Likes Likes:  4
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: RAF Styling

  1. #1
    G-Shock & Digital Moderator Kronos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,701
    Blog Entries
    2

    RAF Styling

    There was a bit of a hubub a couple of years ago about Pulsar Chronos issued to the RAF and similar "civilian" chronos.

    For example:

    http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...watch.html?m=1

    I get that a Pulsar chrono seems to have been actually issued to the RAF and I get that there were civilian versions. When folks refer to "RAF styling" are they just making reference to this watch? Or is there something about the configuration of this chrono that recalls the history of other RAF watches?
    Last edited by Kronos; Dec 18, 2014 at 01:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Your link needs fixing , there's an extra colonless HTTP snuck its way in

    http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...raf-watch.html

    When folks refer to "RAF styling" are they just making reference to this watch?


    Bandwagon?... and the jumping on thereof?
    Last edited by Seriously; Dec 17, 2014 at 07:58 PM.

  3. Likes Kronos liked this post
  4. #3
    Dive Watches & Japanese Moderator OTGabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    3,409
    I always thought RAF styling was anything that resembled these: http://home.earthlink.net/~nederick/...oRevuVulcF.htm

  5. #4
    Moderator - Central tribe125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Kent - UK
    Posts
    14,758
    It's a loose term, and I haven't actually heard it used before.

    Strictly speaking, 'RAF style' should apply to watches that meet Defence Standards. DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 2) defined the requirements in the late 1960s and 1970s. These were the asymmetric two-register chronos made by CWC, Hamilton, Newmark, and Precista. CWC and the Eddie Platts version of Precista still make them -

    http://www.cwcwatch.com/1970-chronograph-mechanical.htm

    The Seiko and Pulsar models of the 1980s and 1990s met DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 4)/Issue 4.

    The Pulsars were bought because they were cheap, but they were unreliable and unpopular.

    I used to have a copy of the DEF-STANs, but can't find it...

  6. Likes Kronos liked this post
  7. #5
    G-Shock & Digital Moderator Kronos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,701
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriously View Post
    Your link needs fixing , there's an extra colonless HTTP snuck its way in

    http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...raf-watch.html




    Bandwagon?... and the jumping on thereof?
    Thanks. Fixed now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #6
    G-Shock & Digital Moderator Kronos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,701
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tribe125 View Post
    It's a loose term, and I haven't actually heard it used before.

    Strictly speaking, 'RAF style' should apply to watches that meet Defence Standards. DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 2) defined the requirements in the late 1960s and 1970s. These were the asymmetric two-register chronos made by CWC, Hamilton, Newmark, and Precista. CWC and the Eddie Platts version of Precista still make them -

    http://www.cwcwatch.com/1970-chronograph-mechanical.htm

    The Seiko and Pulsar models of the 1980s and 1990s met DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 4)/Issue 4.

    The Pulsars were bought because they were cheap, but they were unreliable and unpopular.

    I used to have a copy of the DEF-STANs, but can't find it...
    That is very helpful, thanks. Per the link (now fixed) I posted at the top of the thread and various other sources, it appears there were Pulsar Quartz chronos supplied to the RAF just a few years ago. I assume the earlier Pulsars you mentioned were pre-Seiko?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #7
    Moderator - Central tribe125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Kent - UK
    Posts
    14,758
    That's the same old Pulsar, I think. The MoD might have had some in stock until fairly recently. I think I'm right in saying (although I'm relying on memory) that they don't actually comply with DEF-STAN because the large hand is actually sweep seconds, relegating the chrono seconds to a small and difficult-to-read dial.

    I had one for a while, bought on impulse. They were sold very cheaply by a discount store in the UK. As it happened, there was a branch of the store close to my office. I went out for a sandwich and came back with one.

    Here it is, pictured against the summary of the forensic sections of the Mental Health Act that I was writing at the time.





    Sometimes issued watches are cheap rather than good, and the Pulsar is a prime example. The Pulsar is a neat little watch but a poor chronograph. They may have got stuck on the quartermaster's shelves because the aircrew didn't want them...

    The classic CWCs and Seikos were better watches, as was/is the Seiko SNDA57P1 that has also been purchased by the MoD. In fact, since the SNDA57P1 popped up in another recent thread, I've been sorely tempted to buy another one of those...

  10. Likes OTGabe liked this post
  11. #8
    G-Shock & Digital Moderator Kronos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,701
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tribe125 View Post
    That's the same old Pulsar, I think. The MoD might have had some in stock until fairly recently. I think I'm right in saying (although I'm relying on memory) that they don't actually comply with DEF-STAN because the large hand is actually sweep seconds, relegating the chrono seconds to a small and difficult-to-read dial.

    I had one for a while, bought on impulse. They were sold very cheaply by a discount store in the UK. As it happened, there was a branch of the store close to my office. I went out for a sandwich and came back with one.

    Here it is, pictured against the summary of the forensic sections of the Mental Health Act that I was writing at the time.





    Sometimes issued watches are cheap rather than good, and the Pulsar is a prime example. The Pulsar is a neat little watch but a poor chronograph. They may have got stuck on the quartermaster's shelves because the aircrew didn't want them...

    The classic CWCs and Seikos were better watches, as was/is the Seiko SNDA57P1 that has also been purchased by the MoD. In fact, since the SNDA57P1 popped up in another recent thread, I've been sorely tempted to buy another one of those...
    Any sense of the objections likely raised? Was it the relegation of the chrono seconds to the subdial? The length of the of the chrono?




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #9
    Moderator - Central tribe125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Kent - UK
    Posts
    14,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
    Any sense of the objections likely raised? Was it the relegation of the chrono seconds to the subdial? The length of the of the chrono?
    Poor quality plus the odd chrono sub-dial, I think. I know that the hands had a tendency to fall off one issued Pulsar, but I can't now remember if it was this one.

    I used to know all this stuff...

  13. Likes Der Amf liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are an independent and wide-ranging forum for watch enthusiasts. From mainspring to microchip, from Europe to Asia, from micro-brand to boutique - we cover it all. Novice or expert, we want you to feel at home. Whether it's asking a simple question or contributing to the fund of horological knowledge, it's all the same hobby. Or, if you like, you can just show us a picture of your new watch. We'll provide the welcoming and courteous environment, the rest is up to you!
Join us