# Seiko made in Japan or not...



## sysbox27 (Aug 12, 2008)

Hi,
I have recently seen several comments by fellow forumers indicating that there is no difference between the SKX007 J and K models. The former was supposedly made and assembled in Japan whereas the latter was manufactured in Singapore or China or wherever, but I am not even sure of this as some say that the J models aren't even assembled in Japan anymore.

I wanted to ask the same question of the 6309 divers...

Is there any difference (quality or otherwise) between the models that are marked Japan on the back and front as opposed to those that are not?
It would appear that the later models no longer had the Japan markings (possibly because Seiko had then moved factory to cheaper labour location?).

And then further to that is there any difference between the 6309 7040 models and the 7049 models (these were apparantly for export to the USA)?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
G.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

sysbox27 said:


> Hi,
> I have recently seen several comments by fellow forumers indicating that there is no difference between the SKX007 J and K models. The former was supposedly made and assembled in Japan whereas the latter was manufactured in Singapore or China or wherever, but I am not even sure of this as some say that the J models aren't even assembled in Japan anymore.
> 
> I wanted to ask the same question of the 6309 divers...
> ...


Firstly, the J and K designations do not indicate where a particular watch was made or assembled; only what market they were intended for.

The same applies to the older designations like 7040 vs 7040; intended market not location of manufacture. In fact most of these watches were made in the same plants on the same assembly lines and then supplied with the case back appropriate for the market into which it was going to be sold.

Secondly all Seiko watches are made and assembled to Seiko standards irrespective of location.

Today only the high end calibers are actually made in Japan and they are of obviously better quality to start with :-!


----------



## AirWatch (Jan 15, 2008)

Usually Seikos that are put together in Japan will have "MADE IN JAPAN" on the edge of dial between the 6 and 7 o'clock markers. Other countries are usually identified on the case back following the words "MADE IN". Name of countries by themselves or with the abbreviation "MOV.", either on the dial's edge or case back or the movement itself, identify where the movement was made and not necessarily where the entire watch was manufactured. By the way, Japan made Seikos come in most price categories and are not really limited to their high-end models. Oh, goody! This gives me a good excuse to show off my SNZB23 again. Enjoy!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

AirWatch said:


> Usually Seikos that are put together in Japan will have "MADE IN JAPAN" on the edge of dial between the 6 and 7 o'clock markers. Other countries are usually identified on the case back following the words "MADE IN". Name of countries by themselves or with the abbreviation "MOV.", either on the dial's edge or case back or the movement itself, identify where the movement was made and not necessarily where the entire watch was manufactured. By the way, Japan made Seikos come in most price categories and are not really limited to their high-end models. Oh, goody! This gives me a good excuse to show off my SNZB23 again. Enjoy!


Unless that is an old vintage model, it is highly unlikely it was manufactured, assembled and cased in Japan or else it would have cost over $1000.

The words on the dial and case back are legaleze for import/export reasons and are not indicative of where a watch was actually made. The cost of labour in Japan precludes any entry level Seiko watches from actually being made in that country.

That being said, every Seiko at whatever price point is equal in quality no matter where the parts were stamped out, where they were assembled or where the whole thing was cased up. Seiko has a rigid set of manufacturing standards that all factories adhere to.


----------



## SteveLens (Jul 13, 2016)

I used to be rather cautious with items 'Made in China' however there's no need to worry. 

People often associate items 'Made in China' with cheap factories, child labor and/or lack of skill and thus low quality stuff. But the people assembling watches in China are anything but your average Happy Meal toy makers. The people working in Seiko factories are trained, work in Seiko factories with the right equipment and cleanrooms and earn significantly more than the average chinese labourer. But someone who earns 5 times the average wage in china is still 4 times as cheap as a Japanese craftsman.

Same goes for companies like Sony, Microsoft and even 'Swedish' Ikea furniture.
My Xbox is 10 year old and still runs fine, my Ps3 is 5 year old and looks brand new and I have some Ikea furniture that has had more blow than Mike Tyson functioning fine and still looking excellent. 

Ofcourse there's a difference in quality but you'll be paying for it dearly, even affordable Tissot watches (Made in Swiss) start at whereabout $400 for the simplest designs, so the biggest difference is price.


----------



## Wolfsatz (Jun 27, 2016)

You are going to find 2 sides of the spectrum with this question. I just recently bought my very 1st Seiko and shortly after another diver. I had to option of choosing the cheaper K model of the J; and finally decided to go for the Made in Japan model. 
2 things to consider:

Resale value - If you ever decide to part or trade a Seiko; a Japan made model will yield a bit more advantage.
Knowing the Japanese culture for a few years; I can tell you that you can export technology, but you cannot export the Japanese state of mind to achieve perfection thus another reason I rather buy Japanese made.

As previously stated, be careful about the J. Does not always indicate that it has been made in Japan.


----------



## pithy (Aug 22, 2010)

SteveLens said:


> I used to be rather cautious with items 'Made in China' however there's no need to worry.
> 
> People often associate items 'Made in China' with cheap factories, child labor and/or lack of skill and thus low quality stuff. But the people assembling watches in China are anything but your average Happy Meal toy makers. The people working in Seiko factories are trained, work in Seiko factories with the right equipment and cleanrooms and earn significantly more than the average chinese labourer. But someone who earns 5 times the average wage in china is still 4 times as cheap as a Japanese craftsman.
> 
> ...


Stevie there are QC issues with chinese products posted at wus on an almost hourly basis but thanks any way for the laughs.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

Wolfsatz said:


> You are going to find 2 sides of the spectrum with this question. I just recently bought my very 1st Seiko and shortly after another diver. I had to option of choosing the cheaper K model of the J; and finally decided to go for the Made in Japan model.
> 2 things to consider:
> 
> Resale value - If you ever decide to part or trade a Seiko; a Japan made model will yield a bit more advantage.
> ...


