An emailer asks: “Chuck, Where's a good place to buy NATO Straps?”

It occured to me that while I had some ideas for sources, I don't know that anyone has compiled a list of said sources. So I decided to share my response and post it in the blog with the idea that It would be a pointable place were we could list such staps, and if anyone reading this blog entry had their own suggestions, they are encouraged to post a comment with links.

Sound reasonable?

Ok, here were my suggestions:

The fellow I usually use is Ron Sabo/International Watchman:

http://www.internationalwatchman.com/home.html <---  Look under Watch Bands then Military

Here are some of Ron's more interesting Militaries:

The only rub against Ron (who's prices can't be beat) is that he has a $45-50 minimum order.  So so if you're a little short on your order, buy a $15 assortment of:

Spring bars... Sooner or later you know you'll shoot one across the room, might as well be prepared!

Another source that has been highle recommended to me is West Coast Time/Howard Marx. Who in addition to NATO's also offers British Regimental Color, Rhino and Zulu straps:

Lastly, but not least, there is always Military Watch Resource or MWR, who offer a wide variety of straps as well...

Well, those were my suggestions, do you have any to share? If so, please post a comment!

Thanks!

-- Chuck

Good Morning [Afternoon, Evening...]

This morning I received four scans from Greg Wade of c.1983 Heuer data cards to add to the page I have already posted on-line.

Each card is notable and significant...

The first card provides us with the first printed information on the exceedingly uncommon and rarely seen Gold 510.508 Lemania 5100 chronograph:

Not many Lemania 5100's were ever put in a gold case!

The second card provides us with perhaps the best explanation of the rationale behind Regatta watches:

It all seems much clearer and easier to understand now!

Thanks are due to Greg for his contribution to the knowledgebase existent on the Internet.

Cheers!

-- Chuck

A watch timer highly recommended by one of my watchmakers...

I got a phone call out of the blue from one of my watchmakers today [Shane Ede from Toronto], and he had me navigate to this web page and was telling me that this unit (costing less than $900 USD) is better than the: Witschi Watch Expert II (which runs around $2,775 USD) and may even have more features than the Chronoscope M1 (runs around $10,000), and the Vibragraph Watchmatic II (also $2,775). He has the Witschi and bought Mumford unit when his Vibragraph died and he'd rather depend upon the Mumford unit than any other he hass seen.

There are lots of reasons, much of it far too technical for this blog. This unit has many many more features not the least of which is how little it impacts your wallet compared to the competition. "And furthermore, Mr. Bryan Mumford will work as closely as required with any customer, his customer service is second to none!" <-- Direct from Shane.

Sounds real good to me. Shane asked me to pass it along for those who sometimes tinker with their own collections.

Cheers!

-- Chuck

[Added 5 May 2008] Just got off the phone with Shane and he informs me that this unit WILL time the latest model Co-Axial movement with the unusual 25,200 BPH rate and it will measure the Co-Axial amplitude as well... He had a latest model Co-Ax in recently and the timer worked like a charm. -- C

Bill Sohne purchased a vintage Breitling AOPA Navitimer 806 recently, and fortunately for all of us, it came with an instruction manual for how to use the slide rule. Bill was kind enough to scan in the manual and email them to me for presentation and the utility of "Whiz Wheel" fans everywhere:

[click on graphic above to open instruction page in new window.]

Thanks Bill for making this possible for the Internet watch collecting community!

-- Chuck

Section added to "Omega Chronograph Dimensions" Tables/page...

At the behest of Steve Waddington, moderator at Chronocentric's ZOWIE Omega Discussion Forum and all around good guy, I've added a new section on my “Dimensions of Selected Omega Chronographs...” page...

Steve mentioned to me that he often used that page as a quick look-up when people were asking about a 145.xxx or a 176.xxx and it'd be really handy to add a reference to the 176.001 card and discussion we had in C/ZOWIE last week.

A "scrunched" version of this table looks something like this:

Cheers and Enjoy!

-- Chuck

 Considering a Speedmaster Day-Date model, Read this before you commit!

Levy03 in the TZ Omega Forum pointed out that there have been a trio of reports of Speedmaster Day-Date (Also known as Day-Date Month) models which have reportedly had the problem within warranty of failing to change the day of the week. In the first instance a purchaser of a 3523.30 had two examples fail from the same Authorized Dealer and was waiting on his third.

