A SAAF Ref 2612/Mark 11

a clever one?

It was inevitable that, sooner rather than later, the collector in question would be identified. He has in fact an excellent collection of watches from the SAAF and SAN. He also has documentation of SAAF watches from 1969 to 1992, but the last batch of SAAF Mark 11s, the Ref 2612s, were acquire just around 1969. He has been unsuccessful in his attempts to gain access to the SAAF archives before 1969.

There is indeed a serious knowledge gap on the Mark 11s used by the SAAF, RNZAF and the BOAC. The case of the BOAC is particularly egregious.
IWC treats this watch as if it did not exist - it does not issue the Certificate of Genuineness because the watch does not have military engravings, and does not issue the Extract from the Ledger because it does have a case number.
It reminds me of the 1956 English movie The Man Who Never Was. :-)
I did some incipient investigation on the BOAC Mark 11 and, through an august member of this forum, obtained the testimony of a former BOAC captain, of the VC10 fleet, who recalled how the Mark 11 was delivered to the flight deck crew qualified for celestial navigation, before flights where celestial navigation would be involved.
He also said that by the end of its ops life the IWC Mark 11 was unreliable and the crews used their watches. He used a Bulova tune fork.
I also wrote to the curator of the BA museum, who had no record of the Mark 11. Period.
Thomas Koenig is also researching the BOAC Mark 11. He got the same answer I did from the BA museum, but he seems to have an additional (final?) avenue of research. I hope Thomas will be successful.

Too clever by half?
Have you tried to break-in Waterkloof Air Base meneer? :-)

No, if that story of where it was found and how it got there is absolutely true. Did you go to the Air Base? Of course not --you are relying and what lawyers call hearsay. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a reason that doesn't have much probative value in proceedings where lots of money or personal liberty are at stake. If you could talk to the original guy --not the current owner-- at least you could assess veracity and test with follow-up enquiries.

If you were writing an article for a major newspaper, even journalistic standards would not allow this sort of thing without reasonable corrobative evidence. And in academic circles this wouldn't last 5 minutes.

I don't doubt that it MAY very well be true, but it really is based on amateur speculation. Sorry, I don't mean to be difficult but in an economic sense you could be right --yet is it worth a $5,000 bet? A $100,000 one? I recall what people thought of the white dial Mark 11s back in 1990s...the rarest of the rare Marks.

Hearsay is in my view, not being a lawyer, indeed the worst scenario if one talks about the provenance of a watch. I remember very well that all the "evidence" on the white dialled Mk 11 was based on hearsay. There was no significant evidence nor any document from IWC, MoD or RAF, suggesting that the white dial Mk 11 was a miltary watch, until Thomas Koenig proved that this was an aftersales dial with no military background whatsoever.
The same is applicable for the SAAF, RNZAF and BOAC Mk 11's. As long as hearsay is the standard, there is no proof of authenticity even if the first owner is a 100 years old flight commander and if he has been involved in numerous flights over New Zealand, South Africa etc.
We clearly need documents and historic data as these exist for the W.W.W. IWC, The RAF Mk 11 and the RAAF Mk 11.
For me there is no doubt that these documents exist. The question is how and where to find them. The remark of Antonio on the BOAC watches surprises me. Although he says that IWC does not deliver an extract of the Archives, nor a certificate of Genuiness sounds odd to me because IWC says in "every" certificate of Genuiness : "These watches were made for RAF B.O.A.C. etc..."
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).

We are not in a criminal court, nor in academia, nor am I writing for a newspaper, although the latter are, in general, a poor example of accuracy. My intention was/is presenting to the forum what, for me, was a new development, although Knirim's book British Military Timepieces already has an image of one SAAF Mark 11 with similar case back engravings, but without mentioning that it has a case number.
I would not knock down hearsay so hard, the "white dial" fiasco notwithstanding. If what I learned from watching Law and Order or Boston Legal is correct, hearsay can be admissible in civil court. :-)
Levity aside, hearsay seems to be a good way to start, and then proceed to searching for hard or circunstancial evidence.
I have been corresponding with the owner for a while, and asked his concurrence to post this watch in the IWC forum. There is no attempt to sell here, and it is entirely possible, I would say highly likely, this SAAF Mark 11 be genuine. There were sanctions in place against the apartheid regime, and the SA military had to be creative to acquire materiel.
I think that, at a minimum, we ought to give this watch the benefit of the doubt. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree that additional research is needed to corroborate the hypotesis.