Incontestable fact, long since discussed and beaten to death here: J and K, "made in" and "MVT assembled" are based on where Seiko plans to export to and sell a product via their AD network (gray mkt does not apply). This is based upon what various countries require for imported watches. Very few Seiko's are "made in Japan", certainly not a 5. Seiko mfg's and assembles in numerous factories throughout Asia. All watches within the same model are typically made in the same factory, regardless of what dial is used. Same for movements. Seiko may move production from time to time. A 4r36 seems to have some final mod or assembly done in Japan, hence models with that MVT for sale in the US AD network say "MVT Japan". Per US law. They are not really made in Japan, as that implies.


----------



## HoustonReal (Dec 29, 2013)

pithy said:


> Stevie there are QC issues with chinese products posted at wus on an almost hourly basis but thanks any way for the laughs.


Do you mean like all those Apple iPhones and iPads, that are made in China?

Beijing Watch Factory, Sea-Gull, Ebohr, Peacock and other Chinese watches are known to be quality pieces. They should not be confused with SKMEI, Yazole, Curren, and other $10 watches. QC differs broadly across China, depending on who is enforcing the standards.


----------



## Razvan (Apr 2, 2017)

You mean that a Seiko 5 with a 4207 calibre is not really made in Japan, even if it is marked as such on the dial?

(I insist on buying a Japanese-made watch for my wife.) I found one on Amazon that ships to Europe (UK, at least)
but I'm too new here to be able to post links. It's a SYMG71J1 (there's only one result if searched on Amazon, to circumvent
my limitation with links).


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

Razvan said:


> You mean that a Seiko 5 with a 4207 calibre is not really made in Japan, even if it is marked as such on the dial?
> 
> (I insist on buying a Japanese-made watch for my wife.) I found one on Amazon that ships to Europe (UK, at least)
> but I'm too new here to be able to post links. It's a SYMG71J1 (there's only one result if searched on Amazon, to circumvent
> my limitation with links).


As summarized in my earlier post, the term "Made in Japan" is only as accurate as the local laws say it has to be.
Now it would be your job to figure out where the heck is this "local".... But take this, if the alternative language of day in your watch is Arabic, you have a pretty good clue.


----------



## Razvan (Apr 2, 2017)

jerouy said:


> As summarized in my earlier post, the term "Made in Japan" is only as accurate as the local laws say it has to be.
> Now it would be your job to figure out where the heck is this "local".... But take this, if the alternative language of day in your watch is Arabic, you have a pretty good clue.


I've begun to read your "earlier post", seems very interesting. I'm from Romania (I'd like a day indicator in English), but I would like to purchase from the UK (haven't seen a Seiko 5 marked "Made in Japan"
here in Romania). The watch I like from Amazon is sold by MOON DOG, apparently a Japanese supplier.

How are the local laws in the UK regarding the "Made in Japan" marking?


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Made in Japan = Swiss Made = a term for a product that requires some conditions. Most of your high end swiss watches won't be 100% Swiss made and certainly not your entry or mid range level seikos...


----------



## Razvan (Apr 2, 2017)

I have found another thread with some very interesting insights (again, I'm too new here to be able to post links so I quote):

<<".....due to the nature of customs and labor laws in Japan, products are generally allowed to be stamped with Made in Japan if they are produced outside the national boundaries as long as they are manufactured in a wholly owned Japanese firm where the work is overseen by Japanese nationals. Generally speaking, watches priced below about 90000 yen (currently $838 US dollars) do not contain enough profit margin to be made in Japan. This is not just for Seiko, but for all major Japanese manufacturers. Watches priced roughly from 90000 to 250000 yen (currently $838 to 2328 US dollars) are often finished or with final assembly done in Japan and higher end watches above this point are often fully assembled in Japan. .....">>

Taken from a thread named "Where Seiko Watches Are Really Made - A Juicy Mistake", post was made by "jayhall0315" and it quotes a Seiko employee.

It seems that I should choose based exclusively on design and not fuss about MIJ anymore.


----------



## Seikogi (May 2, 2016)

Razvan said:


> I have found another thread with some very interesting insights (again, I'm too new here to be able to post links so I quote):
> 
> <<".....due to the nature of customs and labor laws in Japan, products are generally allowed to be stamped with Made in Japan if they are produced outside the national boundaries as long as they are manufactured in a wholly owned Japanese firm where the work is overseen by Japanese nationals. Generally speaking, watches priced below about 90000 yen (currently $838 US dollars) do not contain enough profit margin to be made in Japan. This is not just for Seiko, but for all major Japanese manufacturers. Watches priced roughly from 90000 to 250000 yen (currently $838 to 2328 US dollars) are often finished or with final assembly done in Japan and higher end watches above this point are often fully assembled in Japan. .....">>
> 
> ...


That sounds pretty accurate! And with Swiss I believe its something more than 50% of the total value has to be "done" there.


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

Razvan said:


> I've begun to read your "earlier post", seems very interesting. I'm from Romania (I'd like a day indicator in English), but I would like to purchase from the UK (haven't seen a Seiko 5 marked "Made in Japan"
> here in Romania). The watch I like from Amazon is sold by MOON DOG, apparently a Japanese supplier.
> 
> How are the local laws in the UK regarding the "Made in Japan" marking?


I don't think you get it.
"Local" means where the product is "intended" to be sold, NOT where the product is actually sold.

Say, if you are purchasing a product from an UK seller, who gets his items directly from Seiko UK, then you are protected by UK law -- "local" is UK.
But if this UK seller gets his items from some other sources, Seiko UK has no liability about whatever written on it -- "local" is not UK. Where is it then, you may ask? I don't really know. And Seiko wouldn't tell you. Just from my experience, all low-end MIJ models are apparently intended to be sold in eastern Europe or middle-east countries.

BTW I have seen some watches with alternate day in Romanian. They are all K models -- your laws are strict, presumably.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

Razvan said:


> You mean that a Seiko 5 with a 4207 calibre is not really made in Japan, even if it is marked as such on the *dial*?