In the second instance a purchaser had to return his example (pictured above) to his dealer when the day wheel reportedly wasn't working properly.

It's hard to impossible to say if this is a fluke, a bad batch or a something more. However, it seems advisable to check any Day-Date-Month 7751 based chronograph for proper Day and Month changeover before you purchase it.

Here's what to do:

• Advance the time on the watch to approximately 6:00 pm
• Set the date to 31, the day and the month can be at any day or month.
• Then advance the time past 12pm and see if the day and month advance.

If both the day and month switch over smoothly between about 10pm and 2-3am then the watch is probably ok. If it doesn't... I would pick out another.

Thanks Levy for pointing this out.

-- Chuck

I am really at a loss for a title for this entry... When so many good titles come easily to mind...

• Crow must be a delicacy in Australia...
• We've known he was an idiot, now he proves he's been lying...
• As Queen sang "Anyway the wind blows... [GONG]"...
• Has the lying stopped or not?
• It takes 6 failures to make Georges a wise man?
  • [Tongue in cheek G, tongue in cheek!]
• When the shocking is not a surprise, at all...
• Somehow I'm not expecting an apology anytime soon...
• Aren't you glad all c.33xx owners are so forthcoming, eventually...
• Yet I get roasted when I share all what I've seen...
• And the Band played "Nearer, My God, To Thee"

All of which would be such perfectly suited titles it's hard to pick one! Why?

Y'all remember Thomas? (Sebastian Melmouth, etc.)? He posted again on WUS:

[my comments will be interspersed and indented...]

1 Hour Ago

Thomas Member

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 13

My NEW watch-Warning, prepare to be shocked!!!

George Zaslavsky is a wise man and the wisdom he has continued to share with us is the fact that a movement MUST FIRST BE RIGOROUSLY TESTED TO ENSURE RELIAILITY. His concerns that Omega is suspect in this area is absolutely correct.

Observation: Georges is far from the only person who is concerned about Omega and it's use of F. Piguet movements.

I can confirm to you all that there is next to nothing quality control at Omega and the most MINIMUM testing is done on their watches.

I am supposed to be shocked about this?

Now this might be o.k. on generally simple and reliable movements like the 2500, BUT, on the much more complex movements like 3303, 3313 and 3612 this policy has proven absolutely disastrous.

I guess it takes a long time from the echo to come back from OZ.

The fact is that I have concealed that my rattrapantes

This has to make all the people looking at c.33xx's and asking for owner's experiences feel real secure...

(note the plural!! but more on that later)

Ditto previous comment.

have all suffered either complete failure on my wrist or have had massive faults and countless minor faults eg warping on the dial, rotation of the seconds hand jumpy, jittery and wobbly).

This is really interesting coming from someone who was waxing grandiose last week:

“One little fetish of mine concerns the alignment of the hands. They should be PERFECT, and they certainly are here. The 12hr totalizer hand and the central chrono hands (plural!) form a straight line.”

My broadarrow would not reset properly

This is supposed to shock me?

and most my wife's first diamond deville had chipped and missing diamonds from the bezel (yes you read that right).

Kinda makes you wonder why he bought it in the first place.

You would never see this happen to a Rolex watch.

Paging Matthew J!

Since I saw myself as a champion of the new Omega,

... a brown-noser, extraordinare!

I've been too ashamed and in a state of denial to hitherto disclose these all too painful facts.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times, what an maroon am I?

The simple fact regarding my rattrapantes is this; since march of this year I've owned THREE rattrapantes and TWO FAILED ON MY WRIST AND THE THIRD ONE WOULD NOT WORK WHEN THE DATE FUNCTION WAS ENGAGED.

Is this the point I'm supposed to be shocked about?

This also explains why I carried on so much in my recent posts

¿He only carried on in his recent posts?

because that was my third new watch and I was fully convinced all was finally o.k.

... Some one who really profoundly believes ‘Past performance does not mean future gains’ ...

How wrong I was!!!!

Wasn't the first time, by a long shot. Won't be the last time, either.

the third one lasted three weeks.

Makes me really eager to hand over my credit card, oh boy!

It really requires a seperate post to describe the superhuman effort I made to obtain THREE new rattrapantes and then to get full in store credit to swap the rattrapante for some other brand.

Especially when you know so much more than the people who you know more than about these things who are telling you this.

It's really an unbelievable story.

Only unbelieveable to those who are blind or aren't paying attention.

