Since this is the most recent discussion I am posting here, but am linking
this parallel post for more diverse and equally *accurate* facts.
I am not claiming I have solved anything with regard to "J" "K" but I may have come a bit closer to divining the veracity of the Made In Japan conspiracy.
There is one (trusted) sourceI found and from which I've drawn some relevant information (all of the following are relevant ONLY to import into the U.S.):
*
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Let's begin with the USCBP, click the link, scroll down to Pg 8 and you will find this:
"• Under 19 U.S.C.1304, as interpreted by Customs, the country of origin of the movement of the watch or clock determines the country of origin of the watch or clock. Although the addition of the hands, dial, or case adds definition to the timepiece, they do not substantially change the character or use of the watch or clock movement, which is the essence of the watch or clock. Accordingly,a watch with one country of origin for the movement, another for the case, and another for the battery, is considered, for purposes of 19 USC 1304, to be a product of the country in which the movement was produced. The movement's country of origin should appear conspicuously and legibly on the dial face or on the outside of the back of the watch or clock. "
On Pg. 10 you will find the following:
"• WATCH MOVEMENTS: Must be marked on one or more of the bridges or top plates to show the name of the country of manufacture; the name of the manufacturer or purchaser; and in words, the number of jewels, if any, serving a mechanical purpose as frictional bearings.
• WATCH CASES: Must be marked on the inside or
outside of the back to show the name of the country of manufacture and the name of manufacturer or purchaser. "
So to summarize (keeping in mind this is ONLY for U.S. importation); The country of origin for "…a watch…is considered, for purposes of 19 USC 1304, to be a product of the country in which the movement was produced. " So country of origin made be identified either by a label on the dial (Made In... or MOV'T (or similar) but it has to be marked on the bridge or top plate of the watch as well.
Now all of this, just to say that it ONLY relates to watches being directly imported INTO the U.S. An issue commonly seen here in WUS is grey market watches. Since these watches were not intended to be imported into the U.S. they can be marked essentially any way that Seiko desires. And how Seiko defines Made In.... is I suspect a combination of their own laws/regulations and perhaps generous ones of countries they export to. So if you have a watch that states it's MIJ, and it is an AD watch then according to 19 USC 1304 the movement HAS to have been made in Japan. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the same fully robotic operations used in other countries could be used in Japan to produce mid-level(perhaps) movements, then shipped to another location (country?) for final assembly and finish. After all the U.S. considers the country of origin to be where the MOVEMENT WAS MADE.
People have stated that so long as a factory is fully Japanese owned and supervised (certainly a reasonable approach) that they (Japan) considers those watches produced in those factories to be Made In Japan (I suppose not unlike Embassies-are-considered-Sovereign-Territory). This may or may not be true but it does highlight understanding how various nations can determine origination of products. So it is reasonable to view a watch made in a partner country, in a factory fully owned by the other partner nation and supervised by nationals to be considered as home grown. IF this is the case then Made In Japan becomes a very ephemeral concept. So from a very quick look on ebay it seems that those watches intended for the U.S. (SKX173/175) appear to meet the criteria set forth above. So while an SKX007 may state Made In Japan, it may be based on a vague ruling of what constitutes country of origin. But if a movement is *considered* to be produced in Japan (but in actuality in another nation) then casing it in Japan could allow it to be labeled Made In Japan for export to other countries (excluding the U.S.)
I did NOT come across any explanation for the whole "J" "K" (moon landing) conspiracy thing. It seems logical to assume they define two markets of distribution, but I'm sure someone will point out a day/date language or some other contradictory marking on a watch that would negate this idea.
One final point/discovery and this is in regard to ISO 6425, found in the -
Federal Register
Pg. 2, paragraph 3
II. Summary of the Comments
B. Adequacy of Self-Regulation and International Standards
" The comments do not consider the ISO standards to be sufficient to protect consumers primarily because the ISO standards are not enforceable in the United States. ISO does not regulate the international watch industry. Instead, each participating member country enforces the ISO standards in accordance with their own laws. Because the United States is not an adherent to the ISO standards, the comments stated that ISO standards are not enforceable in the United States."
"Swiss also noted that the United States is not a participant in ISO, and therefore, is not
involved in the formulation of ISO watch standards."
So as it stands, while we all quote ISO 6425 and who is or isn't compliant, how it is determined, etc, etc, turns out that the U.S. does NOT follow ISO standards. Instead our national regulating body is ANSI (American National Standards Institute, which can and does reflect ISO standards as needed). The linked article was in regard to whether or not the U.S. FTC should continue printing and maintaining the 'Watch Guide' (which guided watch manufacturers on trade practices). The upshot was that the Watch Guide would be rescinded because there were many ways that watch manufacturer claims could be maintained, checked and 'enforced'. It was decided that Section 5 of FTC ACT offers sufficient protection to consumers via manufacturers claims of compliance to ISO 6425 (and unfair and deceptive practices, etc). So there was no need for the Guide, but interestingly, there never was any real value to it. If a manufacturer claims 6425 compliance they are required to possess documentation verifying said claims.
So really, to claim to be ISO 6425 (at least in the U.S.) doesn't carry as much weight as one would think and, one could claim to exceed those claims without being 6425 compliant. They only need to show documentation that their testing meets or exceeds (I think Rolex does this?) ISO 6425. Just an interesting tid bit I came across while searching for the MIJ ephemera.
YMMV