...okay...JeffH..SteveM..Orchi...come here...

[tudorman8276]

...this is a several time relist.

...the dial is obviously HIDDEOUS.

...the ref and ser# font appears to be fine, as previously agreed by SteveM, myself, and I think Orchi.

...the mvmt appears to be fine.

...HOWEVER, of INTEREST, as pointed out by vtime716 (James), the ser# is a 5 digit as opposed to the usual 6 digit found on the vintage 7928, 7016, 76100 etc.

...COMMENTS, please.

Stan.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=180296271968

[jeff hess]

I am not a Tudor expert. But is it possible that the glare is obliterating one of the numbers?

The seller admits freely that the dial is redone and that several things are not original and seems to have gone to great pains to show many different aspect of the watch by taking it apart to reveal everything.

[vtime716]

stan

if you remember last sept. 22 2008, my tudor sub 94110 was feature here in this forum.. you even compare the font of the reference and serial no. to that of other tudor model.. now this tudor listed in ebay has the same series 96X,XXX as that of mine. now you pointed out that the ref and ser# font of this tudor watch appears to be fine, while mine is incorrect. is that right?

[Terry Newton]

If he broke it down any further the movement would be in pieces.

It looks like a pile of parts itching to get back together.

Terry Newton

[Orchi]

Err buddy Stan...Orchi can see a couple of issues...

The Serial Nos. has 6 digits...either "196398" which should date it back to 1987/88...
or "963981" which should date it back to 1982 or so....the FONTS seem to be...correct.

Orchi is inclined to believe...the Serial Nos. should read...the latter "963981".



Seller's description says "9411/0"...but the case is stamped "94110" without the "/" which is incorrect...
as far as the listing description goes...the FONTS seem to be...correct.



The Hands...are relumed...which the Seller didn't mention...



The ETA movement "2784" would seem to be in order...

Orchi also concurs with buddy Jeff Hess...the Seller makes NO deliberate ATTEMPTS to hide...
ANY FACTS or FAULTS about the watch...

Good Seller....in Orchi's book...!

[vtime716]

orchi is right, the ser nos is 963,XXX......actually there is no problem with the watch. only that the dial is redone. everything seems to be in place.....the only thing i like to discuss is the font on the ser nos. my tudor sub 94110 ( upper one below) which has a serial nos of 966,XXX was featured here before and said to have an incorrect font on the serial nos. below are two pictures which we can compare......

[vtime716]

can you compare the font on the serial number of both watches?

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by vtime716

stan

if you remember last sept. 22 2008, my tudor sub 94110 was feature here in this forum.. you even compare the font of the reference and serial no. to that of other tudor model.. now this tudor listed in ebay has the same series 96X,XXX as that of mine. now you pointed out that the ref and ser# font of this tudor watch appears to be fine, while mine is incorrect. is that right?

...was in a thread, as stated, on 22 Sep and initiated by Orchi.

...we ARE of the opinion that the font comparisons of your watch against ANY of the vintage ones, ie 7928, 7016, 76100, and other 94110, are INCORRECT. Just compare the "4" stampings alone...your stampings are not even close to what they are supposed to be.

...I thought you wanted that discussion to be left to fade away.

Stan.

[Orchi]

Err buddies...Orchi concurs with buddy Stan on this issue...

The significant difference in FONTS aside...one would see that the wear n tear conditions
of on this watch over the years...is somewhat consistent...which does NOT
give rise to any cause for suspicion that the stamped nos. could be tampered
with or reproduced...as far as Orchi is concerned...



On the contrary...if one looks closely at the stamping of the Case Ref nos. on the following case...
one would see that POSSIBLY...the stamped Case Ref nos. look to be done fairly recently...which do
not seem consistent to the wear n tear conditions of the concerned case...




That having said...Orchi is NOT claiming to be any sort of an expert when it comes to this issue...
n again if Orchi may be allowed to repeat in here...

To each his own....