In my experience, the best way to tell if a watch truly is "Made in Japan" is to look not at the dial, but at the caseback.

Look at the JDM models, you will invariably find "Made in Japan".

SBDC001 SUMO








SARB065 COCKTAIL TIME








You'll find this to be true too in Grand Seikos:








Older watches may just have "Japan". This is a SCVK001 4S movement from 1992 designed for the high end european market... and thence most likely actually made in Japan:








In contrast, compare this to a SKX007 that has no mention of Japan at all. Not sure if this is a K or J.








But apparently some SKX007Js do have "Japan" inscribed:
Seiko Skx007j has Japan WP not Japan A serial is it fake - Page 2








Or a Turtle. I know it says "Movement Japan" - but I think this only refers to the 4R36 movement. Further, this is not the same as "Made in Japan" as with the JDMs/GSs. Because of my theory, I believe that all Turtles are made in China regardless of whether it says "Made in Japan", "Movement Japan" or "4R36" on the dial.








But compare this to an original 6309 Turtle which has "Japan" proudly inscribed.








The regular monster 4R36 SRP313 has a plain caseback:








But the upgraded JDM monster 6R15 SBDC025 has "Made in Japan" on the caseback:








I hope I've made my point b-)


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

In addition to my point.

Someone once told me that when they popped their SBDC001 SUMO caseback open, it read "China" on the inside/behind.

Thence, I believe that when it says "Made in Japan" it does not necessarily mean that all the components were built in Japan; but rather that the final putting together was done in Japan.


----------



## PassiveO (May 4, 2017)

I'm no expert, but do have an interest in this topic. mrfourcows, how does my Turtle fit with your theory? I will open the case some day. Thanks.







Made in Japan on the dial.







Made in Japan on the case back.


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

PassiveO said:


> I'm no expert, but do have an interest in this topic. mrfourcows, how does my Turtle fit with your theory? I will open the case some day. Thanks.


We've been over this number of times before in the WIS-dom, plenty of threads even on this forum.

And your MIJ Turtle isn't made in Japan, sorry. It's made in Seiko subsidiary factory in one of the other Asian countries, but not Japan. Best bet is Malaysia but it may well be China.


----------



## georgefl74 (Jun 18, 2015)

Only reliable indicator I've found of Japanese origin is the 'JAPAN A' inscribed on the caseback. 'JAPAN J' means final assembly in Japan from parts made elsewhere. Made in Japan don't mean squat. Just my two yen.


----------



## atarione (Aug 10, 2015)

meh... I'd like to see more transparent labeling requirements.. but that would of course require pretty much global agreements.. which seem unlikely currently... or ever..

for whatever it is worth my SRP637K is probably the best built Seiko diver I own. .. currently have 009,A35, Franken 7002 and the SRP637

The 637 doesn't say BOO about where it was made.. on dial or case back.. maybe Malaysia maybe china?? who knows?? still it is a quite nice watch.. current global production realities make it sure that no highly skilled Japanese artisans are building your sub $1,000 diver watch.. fact..


----------



## PassiveO (May 4, 2017)

Thank You. Didn't realize there was so much variation, but it makes sense for a global manufacturer.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

PassiveO said:


> I'm no expert, but do have an interest in this topic. mrfourcows, how does my Turtle fit with your theory? I will open the case some day. Thanks.
> View attachment 12016626
> 
> Made in Japan on the dial.
> ...


Interesting...

I've never seen a "Made in Japan" on a Turtle caseback. That said, I don't own one and I basically just look at pictures that others have put up on the internet, Instagram, etc.

That being said, I guess its a little bit like the SKX007 situation. Generally, people don't think it is made in Japan because its too cost-inefficient. But like I showed, there was also versions of SKX007s with "Japan" on the caseback.

But TBH, I'm not sure why these "(Made in) Japan" versions exist for cheaper watches.


----------



## aalin13 (Apr 2, 2010)

I've read many articles on this, and it seems that all mechanical watches below 8L movement are not made in Japan. I guess it makes sense given the labour cost over there


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

mrfourcows said:


> In my experience, the best way to tell if a watch truly is "Made in Japan" is to look not at the dial, but at the caseback.
> 
> Look at the JDM models, you will invariably find "Made in Japan".
> 
> ...


Hi mate, you are mistaken, the made in japan does not mean its made in japan, ZERO lower end Seikos are made in japan.


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

Cobia said:


> Hi mate, you are mistaken, the made in japan does not mean its made in japan, ZERO lower end Seikos are made in japan.


This ^^


----------



## Boone (Aug 29, 2009)

georgefl74 said:


> Only reliable indicator I've found of Japanese origin is the 'JAPAN A' inscribed on the caseback. 'JAPAN J' means final assembly in Japan from parts made elsewhere. Made in Japan don't mean squat. Just my two yen.


Do you know what 'JAPAN WP' means? It's on the back of my SKX009J.


----------



## georgefl74 (Jun 18, 2015)

Boone said:


> Do you know what 'JAPAN WP' means? It's on the back of my SKX009J.


Nope, don't have a clue really


----------



## teaman2004 (Aug 6, 2009)

If few bucks more for a J model makes your purchase comfortable, go for it. Life is too hard, buy what you like is the most important rule.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

Cobia said:


> Hi mate, you are mistaken, the made in japan does not mean its made in japan, ZERO lower end Seikos are made in japan.


Sure, I get what you are trying to say - not disagreeing re cheaper watches made in Seiko subsidiaries in Guangzhou, Thailand, Malaysia.

But given that both a Grand Seiko and say a SARB033 have "Made in Japan" on the caseback, unless you have company production information privy to relevant staff members; you are as much in the dark as I am/we are.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

teaman2004 said:


> Life is too hard, buy what you like is the most important rule.


|>


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

mrfourcows said:


> Sure, I get what you are trying to say - not disagreeing re cheaper watches made in Seiko subsidiaries in Guangzhou, Thailand, Malaysia.
> 
> But given that both a Grand Seiko and say a SARB033 have "Made in Japan" on the caseback, unless you have company production information privy to relevant staff members; you are as much in the dark as I am/we are.


