the AP Royal Oak, but the bracelet is in no way integrated. It is merely a narrow central 10mm fixing. In fact, if you start analyzing and comparing details, all they have in common are that they're both stainless steel chronographs, in a brushed finish, with constant seconds sub-dials @ 6 o'clock !

So the $64K question is: which half-wit came up with the wholly inappropriate 'Royal Oak' misnomer in the first place ? As I wrote earlier, I believe this one, like so many others, originated a few years ago on the SCWF. So I've spent an hour or so running various advanced searches on SCWF trying to identify the progenitor.

This post dated 23rd November 2016 by Filipino member 850champion appears to have sowed the 'Royal Oak' acorn.


He's quoting a post by German member Mr.Jones (Jonas), from the previous page, but unfortunately Jonas's embedded photos have disappeared into the ether. Neither did he post the model numbers, so one can't state conclusively that he was actually referring to a 7A38-7020, but the colours (taupe is a shade of brown) could well point to that.

Funnily enough, 18 months earlier, in March 2015, Jonas had contributed to another SCWF thread by posting this:


Apart from the circular bezel, the watch does bear a passing resemblance to the original Genta-designed two-hander. The preceding post included a photo of an Eberhardt watch, which clearly was an intentional rip-off of the AP Royal Oak design, right down to the gently rounded octagonal bezel with screws. That screenshot was actually Jonas's second post in the thread. In his previous one he'd written: The "Genta" Style was very often found in these days, the "original" is most likely the Audemars Piguet "Royal Oak". At this stage, there were no hints of any comparison with the Seiko 7A38.

I've searched SCWF fairly rigorously and the first use of the term 'Royal Oak' to describe a 7A38-7020 (albeit in lower case), appears to be this post, by Dutch Seiko collector Peter Gnodde, in starting an 'incoming' thread on 19th February 2017:


The first FS advert on the SCWF Trading Post for a 7A38-7020, including 'Royal Oak', was made by his Dutch compatriot BigV86 soon afterwards, appearing on 1st March 2017:


Much to my annoyance and dismay, US SCWF member cfw posted this worn but perfectly wearable two-tone 7T34-7A10 in starting a new thread, entitled Seiko Royal Oak on 18th August 2017:


He went on to comprehensively ruin the watch by stripping the remaining gold plating and re-brushing it rather too coarsely, somehow managing to obliterate the Tachymeter ring's printing in the process. In early December 2017, he posted a FS advert on SCWF Trading post, asking a ludicrous $350 for his botched handiwork. That advert appears to have been deleted, for infringement of SCWF rules, but I've found this parallel FS advert he placed on WatchUseek:


He followed up his (deleted) SCWF FS post by starting another thread entitled: Seiko Royal Oak strap help which was obviously a covert plug for his FS post. At which point, I decided to put him straight by voicing my opinions in this post:


Meanwhile, more to my amusement, Pippy (a.k.a Phil Neville) posted this unusual 7T92-0FW0 variant in a WRUW thread on 19th October 2017, officially claiming responsibility for the 'Royal Oak' moniker:


Bless him.

Seiko7A38 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:07 pm So the $64K question is: which half-wit came up with the wholly inappropriate 'Royal Oak' misnomer in the first place ?

I think I've found him at last ! We have a winner (or should I say culprit) and it goes back much further than 2016 !

I was googling something else, related to the US market 7A38-7029, this morning: AA013M, which now appears to be an alternate sales code for SAA013J (which I'd always known it as). I came across an old archived thread on TimeZone.com, dating back to September 2004. It's title is: Very late Scan Day: a poor man's Royal Oak?

It includes 3 interleaved posts by 'Anonymous' (probably meaning he's been banned or less likely left of his own accord), who signed himself as 'Bob'. There's a certain irony to his rhetorical question(s) in his second post.


The photo in his first post may have long since disappeared into the ether, but his repetition of AA013M, points to this anonymous poster being the same 'Bob' who's posted in a similar manner, in a similarly themed thread on WatchuSeek, much more recently - in January 2017, right around the time of the 'Royal Oak' misnomer resurgence.


.... and his post from the previous page as affirmation of guilt:

Yep, it’s a Royal Oak Seiko 7T92-0FX0.

Sorry, Paul, but your 'Royal Oak' wannabe doesn't make the cut; too rounded case and not enough 'dummy rivets'.

On a more serious note, this stupid practice of making up inappropriate nicknames continues unabated. I found another prime example yesterday, posted on Instagram by Erik Strickland - a respected US watch collector, who has since gone down in my estimation. On Friday he posted his recently acquired ex-Yahoo Japan 7A38-7050 on Instagram. I've already written about it here (in the appropriate thread).