Oh btw...for the benefits of other new comers to this WatchOut forum who might be reading this
thread for the 1st time...here's the link to the original thread that Orchi started to highlight about
the questionable issues n discrepancies found on the watch which was said to be...
a "Tudor 94110 Submariner with S/No: 966424..."

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=51690

[jeff hess]

interesting thread. Slightly off topic, but a couple of questions. Is there a definitive book about Tudor? This has always fascinated me and is so very understudied. Would it be possible to start a serial number database on this forum? Have there ever been any instances of factory or repair center "overstamp" or reference number change as has been seen on Rolexes?
Jeff

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

interesting thread. Slightly off topic, but a couple of questions. Is there a definitive book about Tudor? This has always fascinated me and is so very understudied. Would it be possible to start a serial number database on this forum? Have there ever been any instances of factory or repair center "overstamp" or reference number change as has been seen on Rolexes?
Jeff

...NO literature on the Tudor line. Just bits and pieces of info here and there, in different ref materials etc.

...I remember seeing something in one of the threads here on TRF some ref to dating of the Tudor line. It was not complete, but seemed to be a very good starting point.

...If I can find the info, no matter where it was, I will PM you with the info.

...gotta go work in the yard and rotate tires on my ole truck. See ya all tonight.

Hope this helps, Stan.

[stevemulholland3]

there is a list of tudor numbers-it is a work in progress with many gaps right now.
if anyone has any contributions I can forward them to the lists benefactor.
here it is:
Year Least S/N
1960 28xxxx
1961 34xxxx
1962 36xxxx
1963 39xxxx
1964 43xxxx
1965 50xxxx
1966 56xxxx
1967 59xxxx
1968 62xxxx
1969 68xxxx
1970 74xxxx
1971 75xxxx
1972 77xxxx
1973 (*) 79xxxx
1974 (*) 81xxxx
1975 (*) 83xxxx
1976 (*) 84xxxx
1977 86xxxx
1978 (*) 88xxxx
1979 (*) 90xxxx
1980 (*) 93xxxx
1981 (*) 95xxxx
1982 97xxxx
1983 (*) 99xxxx
1984 29xxx
1985 14xxxx
1986 17xxxx
1987 (*) 19xxxx
1988 21xxxx
1989 26xxxx
1990 B33xxxx
1991 (*) B36xxxx
1992 B39xxxx
1993 B50xxxx
1994 B58xxxx
1995 B59xxxx
1996 B79xxxx
1997 B85xxxx
1998 B99xxxx
1999 H13xxxx

Remarks : * is the estimated S/N due to limited info



For Tudor Chrono

Model No. Approx S/N Range
703x/0 ~ 75x,xxx to ~ 76x,xxx
71x9/0 ~ 77x,xxx to ~ 84x,xxx
94xx/0, 94xx0 ~ 87x,xxx to ~ 26x,xxx
791x0 ~ 27x,xxx to ~ B 63x,xxx
792x0, 792x0P ~ B 63x,xxx to ~ H 74x,xxx

For Tudor Sub

Model No. Approx S/N Range
7922¡A7924 ~ 24x,xxx to 29x,xxx (Possible as early as 140K)
7928¡A7928/0 ~ 30,xxx to 62x,xxx
7016/0 ~ 62x,xxx to 82x,xxx (Possible as early as 570K)
7021/0 ~ 73x,xxx to 78x,xxx
9401/0¡A94010 ~ 84x,xxx to 1xx,xxx
9411/0, 94110 ~ 79x,xxx to 96x,xxx (Possible as late as 1x,xxx)
76100 ~ 70,xxx to 22x,xxx
7x090 ~ 30x,xxx to B67x,xxx
7x190 ~ B 67x,xxx to H 14x,xxx




special thanks to bagel.

[Orchi]

Err buddy Steve...with that well kept secret published...
it could be possible that the counterfeiters would get a hold
of those data...

n Real soon....they would improve upon their 'skills'...so to speak...

[stevemulholland3]

orchi,this list is already published on at least three sites.if they want it then they have it already.

[tudorman8276]

...thx for your help in researching this for all of us again.

Stan.

[vtime716]

thanks a lot for your time and discussion.....