For now, I would urge you all to stay away from the utterly crap and unreliable Piguet made movements. Run as far as you can from them and I would not touch one with a barge pole.

Gee, like this is news.

Omega is producing substandard watches at too fast a rate to meet demand and only worries about any problems at the warranty level.

But all of those engineers... all that marketing... all those watch executives... who know what they are doing better than any of us!

There is the most minimum testing done.

Somehow, I don't think this is the part that's supposed to shock either.

Anyway, I finally have seen the light

Somehow I doubt that. Ironically, last week it was...

"I think I now understand Martin Luther King's great speech, 'I've been to the mountain and I've seen the promised land'. "

The truth be told is that Bienne is not on a mountain top it's in a valley and what's going on stinks to high-heaven.

and have now given away my garbage broadarrow (yes you read that right)

[shrug] Yawn...

and have managed to get a refund for my utterly forgettable rattrapante.

Ironically, last week it was...

“I never want to wear anything else.”

George Zaslavsky is completely correct when he says that the Rolex Daytona is the best chronograph on the market with the incredible bona fide in house 4130 movement that is fantastically well made, beyond anything Omega can ever manage.

I don't doubt that the current Rolex Daytona's along with the previous El-Primero and Valjoux 72 base movements are excellent chronographs.

I do however maintain that I am unconvinced of any practical advantage in-house movements impart other than lack of independent service or parts availability. I'm also unconvinced that the Daytona is the best chronograph in the market. I don't believe it is the best all around chronograph on the market.

Omega will always be a second rate watch in comparison to any Rolex

At the very least debateable and I certainly do not agree.

and I should know better than most of you.

Laughable!

However, if knowledge/experience is directly related to amount of stupidity exhibited he may have a case.

I'm just happy that I got out of this in time with my money refunded in full.

I hope all the people who've read the comments about c.33xx's and taken the plunge anyway will be so lucky.

I now own a brilliant watch, that is with good reason the most coveted watch in the world and one of the 10 best watches ever made. Enough of this and onto my new watch.

[pictures of two-tone dark dial Rolex Daytona]

Let me now present to you a genuine superlative in house watch, the Rolex Daytona Cosmograph. If you are all a little green with envy that will make me feel all the better!!

Gee, I wonder what motivates him?

My new watch is the very definition of beauty, craftmanship and reliability. Most of these qualities are not to be found in omega watches and certainly was no to be found in my 3 faulty rattrapantes.

You mean the Rattrapantes that last week:

“Its graceful lines, curves and accents really give it an air of class.” and

“Of course, both hands enjoy the benefit of column wheel mechanisms. In other words, there is no slippage in the engagment of the mechanism and the pusher action is clean, crisp and firm. It really is a delight to use!!! This is the true haute horology of the chronograph complication. I thank Omega for this gorgeous creation,”

or the Rattrapantes that two weeks ago:

“Firstly, its a stunning watch in every way, with incredibly good looks. There are no weak points about this watch whatsoever.”, ... “this is, I think, the most innovative, refreshing and novel looking watch on mother earth. There is nothing like it. This watch is a complete success with respect to design because Omega didn't shackle itself with tradition, but also, it didn't try to re-invent the wheel either. The dial is just beautiful and perfect. I'm happy to say that the craftsmanship is equal to the challenge.” ... “Omega's design is a text book example of the art of watch design. If that wasn't enough, Omega then went ahead and designed what is the most clever and charming seconds subdial ever!! It truly is inspired. I never get tired of admiring it.”

There is no pretend in house movement like the ones omega farmed out,

One Week ago: “Omega rattrapante-Nothing else matters.”

Two Weeks ago: “Getting to the heart of the matter, the greatest aspect of this beauty is its magneficent double column wheel movement. It is the stuff of horological dreams because it is complicated, beautiful and very rare. Only the very special chronographs have this.”

Very special chrongraphs that break, a lot.

with such disasterous results, to piguet.

B--b-but I thought: “Life with this watch is a pleasure. I take pride in it and when needed, I flash it in front of an obnoxious rolex wearer and cut them down to size. People stare at it alot and I'm always asked how expensive is it. When I tell them, lots say why didn't I get rolex instead. I always reply that I wanted some more special!”

This is all genuine and bona fide in house and consequently the quality speaks for itself. Oh ye baby this is the real deal.

This week anyway.

Rolex has put more careful and detailed work in the hour markers and the clasp pictured below than you'll find in any omega watch.