True. Same as you are with most other products you buy that are not locally grown in a field these days.

If you insist on more COO transparency, then you can always buy one of these: (it just might cost you a little more....)

PATEK PHILIPPE SA - Certificate of Origin


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

Btw, Seiko has started to print 2 countries on the caseback (in some cases):
SEIKO｜ジウジアーロ・デザインによる80's本格ダイバーズウオッチを忠実に再現 | Web Magazine OPENERS








Whether this is a voluntary move, or forced by legal restraints remains yet to be seen.


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

mrfourcows said:


> Btw, Seiko has started to print 2 countries on the caseback (in some cases):
> SEIKOï½œã‚¸ã‚¦ã‚¸ã‚¢ãƒ¼ãƒ.ãƒ»ãƒ‡ã‚¶ã‚¤ãƒ³ã�«ã‚ˆã‚‹80â€™sæœ¬æ.¼ãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ�ãƒ¼ã‚ºã‚¦ã‚ªãƒƒãƒ�ã‚'å¿.å®Ÿã�«å†�ç�¾ | Web Magazine OPENERS
> View attachment 12138946
> 
> ...


Not a nice look, especially for an expensive Limited Edition watch, regardless of the brand.

Call me old-fashioned but "China" isn't something I'd like to see either on the back or front of my watch, sorry.


----------



## atarione (Aug 10, 2015)

I feel like every week 1/2 dozen people's Dreams of master Japanese watch makers having a tea ceremony before assembling their $220 SKX009J are CRUSHED..

blah blah blah... built by robots .. maybe in Malaysia maybe China COO labeling according to country intended for sale rules..


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

atarione said:


> I feel like every week 1/2 dozen people's Dreams of master Japanese watch makers having a tea ceremony before assembling their $220 SKX009J are CRUSHED..
> 
> blah blah blah... built by robots .. maybe in Malaysia maybe China COO labeling according to country intended for sale rules..


They're lot more educated these days, though. There's plenty on this topic already written and available on the Web for those with slightly wider attention span and still able to read rather that just look at photos.
There will be still many posting here now and in the future about their 'surprise' their watch wasn't made in Japan.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

babola said:


> Call me old-fashioned but "China" isn't something I'd like to see either on the back or front of my watch, sorry.


It's not old-fashioned; its merely conditioning.

We've been told by corporations for ages that China = bad; and Germany, Swiss, Japan = good.

And yes, its not too hard to find poor quality products from China. But China is also the current factory of the world - look around your house and every other modern electronic item probably has "Made in China" on it.

Corporations know that and that is why if and when possible, they will try something like "Designed in Denmark" and conveniently exclude any information regarding which country it was manufactured it - in this case, not mentioning a country of manufacture = 99.99999% Made in China

In some ways, its psychology. Our brains have just been told to dislike China and so we would rather not see "Made in China". Put 2 products from the same factory side by side - and we'd probably choose the non "Made in China".


----------



## xbgen2 (Dec 26, 2006)

If I buy a Japanese companies' product, I want it made in JAPAN...if I wanted a product made in USA, I would buy a USA brand car...I will NOT buy a Japanese car made in the USA....if I want a CHINESE made watch, I'd have no problem buying one of the newer Seikos or Casios....

Why is it when people want a Japanese made product actually MADE in Japan,other people get so damn bent out of shape? If you have no problem buying a Seiko "cased" in China,go for it, but quit flipping people grief when they DONT want a Chinese Seiko....


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

Illuminating thread.


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

mrfourcows said:


> babola said:
> 
> 
> > Call me old-fashioned but "China" isn't something I'd like to see either on the back or front of my watch, sorry.
> ...


I don't need a lecture on 'China-made', belive me.

Back to my statement, I do not like to see China inscribed anywhere on my watch, full stop. If you don't mind it, that's fine by me, really.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

xbgen2 said:


> If I buy a Japanese companies' product, I want it made in JAPAN...if I wanted a product made in USA, I would buy a USA brand car...I will NOT buy a Japanese car made in the USA....if I want a CHINESE made watch, I'd have no problem buying one of the newer Seikos or Casios....
> 
> Why is it when people want a Japanese made product actually MADE in Japan,other people get so damn bent out of shape? If you have no problem buying a Seiko "cased" in China,go for it, but quit flipping people grief when they DONT want a Chinese Seiko....


Hmmm ... so you don't own a car then. Or a Canon, Nikon, or Fuji digital camera. No Sony, Toshiba, or Samsung TV. No LG, Whirlpool, or GE appliances. No Nike, Reebok, Asics, or Allen Edmonds shoes. Not even a Swiss watch. Or an Apple cell phone. No Thinkpad, iPad, or MacBook, or HP computer.

Hey, how do you get on the internet to comment here?


----------



## xbgen2 (Dec 26, 2006)

nepatriot said:


> Hmmm ... so you don't own a car then. Or a Canon, Nikon, or Fuji digital camera. No Sony, Toshiba, or Samsung TV. No LG, Whirlpool, or GE appliances. No Nike, Reebok, Asics, or Allen Edmonds shoes. Not even a Swiss watch. Or an Apple cell phone. No Thinkpad, iPad, or MacBook, or HP computer.
> 
> Hey, how do you get on the internet to comment here?


Oh goody! The parts supply argument. Think I am that ignorant, eh? yes I know that my Japanese made car has Chinese made parts on it, who doesn't? I also know that those parts are TESTED by the factory in Japan and meet their specs. I also know there is a HUGE difference in the quality of items assemble in Japan, Germany, or Switzerland versus products assembled in China. Japanese quality use to be as atrocious as Chinese quality, but through hard work and striving for excellence, Japanese assembled products are now known for their quality. Maybe in 30 years Chinese assembled products will be considered as good as Japanese products, but that's in the future, not the reality of today...

