A SAAF Ref 2612/Mark 11

I believed that all Mark 11s, from the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, SAAF, and BOAC, did not have a case number, and that only the civilian version, the Ref 2612, had a case number.
Recently I came across a colector, who is fortunate enough to have several Mark 11s from the South African Air Force, one of which started her life as a Ref 2612.
There are no other engravings in the case back other than AF9538, indicating it was once at the service of SAAF.

There was another one, but only the case back survived. The rest went under the hammer, literally.

Apart from the colour, did the tritium markers change over time? They look spongy, like growing over some lines, becoming less sharp, skew. Some may think it adds to the charm, like wrinkled old ladies on a photograph, but to me it degrades an otherwise good looking dial: could those markers get restored to some original status?

Kind regards,
Paul

Tritium, as all radioactive elements, degrades over time. The half life of tritium is circa 12 years. The paint in that watch is circa 40 years old, and the tritium in it has degraded considerably.
Some collectors may choose to restore the watches to their original condition. It is their prerogative. The owner of this watch, like myself, prefer to leave them as they are.

I totally agree. My 3711 has similar patina and I will never have the hands or dial replaced.

Definately no work whatsoever on that Oh so Beautiful dial!

Great post from our vintage wristwatch Maestro.

Best regards
Mark

Is there any more info on the Ref 2612/Mark 11? Has the watch been submitted to Schaffhausen for a Certificate? Is so, I'd be curious as to the original buyer --was it the SAAF or a civilian retailer or a distributor?

I ask because a civilian Mark 11 (ref. 2612) as here appears to have been "converted" to military markings. That could have been done by the military or someone else, and I think tracing the provenance, to the extent possible, would be critical. A Certificate from Schaffhausen would be the first step.

Hi Michael,
This SAAF Mark 11 is not mine, and the owner is not trying to sell it. It is a keeper in his collection, and the collector is not interested in obtaining the CoG.
This Mark 11, was "lost" in a drawer and escaped the hammer when the Mark 11s were decommissioned from the SAAF. It was later given to the current owner, as "good for parts", by a SAAF watchmaker, as it was no longer in the SAAF inventory.

I contacted IWC with the case/movement numbers, and they confirmed it is an authentic Ref 2612, and added that it was NOT originally sold to the South African AD, as I had theorized. IWC did not identify the first owner and I did not ask.
Can you use your clout to find that out?

Thanks for sharing this interesting story.

Sorry but I have no clout here. And also I have no desire to purchase this piece. But with respect to the owner --who I don't know and have no reason to doubt his versacity and lack of gullability-- could someone else"privately" manufactured SAAF engravings on a civilian piece? I have become exceedingly cautious on all these watches.

Michael, Once bitten twice shy?

While I understand your healthy skepticism, I am convinced these later date SAAF Mark 11s, originally civilian Ref 2612s, have in fact been used by the SAAF.
Proving this beyond reasonable doubt, may be close to impossible now. The SAAF of today bears little resemblance with the SAAF of yesteryear, and records may have been lost, in a similar maner as all records of the BOAC Mark 11 seem to have been.

No need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of evidence or "much more likely than not" would suffice.

Even that lower level burden of proof may be difficult to achieve. The structure of the South African society, and its Armed Forces, went through a radical change with the end of the apartheid regime, and by then, the Mark 11 was long gone.
As in the case of the BOAC Mark 11, the SAAF Mark 11 was most likely considered just another flight instrument, just like the altimeter or the speed indicator, and no one saw any reason to keep old records on them.
I have, however, asked the collector in question, to contact the retired SAAF watchmaker who gave him the watch, and try getting inventory or maintenance records. I am not holding my breath.

I have, however, an circumstantial argument in favor of the authenticity of the SAAF Mark 11s that started their life as Ref 2612s, and I'll do it in the form of a question.
What kind of forger would take an IWC Ref 2612, engrave serial numbers from the SAAF on it, AF9229, hit it with a hammer, secretly sneak into Waterkloof Air Base, and discard the remains in a drawer of the department in charge of watch maintenance?

Here is a group picture of case backs of discarded SAAF Mark 11s. Two have the known military engravings - S.A.A.F., 6B/346, the serial number/year, and AFxxxxx - but without the broad arrow, as the Republic of South Africa does not have the UK monarch as their head of state, although a small number of SAAF Mark 11s had the broad arrow in the dial and in the movement. The twisted one, with a case number, is from a SAAF Ref 2612 / Mark 11

Hi Antonio,
very interesting thread you've initiated, congratulations.
Going through the posts, regarding your pics, I have NO scruples concerning the genuineness especially regarding the engravings.
You know that I have a lot of BMW (RAF, RN, Army) watches in my collection besides the IWC;-).

Hajo

The problem here remains that few data and even less persons exist, who have sufficient knowledge of the "special" Mk 11's.While the RAF and RAAF Mk 11's have been investigated thoroughly by Thomas Koenig and Greg Steer (Cellar), little is known about the BOAC (not military), SAAF and RNZAF as indicated by the authors in their famous article "Man is not lost. The Mk 11 navigation watch". On page722, of Konrad Knirims book :" British Military Timepieces", Rikus Basson describes in his article :"Watches of the South African Air Force and Navy the SAAF IWC Mk 11 with both the inscriptions on the case back, shown in this thread:
S.A.A.F, 6B/346, 218/61 and AF 8645
and on the other only : AF 9232
The latter should be an example of later years.
Kind regards,
Adrian.
(alwaysiwc).

a clever one?