So the clasp was really bad on the Rattrapante too, eh?

I should know since..... my rattrapantes had distorted and warped dials,

This guy really has no sense of direction does he?

jumpy and jittery movement of the seconds hand,

Folks, this is the same fellow who last week said:

“Of course, both hands enjoy the benefit of column wheel mechanisms. In other words, there is no slippage in the engagment of the mechanism and the pusher action is clean, crisp and firm. It really is a delight to use!!! This is the true haute horology of the chronograph complication. I thank Omega for this gorgeous creation,”

I'm not making this $#¡+ up!

in fact omega coundn't even place the leather strap correctly on the watch.

Oh, but that's so hard!

The movements are complete garbage aswell and I now take back whatever I said against the valjoux 7750 movement.

Here is a reminder of what the same person said two weeks ago about the 7750:

“As the recent WatchTime article showed, most rattrapantes have a modified 7750 movement, which is truly an ugly, indeed disgusting movement, not worth mentioning on the same day as the 3612. ”

At least it works!!!

That seems to be unimportant to certain people.

Here's a quote from your final paragraph two weeks ago:

“Life with this watch is a pleasure. I take pride in it and when needed, I flash it in front of an obnoxious rolex wearer and cut them down to size.”

Two weeks ago you were flashing your Rattrapante at obnoxious Rolex wearer's... Now you are the obnoxious Rolex wearer!

I honestly don't know who's the biggest loser, the Rolex forum(s) or you!

I'm sure it may seem cruel to pick on the obviously challenged. And personally, I'd warn everyone to take anything_ said by this person with an appropriately sized grain of salt:

[Disclaimer: recommended doseage with this person may exceed safe consumption limits]

Perhaps this latest post is a lie to try to provoke a flurry of other posts, this individual claims to have bought a Rattrapante and when queried about the veracity of that claim provided pictures and hasn't been shy about posting new pictures from time to time.

Either this person has been intentionally misleading and lying to people about this watch and this movement family for many many months, OR maybe this post is the knowingly lie.

Who knows, or at this point really cares? Either way, he's lying and intentionally misleading people.

It would not be fair to lump in this sort of behaviour with those of other c.33xx owners who have either a) been forthcoming about problems they have suffered, or b) those who have earnestly and honestly have not suffered a failure with one (or more) with these chronographs. Even when a number of owners emphasize the good points of their experience (usually the accuracy of the timekeeping on their examples) and ignore or downplay the problems with this movement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Do what you want to do, listen to whomever you wish to.

But is my opinion buying one of these watches is akin to buying the sister ship of the Titanic and running it at flank speed in the North Atlantic during Iceburg season. It is simply not a sensible risk, certainly not a MSRP or likely dealer discounted prices.

I seriously thought about posting a poll about what to title this entry over at the TimeZone Omega forum. But that would probably be too provocative and over the top and I don't want to create grief for Damon...

It really REALLY p¡$$es me off that the problems are going on with these F.Piguet movements, people are intentionally lying and misleading innocent people about these problems and I really think someone needs to pull Omega/Swatch/Hayek's head's out of their neither-regions about the whole situation.

It's truely shameful to drag such a venerable, respected and elder firm like Omega down into the sewer with this sort of foolishness, but it doesn't seem to faze the powers that be.

[sigh]

-- Chuck

One of the things that's always pleasant about having a blog is hearing from people all over the world. A couple of days ago, I heard from Armando Camacho out of Guadalajara, Mexico in response to my recent blog post on the Tissot NASCAR Chronograph:

Chuck:

Have you noticed that Eberhard's Tazio Nuvolari chronograph has suffered the same malady for years (an absurd tachymeter scale with its numbers translated into MPH)?

Indeed I hadn'tand Eberhardt & Co.'s website has to be the singularly most difficult website I have ever tried to access. So when I replied to Armando, I also CCed Pascal Stratsma as Pascal has a couple of Eberhardt chronographs. Their replies were a near dead heat with pictures of two separate Eberhardt models which have the same screwy needless tachymetre conversion as the Tissot I had posted earlier. Here's Armando's provided photo first:

and this is the clearer of the two... The nice thing about this goof, is that at least one has the correct Tachy bezel underneath the crystal on the dial.

However the exact same thing is happening on this model that Pascal submitted to me:

What can I say... stupidity isn't limited to Tissot it'd seem!