Have a good life buying your inferior Chinese assembled products bro!


----------



## atarione (Aug 10, 2015)

oh for the love of god look on the back of pretty much any stereo receiver / TV ...etc electronics from any "Japanese" brand.. if you are super lucky it may have been built in Malaysia or Thailand but more frequently China...

The U.S. prospered after the war and priced ourselves out of manufacturing consumer goods (mostly) , then the Japanese came along and did the same thing.. It isn't profitable to build most watches (other than higher end) or tv's or stereo..etc in Japan ..isn't viable economically...

Not sure if you just Rip Van Winkle'd your way from the mid 90s but the but the globalization fight has been basically lost for 2 decades here...(more really).

Amusingly the pricing yourself out of consumer goods manufacture is starting to happen to China as well as labor costs ..etc are rising... 

a lot of "Swiss Made" watches are more or less Chinese at the end of the day also... GM is building some SUV or other in China now... 

I'm also curious how you got on the internet with non Chinese built computer/tablet..etc.??? My Filco Keyboard costs about 5x times more than most keyboards ~ish but it was built in Taiwan if that makes you feel any better.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

xbgen2 said:


> Oh goody! The parts supply argument. Think I am that ignorant, eh? yes I know that my Japanese made car has Chinese made parts on it, who doesn't? I also know that those parts are TESTED by the factory in Japan and meet their specs. I also know there is a HUGE difference in the quality of items assemble in Japan, Germany, or Switzerland versus products assembled in China. Japanese quality use to be as atrocious as Chinese quality, but through hard work and striving for excellence, Japanese assembled products are now known for their quality. Maybe in 30 years Chinese assembled products will be considered as good as Japanese products, but that's in the future, not the reality of today...
> 
> Have a good life buying your inferior Chinese assembled products bro!


So, the Chinese, Malasian, Mexican, American, and Canadian parts (plus all other parts not made in Japan) used on your Camry are first sent to Japan for "testing", before being shipped to Georgetown Kentucky for assembly? Or did you think your Camry was actually manufactured in Japan and shipped here?

Did you not know that ALL BMW X3, X4, and X5's are assembled in Spartanburg SC, even the ones sold in Germany? Is the quality of those vehicles less than than BMW models assembled Germany? Or are the parts used to assemble the X3 - 5's, which are made in the USA, Canada, Mexico, sent to Germany for some kind of testing before being sent back to Spartanburg?

I didn't use the word "ignorant"... you did.

But, if the shoe fits ...


----------



## aalin13 (Apr 2, 2010)

Personally, I prefer my watches to not be made in China, but I'm fine with my car or computer to be made in China. I'll be changing cars or computers every 5 years or less, so they are purely consumable goods to me, whereas my watches I'll likely hold onto them for far longer, and I buy them not for purely practical use purpose but to appreciate their craftsmanship. Having said that, it all depends on the price point as well, a $200 beater watch is fine to be made in China, but not at beyond $1000


----------



## Cocas (Jul 7, 2015)

"Made in Japan" wording either appearig on dial or case back, does make me more happier than none!

My old Seiko 5 has it on the dial.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

babola said:


> I don't need a lecture on 'China-made', belive me.
> 
> Back to my statement, I do not like to see China inscribed anywhere on my watch, full stop. If you don't mind it, that's fine by me, really.


It's not a lecture...

Well by your statement, you can pretty much throw away your smartphone because pretty every *popular* smartphone is built in China.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

atarione said:


> oh for the love of god look on the back of pretty much any stereo receiver / TV ...etc electronics from any "Japanese" brand.. if you are super lucky it may have been built in Malaysia or Thailand but more frequently China...
> 
> I'm also curious how you got on the internet with non Chinese built computer/tablet..etc.??? My Filco Keyboard costs about 5x times more than most keyboards ~ish but it was built in Taiwan if that makes you feel any better.


Mate, how is Thailand, or Malaysia, or Taiwan much better than China?

Just as an example, Apple builds in China by a contractor (not their own production plant). And their products are deem one the of finest and most desirable... explain that please.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

aalin13 said:


> Personally, I prefer my watches to not be made in China, but I'm fine with my car or computer to be made in China. I'll be changing cars or computers every 5 years or less, so they are purely consumable goods to me, whereas my watches I'll likely hold onto them for far longer, and I buy them not for purely practical use purpose but to appreciate their craftsmanship. Having said that, it all depends on the price point as well, a $200 beater watch is fine to be made in China, but not at beyond $1000


A car does cost a hell lot more than a watch... #justsaying.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

nepatriot said:


> I didn't use the word "ignorant"... you did.
> 
> But, if the shoe fits ...


Some people just want to believe that if they see "Made in Japan" - that means that is literally made in Japan; or if not, they will convince themselves that it is.

But then again, some people believe in fairies, and santa claus.


----------



## aalin13 (Apr 2, 2010)

mrfourcows said:


> A car does cost a hell lot more than a watch... #justsaying.


True, but a car is a necessity, a mechanical watch isn't


----------



## babola (May 8, 2009)

mrfourcows said:


> It's not a lecture...


It certainly came across like one.



mrfourcows said:


> Well by your statement, you can pretty much throw away your smartphone because pretty every *popular* smartphone is built in China.


See, I can 'lecture' you here...on reading comprehension this time. You managed to mis-read my post not once, but twice. 
Nowhere did I state anything about watch being made in China or not. I stated I don't like seeing 'China' being inscribed on the watch I wear, either on the back or front. 
That's all I did but you decided to take it out of contest and elevate it further, on your own.


----------



## atarione (Aug 10, 2015)

mrfourcows said:


> Mate, how is Thailand, or Malaysia, or Taiwan much better than China?
> 
> Just as an example, Apple builds in China by a contractor (not their own production plant). And their products are deem one the of finest and most desirable... explain that please.


my point wasn't entirely (or at all) that made in Thailand or Malaysia is "better" per se.. but for the I don't want to see "Made In China" on my stuff people that is the best they can hope for mostly at this point..

