Re: Real 1963 watch from Tsinlien Sea Gull
So tell us which of the following one is the real:
1) 1963 bought from Thomas after his leaving
2) 1963 bought from here:
Seagull 1963 Chinese Air Force - Seagull 1963 Air Force Military Watch
3) 1963 bought from Watchunique:
Seagull 1963
4) 1963 bought from Thomas before 2010
5) Given that the original 1963 (and all currently ST19 movements) was made by Tianjin in Beijing, and not by Tsinlien in Hong Kong (even though both use the export brand name "Seagull"), which company represents an authentic 1963?
One of the problems with westerners buying Chinese products is that the Chinese have such a different business code that it is hard for anyone with western business concepts ingrained into their experience to know who is doing what, and with what authority. I see this in the music world. As a tuba player, I have looked seriously at a range of Chinese-made tubas. Some are made by Dalyan, some by Jin Bao, and many by a range of other producers, all of which are working from the same pattern, but not all of which achieve the same outcomes. With most, it's impossible to discover who actually made the instrument, or to what quality specification. Tubas are easier to copy than watches because the tooling is simpler and generally less precise, but vastly more difficult to achieve excellent results, because so much of their manufacture requires hand work and considerable experience that goes deeper than the visible. I have found that the only reliable way to purchase a good product is to purchase it from a reliable person who has standing in the community of buyers. For tubas, that person is usually a westerner, simply because they know how to communicate with the buying community, and they are willing to place their instruments in the appropriate venues and they personally know potential endorsers. They are also usually capable performers on the iinstrument themselves, because generally they are providing the quality control, and they are staking their reputation on the product. All of these things are difficult to address when dealing with Chinese factories, especially when quality can't be measured with a ruler. When the person representing the products declares an instrument unsuitable, the factories pull out their yardsticks and pronounce it good--the tubing is the correct width and length, etc. But that is verification without validation--it fits a specification but it is not usable. Western manufacturers both verify and validate as part of their internal processes, often with transparency, and even then performers will have strong preferences within a batch even though they all look identical. This is a reason, for example, why better Swiss watches are COSC-certified--accuracy is a validation that the product actually meets the customer's needs, and not just conform to a specification. COSC certification is an open and transparent way to provide that validation.
There is no COSC for Chinese watches. So, when I look at the history of 1963 reissues (and I did before putting my money down), I see that Thomas has earned the respect of the buying community. I knew that my purchase from him was backed up by years of positive experiences--including the years since 2010. That's no guarantee, of course, but it provides comfort and confidence. I also, from research, believe (and that's the strongest word I can use) that the ST19 is actually made by Tianjin Seagull, not by anyone else (including Tsinlien). My belief is based on the likelihood of there being only one line that can produce these movements, given their low production numbers, and the original source of the tooling. If Tianjin thought Thomas was misrepresenting their product (and the dial does say Tianjin, apparently), it would be up to them to act. I know that "Seagull" is a brand that used by Tsinlein HK and by Tianjin, but I suspect those two entities look on each other as competitors at this point.
A letter stating that one's current sales competitor was once fired by them does not attract the confidence to which I refer. I understand that other sellers of 1963 reissues don't want to have to provide warranties for each other, but that is a lot easier just to say. This smells to my very western olfactory senses (which may be wrong, of course) like an attempt to undermine the sales competition more than to clarify the marketplace. But there is no doubt that this is a marketplace that needs clarification.
Rick "who'll contact Thomas if his 1963 has an issue, but no sign of needing such yet" Denney