The fact that IWC will not issue the Certificate of Genuineness nor the Extract from the Ledger for the BOAC Mark 11 also surprised me, and for the same reason, i.e., it is written in every Certificate of Genuineness that the Mark 11 "...was made for the BOAC (British Overseas Aircraft Corporation)..."
I have a letter from IWC stating the watch is an authentic Mark 11, and that the case back engravings were made post production.

Sorry for barging into this conversation.
Don't know much about mark 11 as I was never interested, so I have
difficulties trying to follow all the details discussed here.
Came across a seller trying to sell a SAAF with some kind of reference
from IWC.

If permission is needed from the owner of the photo, please delete the
link if needed as I just 'borrowed' the picture.
Just trying to learn, so please ignore if irrelevant to the discussion.

That is a Certificate of Genuineness IWC issues for the military Mark 11s. The document is not relevant to this discussion because it was issued for a Mark 11 with the regular military engravings - 6B/346, etc, and does not have a case number.
IWC would issue an Extract from the Ledger to the Mark 11 under discussion in this thread because it is a Ref 2612.

BTW, do you have an image of the dial? I am very curious if it has a T inside the circle and the document claims. As fas as I know, no SAAF Mark 11 has the encircled T. I can be wrong. It has been known to happen. :)

As we can see it the document includes the BOAC Mark 11, in among the organizations that used the Mark 11, but IWC will not issue it to the existant BOAC Mark 11s. Go figure.

Thanks for posting anyway.

So Tony,
If the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, SAAF, and BOAC Mark 11 watches are not maintained in IWC's database, how are they valued in comparison to equivelent Mark 11's produced at the same time. It appears to me, and surely I am a total novice in this realm, that the watches are identical except for the numbers engraved (or not engraved). Or am I missing something else?

Hi Alan,
I am not an expert either and my education on this issue is a work in progress, Until recently I thought that there were two types of Mark 11s and that they were clearly separated and did not mix:

• the military Mark 11s, without case number, used by the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, SAAF and the BOAC, as acknowledged by Schaffhausen in several documents, with varying types or military engravings in the case back.
  Because these watches are not in the Ledger, IWC issues, after inspection in Schaffhausen, a Certificate of Genuineness in lieu of the Extract from the Ledger.
  Almost all of these Mark 11s left Schaffhausen with part of the military case back engraving/stamping - the broad arrow and the 6B/346, but those destined to the BOAC left blank. The engravings must have been made at BOAC according to their inventory nomenclature.
  The BOAC Mark 11s appear to have fallen through the cracks of government procurement.

• the Ref 2612, the civilian Mark 11, with case number, and no engravings in the case back, sold to and used by private citizens, the most famous was Sir Edmond Hillary in his expedition to the South Pole.
  IWC issues the Extract from the Ledger for these Mark 11, also after inspection in Schaffhausen.

Now, it appears that an unknown number of Ref 2612, civilian Mark 11s, were acquired and used by the SAAF, on/around 1969.
I speculate that this was a way the SAAF had to get around sanctions on the purchase military equipment.

The research continues.

Hi Antonio,
I have seen this watch too and , with respect, I do not agree with you. First I want to answer your question about the dial : there is no "encircled T".
Further, this certificate of " genuiness" shows clearly that IWC uses the word SAAF, to be seen by me for the first time. This is in an other way than in your letter received from IWC , declaring that the engravements on your watch must have been made, after the Mk 11 left the factory. I am sure that this is also the truth for the now showed example. But, at least, IWC states that it is a genuine Mk 11 SAAF. The explanation that "T" stands for Tritium, can in my view be ignored. EVERY certificate of genuiness on the Mk 11 has the same pre-printed identical text, just leaving space for filling out some "numbers", according to the engravements involved. The same is true for a very important sentence, also always used by IWC at the end of the certificate where they say in "popular language" : OK, you ask us whether this watch is genuine. We examined it and we think it is genuine, but please do NOT use our opinion as a proof! So at the end, the collector is left alone and only his own research and that of others make the watch a treasure or......?
This conclusion should lead in my mind to enravel the "secrets", the "hearsay" the "legends" and the "lies".
So, Antonio, please try to encourage your "source" to help us in documenting about these rare watches, if you can.
Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Adrian.