However... in the case of Taiwan they actually make some pretty good stuff there (imho) ... As a matter of personal preference I'd rather have something made in Taiwan vs China..


----------



## xbgen2 (Dec 26, 2006)

nepatriot said:


> So, the Chinese, Malasian, Mexican, American, and Canadian parts (plus all other parts not made in Japan) used on your Camry are first sent to Japan for "testing", before being shipped to Georgetown Kentucky for assembly? Or did you think your Camry was actually manufactured in Japan and shipped here?
> 
> Did you not know that ALL BMW X3, X4, and X5's are assembled in Spartanburg SC, even the ones sold in Germany? Is the quality of those vehicles less than than BMW models assembled Germany? Or are the parts used to assemble the X3 - 5's, which are made in the USA, Canada, Mexico, sent to Germany for some kind of testing before being sent back to Spartanburg?
> 
> ...


I'll take this point by point....my 2014 Scion xB is MADE in JAPAN, as *all* of them are..... one of the very, very few Japanese cars you can buy here in the USA that are actually made in Japan....not everyone who owns a Japanese car owns a Camry(not made in Japan), Accord(also not made in Japan), Civic (90% of them not made in Japan), Mazda (I dont think a single one bought in the USA is made in Japan)....so yeah, your assumptions regarding my knowledge are a little off, aren't they??

Every BMW assembled in the USA has the LOWEST build/quality ratings of any BMW...look it up, bro.....what's that say about your BMW argument? And again, I've known all those BMWs are made in the USA, and that is the exact reason I would never BUY a USA made BMW...

And yes, every car manufacturer tests all the components sent to their plants to assure they meet their definition of "quality", and obviously that definition is different for every car manufacturer...

what this comes down to is certain people knocking other people because they want to buy products built in certain countries....I will proudly say that I would buy ANYTHING built in Germany or Japan than the same items built in any other country, period....

Done with this arguing, there is no point to it....LOL!!!!


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

xbgen2 said:


> I'll take this point by point....my 2014 Scion xB is MADE in JAPAN, as *all* of them are..... one of the very, very few Japanese cars you can buy here in the USA that are actually made in Japan....not everyone who owns a Japanese car owns a Camry(not made in Japan), Accord(also not made in Japan), Civic (90% of them not made in Japan), Mazda (I dont think a single one bought in the USA is made in Japan)....so yeah, your assumptions regarding my knowledge are a little off, aren't they??
> 
> Every BMW assembled in the USA has the LOWEST build/quality ratings of any BMW...look it up, bro.....what's that say about your BMW argument? And again, I've known all those BMWs are made in the USA, and that is the exact reason I would never BUY a USA made BMW...
> 
> ...


Sorry, never heard of a "Scion xB". Perhaps here's why:

Scion's Only Memorable Product Was the First Car It Made

Given this cars history, it was clearly not successful enough in the US for Toyota to want to manufacturer it here. So your position is, because it was assembled by robots in Japan, it is superior to other Toyota's manufactured by the same robots here in the US? And somehow Chinese parts used in the assembly of a Scion in Japan are better than parts made by those same Chinese plants for Toyota USA? And only the Japanese Toyota plant "tests" the parts supplied from China, but the USA plant does not?

One of the hallmarks of many Japanese companies, like Toyota, is that they use the exact same machines, processes, and protocols in their Japanese plants as they do in their factories abroad. Their USA made vehicles are not "seconds"; they score as high as their Japanese made models, and in fact are made from parts from the same factories... which are located all over the world.

I'd wonder if your Japan-assembled Scion has the same % of parts made in Japan as a Toyota made in the USA. Or a Ford, or a Jeep, etc assembled the USA ... or Canada.

As for BMW, the X5 is ranked by most publications in the top 5 in its class, besting Mercedes, Lexus, and a german made BMW's. While some models are not as well designed ... or as popular ... as others (like your Scion), the overwhelming reviews on German ... or Japanese ... cars made outside vs. inside their parent country, as far as QC, is "no difference".

BMW factory gets Platinum rating by J.D. Power and Associates, but it isn't in Germany
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...more-luster-as-bmw-audi-m-b-expand-footprints

Seiko is no different in this respect from Nikon, Canon, Mazda, etc.

While I'm not saying you are ignorant, your continued commentary on "parts supply argument" certainly reflects a level of ... naivety ... of how business works in a global economy.

You are of course free to continue to believe in fairy tails and fantasy, so when in comes to your ignorance, don't let me or anyone else persuade you differently.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

atarione said:


> my point wasn't entirely (or at all) that made in Thailand or Malaysia is "better" per se.. but for the I don't want to see "Made In China" on my stuff people that is the best they can hope for mostly at this point..
> 
> However... in the case of Taiwan they actually make some pretty good stuff there (imho) ... As a matter of personal preference I'd rather have something made in Taiwan vs China..


I can certainly understand having a preference for personal reasons. I'll admit sometimes I do the same, although less so these days for obvious reasons: we live in a global economy, so very few things are assembled from parts made in just one country. And where that does exist, it is often at an extreme premium. In other words, I may like that something reads a certain way, but underneath I know the reality.

It's another thing entirely, IMHO, when someone's argument defies reality by insisting something is when it is not so. Like in the children's fable "The Emperor's new cloths".

I have shared this story before: another hobby of mine is photography. I remember when Nikon shifted production of its f1.8 G series prime lenses from Japan to China. People thought the sky was falling, that Nikon was making a huge mistake, and a great line of lenses would be forever ruined.

After they became available, all kinds of people, amateurs and professionals, tested ones made in Nikon's Chinese factory against ones made in Nikon's Japanese factory, and discovered ... that the Chinese made ones were as good or better, than the Japanese made ones. Newer robots I suppose.


