The Watch Site banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think many of us (myself included) tend to use the word 'beater' when what we mean is 'rugged daily wearer'. For example, I have a slightly battered 6309-7040 with relumed hands which I can wear daily without worry, however, when taking my toddler to the playground I wince if it hits a climbing frame or if I have to tumble with him in the sand-pit.

So what I wanted was a true beater, an adventure playground and DIY friendly watch that I was happy enough to have on my wrist (sorry G-shock fans, but I just can't get on with the looks, even if they are the obvious beater choice!) and preferably quartz for since beater-watch mornings are often I-don't-want-to-wave-my-watch-for-30sec-then-reset-it mornings.

Enter this chap from the ever-reliable Reckness:



Just what I was after. Sold as a project watch but all I did was straighten the crooked chapter ring, relube all the gaskets and give the case and bezel a thorough clean (including the sharpie someone had 'repaired' the bezel with.)

And voila, the perfect £30 beater:



Really like it - a bit like a slimline 7548. My only complaint is that the case is too small to carry a 22mm strap, luckily James Bond has set a precedent here...

Anyone know when these were made? I'm assuming this is from 88 due to the serial, but the battery change dates start in 91. Is it plausible they'd miss off 3 years or is this from 98?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
1988 would be the correct date. Seiko would expect the original battery to last 3 years, hence the first battery change date shown is 1991.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #5

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
I'm betting yours was used as it should be. Mine is a desk diver, save the scratch on the insert which came from hiking.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top