Thanks to both Armando and Pascal for their contributions to this entry. I couldn't have done it without you!

-- Chuck

I received this email from Larry Loesch Wednesday...:

From:  Larry Loesch

Subject: Tachymeter bezel problems

Date: October 18, 2006 2:04:08 PM CDT

 

A recent issue of the Horological Times featured that bezel in a "What

do you suppose this is" article. The followup article confirmed that

they used 1000 Meters as the base to calculate the speed in MPH.

 

If you are interested I'll get you the issue dates of the article in

question.

 

- Larry Loesch

Naturally, I said "Please send along anything you can dig up" in reply to Larry and he was especially effecient in sending along the following:

From:  Larry Loesch

Subject: Tachymeter bezel problems

Date: October 18, 2006 10:47:29 PM CDT

 

The first mention of the watch was in the Aug 06 issue of the Horological Times on page 32.  They called it the Mystery Bezel Contest. :)  In the Sep 06 issue they gave the solution on page 20.  I think they were trying to protect the company's identity as they blurred the dial in the picture and don't call them by name.  I compared the picture in the article to the one on your site and it's the same watch.  That, or it's another watch with the exact same case where the blurs match perfectly!  Here's the relevant portion:

------

This bezel converts the vehicle speed from metric to English units and assumes the vehicle is traveling at a constant speed over a 1-kilometer distance.  The bezel readout gives the vehicle's speed in miles per hour.  The member or members who solved this mystery will be mentioned in next month's column.  The above correct answer was verified by two sources.  An e-mail was sent to our member Jerry Sussman asking his thoughts on the mystery bezel and a phone call was placed to a manager at the watch company.  Within a day or so, Jerry, an MIT professor of engineering and computer science, answered the e-mail.  He explained that this bezel converted vehicle speed from metric to English units as explained above.  Within a few days, the manager called and verified Jerry's explanation.  He also explained that the bezel was produced in Switzerland by designers who confused English and metric units when they designed this particular bezel.  The bezel went into production without anyone noticing the design error until an observant salesperson in a retail shop brought it to the  manufacturer's attention.  Future issues of this model will be equipped with the traditional tachymeter bezel.  Will this watch with it's unusual bezel become a collector's item in the future similar to a coin or stamp issued with an accidental flaw?  Time will tell.

------

Typos in the above are most likely due to my typing skills.

 

What's funny to me is that it took more work than a normal bezel to produce it!  I find it very surprising that somewhere along the line someone didn't say "Hey, guys... isn't this a lot harder than it should be?"  Oh well...

 

You may quote my emails as needed.

 

- LL

So, Larry's email's answer a few things.

• I wasn't the first person to spot the problem. Although I did spot it independently as I had never heard of the "Horological Times" publication prior to Larry's email. Indeed, I was aware of the model back in August but I hadn't noticed the issue with the bezel back then.
• As indicated in the passage that Larry so graciously transcribed for us the bezel went into production.
• Thus this bezel was not the product of Photoshop or retouching as some people have suggested.
• This model (with the bezel) was shipped to dealers and was on display to customers before an observant sales person at a retail shop brought the issue to the manufacturer's attention.
• It's not clear if all examples that were on dealer's shelves were recalled and substituted with a newer model with a correct Tachymeter bezel which corrects the rather apparent issue with the erronious bezel.
  • Not that this should be a surprise considering Omega's intransigence with regard to the known and acknowledged flaws with the F. Piguet c.33xx based Chronographs.
• Any examples with the flawed bezel will almost certainly be collectors items much along the lines of the "Speamaster" Speedmaster non-chronograph chronometers produced by Omega by mistake.
  • However, just like Edsels, while they are collector's items, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be a great value or lucritive in the collectors market.

Like Larry I find it exceedingly interesting that the engineers of this bezel took so much time and effort to make this bezel more work than was necessary. I can't understand why someone (especially an engineer) wouldn't think a) "Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel here?" or b) "Haven't we done this or something similar in the past? Let's just copy that!".

 

And why would anyone think that a tachymeter that reads out in KM/h be attractive/needed by NASCAR fans?!?!?

 

What doesn't surprise me is that something so glaring made it past a Swatch Group firm's Quality Control/Marketing/etc. departments into production, distribution and yes probably even into customer's hands. Why doesn't this surprise me? Because I've seen several previous examples of similar ineptitude from Swatch Group, this is not an isolated instance.

