The semantics of watch sales are always 'interesting'. Martin's post hits some nails squarely on the head - and the point about using 'rare' is well made. I think it is ok to describe a piece as 'rare' if it actually is, but of course it's a relative term so people need to be careful with it and certainly not use it routinely. For example, I have recently used the term in a for sale post (watch is now sold) since it was a Seiko 6118, and has been described by others on the (old) forum as rare, or seldom seen, and I have only seen one or two for sale on eBay over the last couple of years so I thought it was reasonable to attract a bit of attention since potential buyers might not know the movement. Ultimately though, I guess users of the SCTF do know their watches, so use of the word 'rare' is probably superfluous anyway! :
Sweephand
Sweephand
