I used to think it was clever to confuse comedy with tragedy. Now I wish I could distinguish them. John le Carré
Last edited: 3 May, 2015 - 09:15
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
clepsydra Wrote:Tritium, as all radioactive elements, degrades over time. The half life of tritium is circa 12 years. The paint in that watch is circa 40 years old, and the tritium in it has degraded considerably.Some collectors may choose to restore the watches to their original condition. It is their prerogative. The owner of this watch, like myself, prefer to leave them as they are.
Last edited: 1 April, 2015 - 15:37
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
Last edited: 25 February, 2015 - 17:29
Michael Friedberg Wrote:Is there any more info on the Ref 2612/Mark 11? Has the watch been submitted to Schaffhausen for a Certificate? Is so, I'd be curious as to the original buyer --was it the SAAF or a civilian retailer or a distributor?I ask because a civilian Mark 11 (ref. 2612) as here appears to have been "converted" to military markings. That could have been done by the military or someone else, and I think tracing the provenance, to the extent possible, would be critical. A Certificate from Schaffhausen would be the first step.
Last edited: 5 January, 2014 - 15:39
clepsydra Wrote:Hi Michael,This SAAF Mark 11 is not mine, and the owner is not trying to sell it. It is a keeper in his collection, and the collector is not interested in obtaining the CoG.This Mark 11, was "lost" in a drawer and escaped the hammer when the Mark 11s were decommissioned from the SAAF. It was later given to the current owner, as "good for parts", by a SAAF watchmaker, as it no longer in the SAAF inventory.I contacted IWC with the case/movement numbers, and they confirmed it is an authentic Ref 2612, and added that it was NOT originally sold to the South African AD, as I had theorized. IWC did not identify the first owner and I did not ask.Can you use your clout to find that out?