Hi Adrian,

I would not assume "For me there is no doubt that these documents exist. The question is how and where to find them." as seen in the following Royal Australian Air Force Publication,

We can see:

1. Re distribution of Mk 11 watches to meet overhaul programme. Destroyed
2. Procurement of Wrist Bands for Navigation Watches. DESTROYED
3. Navigator's Wrist Watch Mk 11 Suggested Modifications. DESTROYED

Many documents no longer exist.

My view is that quite often it is luck the documents were preserved and you need just as much luck to find them.

It would be also interesting to know if IWC has serviced any SAAF Mk 11 and replaced the dial with a circled T as that could give rise to a watch with a circled T dial, as has been the case with RAAF Mk 11s.

Cheers from the cellar.

Military watches, like all materiel, have a hard life and many things can happen to them while they are in service. Their purpose is to help fulfill the mission without consideration to purely esthetic details.
As Greg pointed out, it is entirely possible for a SAAF Mark 11 to have ended up with a dial with the encircled T, for the same reason (or other) that some have the broad arrow dial, although South Africa has been a republic since 1961 and the UK monarch has not, since then, been South Africa's head of state.

Research is urgent on the BOAC Mark 11, and on the SAAF Ref 2612/Mark 11 to support the legitimacy of these watches.
I have exhausted my research capabilities regarding the BOAC Mark 11. David Seyffer also wrote to he BA museum without results. Thomas Koenig, however, appears to have one avenue to explore. We can only hope he will be successful.
I will definitely encourage the South African collector to continue attempting to gain access to the SAAF records, still extant, to find proof that the SAAF purchased and used Ref 2612 as aids to navigation.
I hope David Seyffer has been following this thread.

Thanks Greg and Antonio,
A document as shown by Cellar does not say much about individual numbered watches but even a document like this, reporting the worse scenario for a researcher : the destroying of evidence, has some positive sides. At least it reports on modifications, overhaul, watch straps etc.
Kind regards,
Adrian.
(alwaysiwc).

Great thanks to Adrian, Antonio and Greg for their very interesting contributions concerning the SAAF ref 2612/Mk11. Very, very enlightening!
Concerning the SAAF Mk11 I am sure there exists/existed a document proofing the genuiness of that watch.
In military everything is counted, numbered and documented, first-hand. Look at the small, tiny screwdriver of the IWC BUND ;-).
For interest a link to a new website about SAAF wristwatches.
The broad arrow, encircled T, T Swiss T topics are mentioned :
www.wix.com/rbasson/saafwatches#!iwc-mk-xi

Concerning the BOAC Mk11 I am not so convinced because I believe that a commercial, civilian airline wouldn't have been so pedantic in case of a watch and its spare parts.

Kind regards
Hajo

Hi Hajo,
You have identified the site of Rikus Basson, the SA collector with whom I have been corresponding and the owner of the SAAF Ref 2612/Mark 11. He has a very interesting watches from the SAAF.

One small comment. I heard today from someone at IWC who talked to David Seyffer about this watch. He replayed the following:

"David Seyffer contacted me concerning the SAAF thread. He said maybe it would make sense to mention that only inspection in Schaffhausen can clear things. At the moment everything is speculation."

To speculate, I will say that the watch does have one threshhold strike against it --it has a civiialn serial number, and appears to be the only known one with a claimed SAAF provenance. Also, I believe the engravings differ from other known-verified SAAF Mark 11s. Sut still I also will speculate that this in theory could be the one, of either one or many, civilian Mark 11 converted to military use by the SAAF.

Hi Antonio,
you're right, very interesting milwatches from the SAAF.
The world is becoming closer nowadays in times of the web, so we have met us too :-).
He announced his latest website in the MWR, the former broad arrow forum, 4 days ago. You know my other watch interest besides IWC ;-).