 

As it is, Tissot's official website continues to display a picture of the watch in question with the flawed bezel, as well as a video on their website with the same bezel (as Rrryan pointed out on TZOF), two months after it was published in Horological Times. Were it not for an alert Salesperson (how many of them are there out there these days! Geez!) this model would likely still be on display at dealers.

 

I suppose if there is any thing to feel moderately good about it is that between Jeff Stein (Owner of OnTheDash.com), Eptaz00 (Moderator of the Omega forum over at WUS) and myself, we were able to figure out what the mistake was without consulting a Professor of engineering and Computer Science at MIT. True Jeff is a lawyer, and I have a degree (Associate's though certainly not a professor level degree) in Computer Programming, not sure what Eric's (Eptaz) education is. But I mean if we can figure out what happened in about 10 minutes of conversation shouldn't the folks who's job it is to make these things be able to do the same?

 

But then again, this is "The New Swatch Group". Sigh... If you're a fan of any of the Swatch Group brands, put on your seatbelt tight and get ready for a bumpy ride.

 

-- Chuck

For quite some time, I've been watching events with the Swatch Group in Switzerland with an increasing sense of bewilderment. Swatch Group is a huge conglomerate and, of course, is not an easy entity to get a grasp of. But still there have been a great deal of moves by the firm and it's subsidiaries that are questionable.

Some of the moves which I see as dubious at best are certainly debatable, and believe me... folks have debated them with me. But a number of them are just bizarre and the fact that they are bizarre is really beyond debate...

Here's a case in point... Jorge Merino Posts: N E W M o d e l - Omega Seamaster Railmaster Chronograph [May 06, 2004 - 11:12 AM]

You see what's wrong with this picture? Need a hint?

Apparently, they don't teach people to count by 5's accurately in Switzerland...

This picture was posted by Jorge Merino who get's the press releases from many many Swiss watch firms. So this photograph came from an Omega press release. [Many thanks to Steve Waddington, moderator of the Zowie/Chronocentric Omega discussion forum for helping me relocate this post]...

The other night, I was mentioning the curious case of the Tissot NASCAR chronograph while chatting on IM with Eric [Eptaz, moderator of the Omega forum over at WUS]. I had mentioned the curious inclusion of "Valjoux" on the display caseback on this watch previously, after Swatch Group takes great pains to encourage firms which use the 7750 to call the movement by it's newly bestowed "ETA 7750" name. When I noticed another major goof in this watch.

Here's the picture:

I took a look at the "Tachymeter MPH" bezel and said...

What the F**K!

Between Eric, Jeff Stein and myself, the only possible explanation that we could postulate is that perhaps someone decided to convert Kilometers into miles because 37 Miles per hour is roughly 60 KPH, and 50 MPH is roughly 80 KPH, etc..

All a Tachymetre bezel is a scale that divides the 3600 (the number of minutes (60) times the number of seconds (60) = 3,600) by the number of seconds to generate a "Units per Hour" indication. The number would be the same if measuring Kilometre's, miles, or furlongs. Why anyone would do a conversion when one is not necessary is confounding.

The absurdity of this is simply mindboggling! I mean all a person has to do is look at a picture of any watch with a Bezel (that isn't laughably incorrect <-- Warning, link not for the weak of stomach!) and copy it. I mean, how difficult is that?

But in this instance, like the Omega Railmaster, not only has the mistake been made, but professional watch photography been booked, taken and distributed to the press and the public, and in this instance, is pictured and remains on Tissot.ch's website:

[Pictured on the left] at this very moment! Now, Tissot does have a different model pictured in the subwindow on the right, but why continue to have that fouled-up model as the main picture?

Eric pointed out a post in a blog of this Tissot and a Quartz model... Guess what? The Quartz model has a mucked up bezel too!

How can these watches (or even pictures of watches) with such mistakes make it to the public eye? This watch had to be designed, approved, "gone to metal", been professionally photographed, given to Marketing/Webmasters/etc. Where's the scrutiny?

I'm reminded of the 1992 song by "Fresh Bush and the Invisible Man" called "Hard Times"...

“Politics is higher taxes,

Politics is fewer jobs,

Federal regulations...

Surely, Congress doin' drugs!”

I don't know what the explanation is, but there is some seriously bizarre stuff going on at Swatch Group. This is nothing new, just further proof.

-- Chuck

P.S. Thanks again to Steve, Jeff and Eric for their input on this one.