Show your 6159-7010 TUNA!

[Davidhu]

Serial number statistics for verify the non"m" dial



532***




573***




576***




575***



non "M" dial
serial number
532***
573***
576***
575***


Cheers

[Derek N]

So could you please tell us what the significance of the first two digits of the serial number relates to a mysterious dial? Curious minds would like to know.

[PloProf Pimp]

One of the kings, one of the legends, of all tool divers. Amazing watches, if you've never owned one, you're missing out.

[Davidhu]

So could you please tell us what the significance of the first two digits of the serial number relates to a mysterious dial? Curious minds would like to know.

Seiko's serial number first digit being the year of made , the second digit being the month.

as my pic watch is 53**** that "5" being 1975 and the 3 digit gives the month of march.

There are 2 model of dial exist for the 6159-7010, with "m" after the 600 or non "M" .


Some people thought that the non "m" only lasted for the first 3 months of production (so serial number only until ~53****) then after march the "m" appeared ,so the non"M" dial as rare model.

But i don't think so.

Because I saw so many of 6159-7010 dial without the "m" from serial number 53****~57**** .


in case of my own three 57**** their dial and hands and other parts are all match as their age not like they had been changed.

And i don't think had so much non"M" dial for after change use .

Which the disputed part of the serial number from 54****~57****

Below is my Google "6159-7010 " pics about 28 pages result.

Most 55****~57**** are non"M" dial.

only 1 or 2 with"M" dial of serial number is 56****(i don't think it match its original watchcase,may be dial had been after change or ..)


My thought , the non "M" dial are not rare should be from serial number 53****~57**** , so 55****~57**** are non"M" dial are correct.


here is the link

the non "M" dial serial number from 55****~57**** reference

562***
http://www.pbase.com/elveez/seiko_6159_diver

551***
SCWF Mirror : Finally! My Seiko is back (6159/7010) (Carson, 2003-12-14, message 1071464937)

562***
http://yeomanseiko.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/sbdx011-and-6159-7010/

575***
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/fs-seiko-6159-7010-600m-auto-professional-diver-1975-a-120736.html

573***
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/fs-seiko-6159-7010-tuna-600-serviced-524718.html

562***
http://www.vintagewatchland.com/Vintagewatchland/seiko-1970-s-automatic-prof-600-quot-tuna-diver-quot-6159-7010-ff808181327081d301328b0307ca0fde-p.html

562***
http://jamvintage.blogspot.tw/2011/02/yang-katanya-banyak-dicari-orang-seiko.html

573***
http://antiqueartz.blogspot.tw/2010/08/seiko-diver-6159-7010-aka-tuna-auto-600.html



would love to have this confirmed or have this corrected. if anyone can show some proof of the change over date



(Sorry for my English.)

[crazyhorse]

As the one and only John lennon once said " you can make anything fit " and by that he was saying people will believe what they want to
to go with their own agenda because it is ingrained in mankind to always be correct in their actions and deeds.
So the point iam trying to make is until someone who has proof of the facts of this matter of the change over date comes forward with say
documents from seiko or say a letter,then it is all just theory,my own thoughts are just that davidhu does not want to believe that his 6159-7010
have at some point in time been tampered with is understantable as he has spent a lot of money on his beatiful collection of 7010s
but to show pictures from other watches on other sites is not proof that the non"m" continued beyond march 1975 because these watches may
have had a face transplant to make more money when sold as the "rarer" non "m".
My own watch dates from june 1975 and has a "m" but davidhu seems to be implying that it is my face that has been changed and that i am wrong
about my theory that the misprint non "m" dials changed over to the "m" face in the march of 1975,hey ! folks iam humble enough to hold my hands
up if i am proven wrong because i want to know myself what the truth of the matter is but nobody yet has come forward with hard evidence and the
mystery continues.....

[Raoul Duke]

[Davidhu]

As the one and only John lennon once said " you can make anything fit " and by that he was saying people will believe what they want to
to go with their own agenda because it is ingrained in mankind to always be correct in their actions and deeds.
So the point iam trying to make is until someone who has proof of the facts of this matter of the change over date comes forward with say
documents from seiko or say a letter,then it is all just theory,my own thoughts are just that davidhu does not want to believe that his 6159-7010
have at some point in time been tampered with is understantable as he has spent a lot of money on his beatiful collection of 7010s
but to show pictures from other watches on other sites is not proof that the non"m" continued beyond march 1975 because these watches may
have had a face transplant to make more money when sold as the "rarer" non "m".
My own watch dates from june 1975 and has a "m" but davidhu seems to be implying that it is my face that has been changed and that i am wrong
about my theory that the misprint non "m" dials changed over to the "m" face in the march of 1975,hey ! folks iam humble enough to hold my hands
up if i am proven wrong because i want to know myself what the truth of the matter is but nobody yet has come forward with hard evidence and the
mystery continues.....

As you know my English,i can't explain so much.
I think to proof this almost impossible, unless you were old seiko staff.
But what we can do is Statistics this to show the truth.

[crazyhorse]

Davidhu i think you are correct somebody out there knows the truth ,maybe a guy like poisidon jim or another expert
who knows seiko watches inside out can sort out this long standing mystery? come on people lets get to the bottom of
this!

[crazyhorse]

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke;5264661] Love the mad popcorn eater ha ha

[crazyhorse]

Sorry about the spelling,i meant poseidon Jim! this man seems to know alot about seiko6159-7010s Help please Jim!