| Author | Message | ||
     Bones New member Username: Bones Post Number: 1 Registered: 09-2013 Rating: N/A |
Hi, Please forgive any mistakes on my first post. I have a WW2 believed RAAF issue JLC, Broadarrow c1941 with provenance. It is very similar to the later WWW series but only has a serial number on the back. The case is chromed base-metal rather than s/steel. I once found reference on the web to such unmarked watches having been issued in the early part of the war by the RAAF but can no longer find it on the interweb. I've searched a few times and found similar but not the same but today I have found this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121032260030?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1 423.l2649 which appears identical. I'd love any information on the watch, but specifically would like to know when it was manufactured and why these were not marked by RAAF, only carrying the Broadarrow on the dial? Interestingly, I showed it to a local antique auctioneers who dismissed it saying there was no proof it was military - I can only assume he missed the Broadarrow or imagined because there were no other military markings that it was a civilian version? Who knows! Although value is irrelevant, as I would never part with the watch, I assume the Seller on eBay is being VERY optimistic asking AU$4,500? Any info gratefully received - many thanks. Bones. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 5977 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
The non WWW backs in that configuration are believed to be Australian, yes. That specification usually has spring bars rather than fixed bars. AU $4500 is very ambitious! Even half that might be a stretch. | ||
| Bones New member Username: Bones Post Number: 2 Registered: 09-2013 Rating: N/A |
Thanks very much Zaf. Mine has fixed bars which look 100% original. It sounds as though not much is known about these early specification? I still can't find anything on internet. So around $2,000 dollars? That's amazing. The case on mine has a lot of brassing and a 'sympathetically' replaced crown which I assume would reduce the value - but on the other hand is otherwise 100% original and I would describe it as 'attractively aged'. It also has provenance as I acquired it from the first owner's wife. How would these issues effect the value?  Thanks for your help? Bones | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 5979 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
Usually is the operative word here. It would be more convincing as an Aussie example with spring bars, but I would not be surprised at all if many had fixed bars. I don't think the provenance matters too much unless it's some military document showing it origins. The original crown is less thick than what you have on there, but it's unsigned. You should be able to match a vintage one pretty easily to the original. | ||
| Bones New member Username: Bones Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2013 Rating: N/A |
Thanks Zaf. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is an Aussie issue example as the provenance is that I acquired it from the wife of the flyer to whom it was issued. She stated categorically that it was issued to him early in the war (c1941) when he was with RAAF and before he left Australia. So I'm confident that there is no ambiguity in where, from where, to whom and roughly when it was issued. When I acquired it, it was fitted it with a modern (c1970s) narrow (thin) and very unattractive crown. When my watchmaker overhauled it for me he fitted (unprompted) the more appropriate one you see. If I ever have it cleaned again I may try to get an original but not too bothered. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 5980 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
OK, but a couple of things. The watches came out in 1944 AND they are normally an infantry watch (i.e. the British W.W.W. spec). The flyers watches had sweep seconds (the British 6B/159 spec). So technically, this is an Australian Army watch, not and RAAF watch. I guess anything could happen though in terms of whom they were given to. | ||
| Bones New member Username: Bones Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2013 Rating: N/A |
She was very clear on the watch's history but based on what you say I reckon she has its history/timeline wrong - it was 70 years ago and her husband died in the 1970s. They seem to be referred to as WWW watches despite not being marked WWW, am I correct in assuming they were built and supplied to the 'WWW' spec but just not marked as such? I assume that such marking as 'WWW', '6b/' and 'ATP' etc., were in all cases marked on the watches by the relevant Forces/Ministries rather manufacturers? I suspect that more recent (modern) watches are however marked by manufacturers (IE US watches)? Thanks, Ashley |