----------



## Georgium (Sep 9, 2017)

Agree with nepatriot, the made in China today has nothing to do with the made in China ten years ago...but for the big brands mainly, for they invested a lot for their quality standard, the problem, psychologically speaking, if I dare say  since all the crap in the world are also made in this same country, China, all the "made in China" are wrongly tainted with the same incredibly negative perception.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

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 "&#8230;a watch&#8230;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


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

As a I recently posted:

Out of curiosity, and being entirely irritated by the complete lack of helpful information in the eternal 'what does Made in Japan' mean on my Seiko' threads (in the main), I emailed Seiko Japan today and asked (giving them the model/serial for my SKX011J as an example).

I got a very polite reply advising me that the 'Made in Japan' marking means that the watch was manufactured in *Seiko's production facilities **in Japan*, but that does not necessarily mean every single part or component was completely was completely manufactured in Japan. I'm happy with that and it is consistent with my understanding of the country of origin labelling laws relating to watches. Quite simply, if, as internet scuttlebutt likes to proclaim, Seiko is telling giant lies, it would be breaching the quite clear law in most countries it exports to (including, from a quick google, the large Arabic-speaking countries I looked at (Arabic date disk), and risk a range of nasty repercussions, not limited to customer claims for misleading and deceptive conduct, as well rejection of goods by customs, and presumably, fines), so that theory has never held any water.

Not that any of the above has much significance I'm sure (I've no doubt the manufacturing and assembly process is, as near as dammit, identical wherever), but the idea that 'Made in Japan' was simply printed on watches destined for certain markets and the watch had never so much as visited Japan always rankled.

Cheers!

EDIT: Like the chap above, this says nothing to J and K. My 2c is this - the recent J's I have seen (SRPs) say Japan Mov't/Movement - it means what it says. The movement is (_manufactured in *Seiko's production facilities **in Japan*, but that does not necessarily mean every single part or component was completely was completely manufactured in Japan_) would be a sensible guess. My SRP777 K had a label that said Case China, Movement Malaysia.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

ThomasMidgley said:


> As a I recently posted:
> 
> Out of curiosity, and being entirely irritated by the complete lack of helpful information in the eternal 'what does Made in Japan' mean on my Seiko' threads (in the main), I emailed Seiko Japan today and asked (giving them the model/serial for my SKX011J as an example).
> 
> ...


Youve been fed porkies bro, no SKX are made in japan.

Edit, ive just bumped another recent blog for you on this topic, ive quoted a very explanitary and good post from Don it in about exactly where seiko divers are made.

Not much under the 2k price range is built in Japan, basically none.

SKX divers are entry level and not worth their time to make in japan they are made mainly in china in Seiko factories, its nothing more than a myth that these are made in japan, its just labelling.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Youve been fed porkies bro, no SKX are made in japan.


That would be a remarkable course of action for a company like Seiko. A strategy based on outright lies and breach of laws in all (I would venture) your major markets is, if you'll excuse me, a vastly more outlandish and ridiculous proposition than the alternative.

I also query why it would be so odd for SKX to be made in Japan? The SKX were introduced in 1996 (a quick google suggests they came down with the new 7S26 movement?). Back in 96 globalisation wasn't nearly such a thing, so it seems entirely reasonable and believable that production of SKX started in Japan. While I've no doubt they have added other factories producing SKX globally, if Seiko had factories tooled to produce SKX in Japan, it would hardly be extraordinary if they have maintained them.

I accept we'll most likely need to agree to disagree here


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

ThomasMidgley said:


> That would be a remarkable course of action for a company like Seiko. A strategy based on outright lies and breach of laws in all (I would venture) your major markets is, if you'll excuse me, a vastly more outlandish and ridiculous proposition than the alternative.
> 
> I also query why it would be so odd for SKX to be made in Japan? The SKX were introduced in 1996 (a quick google suggests they came down with the new 7S26 movement?). Back in 96 globalisation wasn't nearly such a thing, so it seems entirely reasonable and believable that production of SKX started in Japan. While I've no doubt they have added other factories producing SKX globally, if Seiko had factories tooled to produce SKX in Japan, it would hardly be extraordinary if they have maintained them.
> 
> I accept we'll most likely need to agree to disagree here


I suggest you read the other thread i just bumped about the country of manufacture of seikos divers, its a blog on where the padi turtle has been made and a letter from a seiko employee that let the cat out of the bag, confirming what everybody has known for years.
If you are asking if seiko is lying to you, they certainly are.
Youve been fed the company line.
Can you tell me which japanese seiko factory you think the SKX are assembled ?
Id like to think they are made in japan, but they are not, its just a romantic myth..
You have a lot of research to do young grasshopper 
cheers


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

ThomasMidgley said:


> ...my understanding of the country of origin labelling laws relating to watches.


Which country's country of origin labelling laws? Do you have an understanding of Japan's? Because as has already been said, others here have contacted people in the know about this subject and been told that basically under Japanese law, manufacturers can say something is made in Japan if it is made in a Japanese-owned facility under the supervision of Japanese nationals anywhere in the world. I also don't believe they are assembling SKX's or anything else that cheap in Japan.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

clyde_frog said:


> Which country's country of origin labelling laws? Do you have an understanding of Japan's? Because as has already been said, others here have contacted people in the know about this subject and been told that basically under Japanese law, manufacturers can say something is made in Japan if it is made in a Japanese-owned facility under the supervision of Japanese nationals anywhere in the world. I also don't believe they are assembling SKX's or anything else that cheap in Japan.


Yep correct, they need a japanese supervisor and japanese owned factory to call it made in japan, that factory can be in Uganda..


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> I suggest you read the other thread i just bumped about the country of manufacture of seikos divers, its a blog on where the padi turtle has been made and a letter from a seiko employee that let the cat out of the bag, confirming what everybody has known for years.
> If you are asking if seiko is lying to you, they certainly are.
> Youve been fed the company line.
> Can you tell me which japanese seiko factory you think the SKX are assembled ?
> ...