Note the partial sentence lower down his caption:

- the 7a38 came in many designs (see seiko7a38.com) - and this is one of my absolute favorites along with the Red Tide.

Whereas I was grateful for the free plug, my first reaction on seeing 'Red Tide' was WTF ???

Initially, I thought Erik might be referring to the 7A38-6050 SJS058 or 7A38-6070 SAA073J 'divers', both whose designs include a considerable amount of red (the former notably in its dial printing). So I scrolled through his Instagram feed looking for a photo of them, but found neither. Instead I came across this post he made earlier this week:



Note these sentences from his caption:

.... and the 7a38-7030 ‘Red Tide.’ Yeah, no nickname yet, but it has a titanium case and bracelet, red details and a double-wave back - so let’s see if that sticks. The Giugiaro-designed Ripley has become a collector darling - even reissued not long ago - but the Red Tide (repetition, heh) was the top of the line - 100k jpy to the Ripley’s 48k.

Given that two other 7A38's have much greater red content and that the 7A38-7030's CHRONOGRAPH dial script frequently fades to beige, I'd opine this is another ill-considered choice of nickname. The titanium 7A38-7030 has other distinctive features, such as the large square pyramid-like pushers that make it 'stand out from the crowd'. Perhaps 'Titihuacan' (from Teotihuacan) might be more appropriate. But that would be difficult for the mindless sheep to remember.

Somehow, I don't think Erik's stupid nickname will stick. I'd even go so far as to say it's already 'washed up'. Try googling images of 'Red Tide' and this is one the first results returned ! (From a BBC News article dated 24th August 2018).


The last few words of the caption are a touch ironic !

I have personally experienced Red Tide on Florida’s Gulf of Mexico. When it's bad enough, it can sometimes significantly affect human breathing. Now that you’ve introduced me to your “evil” black and red 7A38-6070 SAA073J, I would think that’s the one more deserving of the nickname.

Seiko7A38 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:38 pmI also had a momentary lapse and once used 'Darth Maul' to refer to the 7A38-6070 SAA073J (before Seiko introduced their Star Wars limited edition).

However, I suspect most readers have already sussed that I'm a bit of a stickler. Call me a pedant, if you like. When referring to a specific Seiko 7A38 variant, I'll regularly not only quote the case-back model number, but also the Seiko sales code ....

The 7A38-6070 SAA073J (correct descriptor) already has an appropriately evil nickname, Jim. The one I gave it.

Seiko7A38 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:09 amSorry, Paul, but your 'Royal Oak' wannabe doesn't make the cut; too rounded case and not enough 'dummy rivets'.

I was searching eBay Germany this morning, looking for something else (which I didn't find) and stumbled across another potential candidate for the Seiko 'Royal Oak' mis-nomer / nickname. Like Paul's 'Royal Oak' wannabe, the bezel is rather too rounded and lacking in 'dummy rivets', but the angled case ends and semi-integrated bracelet are rather closer to the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak. The case also has shades of Patek Philippe Nautilus about it. It's a Seiko 6923-5130.

Seiko7A38 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 am Thing is, when used or abused in the context of Seiko 7A38-702x's, the 'Royal Oak' moniker is a complete misnomer.
Here's a handy side-by-side comparison shot which was posted on Instagram a few days ago, by the self-appointed lord_of.the_watches (another misnomer), which aptly demonstrates my point.

Funnily enough, another similar hand-held comparison shot of a stainless 7A38-7020 and A-P Royal Oak 4100 came up in my Instagram feed yesterday, posted by hoangkhoi1207. I'm not sure what point he was making (other than expressing joy), but the complete lack of any similarity between them is patently obvious, to all but those too blind to see.

I have another worthy candidate for the title of Seiko's 'Royal Oak'...



Amusingly enough, I actually own this watch, which I inherited from my dad.

That’s a very handsome watch. Classy.

I’ve found that the watches providing the most enjoyment when worn are the ones received from family or friends, either gifted or inherited. Wearing them usually brings back the positive feelings about those personal attachments.

Watch blogger and Instagram poster Serge Panczuk, a.k.a. thewristplorer, who evidently specializes in watch spotting / identification, attempted to assign a rather inappropriate nickname to another Seiko 7A38 last month - the 'Savimbi'.

He made three posts on the subject on 19th June. Here's screen grabs of two of them:




Angolan UNITA warlord / politician Jonas Savimbi wore a stainless 7A38-7000 SAA007J between 1985 and 1990 ((among other watches). Probably the clearest shot of him wearing the watch is his meeting with US president Ronald Reagan at the White House in 1986.



Having received 356 likes to date, Serge's third post has finally made it to the top post ranking on hashtag #seiko7A38. Given Savimbi's unsavoury reputation, I suspect this is one nickname that won't be catching on anytime soon.