Seiko's response to me categorically includes the words 'in Japan' as highlighted above, so they would, as you say, be lying to me (and inconsistent with the claim you can say 'made in japan' where overseen by a Japanese national in Japanese-woned factory overseas, regardless of whether that is true (something that I have not been able to see stated anywhere other than threads on watches!).

I will put it back to them, and see how they respond. However, logic suggests that it's more likely that the watches labelled as such are actually 'made in japan' at least to the extent they are substantially assembled there, rather than that the multinational corporation has a business model that relies on misleading and deceptive conduct/breach of import laws/outright lying. You never know, I suppose.

Lastly (and being a little mischievous here, this suggests that there are quite clear physical differences between two SKX 009s, one being 'Made in Japan' and J, the other being a K?:






If you're going to pull a shifty as your man in that thread claims, seems slightly odd you'd have multiple parts that are clearly different - you'd pump them out of the same factory with parts from the same suppliers if you could, I would have thought? Not conclusive with respect to anything, of course...

Anyway, will report back with response, if any 

Cheers!


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Yep correct, they need a japanese supervisor and japanese owned factory to call it made in japan, that factory can be in Uganda..


Yeah but tbh, if I got my hands on one of those impeccable Ugandan-made Seikos, I would actually want Made in Uganda printed on it.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Yep correct, they need a japanese supervisor and japanese owned factory to call it made in japan, that factory can be in Uganda..


Again, not saying you are wrong, but is there any actual evidence that this oft-repeated claim is correct? As I have said above, it is inconsistent with the communication I received from Seiko, in any event, so no get out of jail for them there.

Re labelling laws, the applicable laws are where you are exporting it to, not the country of origin (?). So, for example, Australia says:

https://www.border.gov.au/Importing...as/Documents/fact_sheet_watches_june_2013.pdf

In essence, Japanese law in this regard is irrelevant...

EDIT: Of course, if all SKX Js outside Japan are sold grey market (also could be via ADs that are in countries with suitable permissive labelling laws), that could solve the legal woes re labelling. Doesn't excuse or explain them lying outright to a customer, of course!


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

ThomasMidgley said:


> Again, not saying you are wrong, but is there any actual evidence that this oft-repeated claim is correct? As I have said above, it is inconsistent with the communication I received from Seiko, in any event, so no get out of jail for them there.
> 
> Re labelling laws, the applicable laws are where you are exporting it to, not the country of origin (?). So, for example, Australia says:
> 
> ...


Sorry, is there any actual evidence that what you were told is correct? Two people from Seiko are saying two different things. At this point how is what were told by one employee any more true that what somebody else was told by another employee?

Re: the labelling laws; if that's how it works you would need to look at the laws of the countries that the J models are intended for. I don't know myself which countries or region that is but Seiko themselves will only market them to those countries. If they turn up anywhere else I think it is grey market and nothing to do with them?


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

ThomasMidgley said:


> Seiko's response to me categorically includes the words 'in Japan' as highlighted above, so they would, as you say, be lying to me (and inconsistent with the claim you can say 'made in japan' where overseen by a Japanese national in Japanese-woned factory overseas, regardless of whether that is true (something that I have not been able to see stated anywhere other than threads on watches!).
> 
> I will put it back to them, and see how they respond. However, logic suggests that it's more likely that the watches labelled as such are actually 'made in japan' at least to the extent they are substantially assembled there, rather than that the multinational corporation has a business model that relies on misleading and deceptive conduct/breach of import laws/outright lying. You never know, I suppose.
> 
> ...


Did you read the blog i just bumped, im not great at links but go into my profile and see my latest posts, youll see the padi origins thread with some basic answers, read it, thats not the only evidence online, theres tonnes, no offence bro but i can see you havnt done much research and are new to the dive watch hobby going by your other posts online.
Seiko are not going to tell you their inner workings bro, youd have to know an employee very well to have that type of info leaked.
Even their Sumo's are not made in japan.
Mate weve been talking about this for the 5 years ive been here and well before that, youre a bit late to the party and youre going to be disappointed when you realise the realities and listen to others.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

I apologise for any offence caused to you two.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

clyde_frog said:


> Sorry, is there any actual evidence that what you were told is correct? Two people from Seiko are saying two different things. At this point how is what were told by one employee any more true that what somebody else was told by another employee?
> 
> Re: the labelling laws; if that's how it works you would need to look at the laws of the countries that the J models are intended for. I don't know myself which countries or region that is but Seiko themselves will only market them to those countries. If they turn up anywhere else I think it is grey market and nothing to do with them?


Again, apologies. The claim that you only need japan company/supervisor overseas is oft repeated, but never referenced (other than in that thread) - I was simply wondering if there is further information available on that, as it is is not an issue that is internal to Seiko - it presumably affects all Japanese products. _EDIT: I have wasted some time looking, also!_

Your last point is the one I also arrived at


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

ThomasMidgley said:


> Again, not saying you are wrong, but is there any actual evidence that this oft-repeated claim is correct? As I have said above, it is inconsistent with the communication I received from Seiko, in any event, so no get out of jail for them there.
> 
> Re labelling laws, the applicable laws are where you are exporting it to, not the country of origin (?). So, for example, Australia says:
> 
> ...


Lol, have you read the letter from the seiko rep stated where all the seiko divers are made and assembeled or are you just not interested?


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Did you read the blog i just bumped, im not great at links but go into my profile and see my latest posts, youll see the padi origins thread with some basic answers, read it, thats not the only evidence online, theres tonnes, no offence bro but i can see you havnt done much research and are new to the dive watch hobby going by your other posts online.
> Seiko are not going to tell you their inner workings bro, youd have to know an employee very well to have that type of info leaked.
> Even their Sumo's are not made in japan.
> Mate weve been talking about this for the 5 years ive been here and well before that, youre a bit late to the party and youre going to be disappointed when you realise the realities and listen to others.


Again, apologies for offending you.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Lol, have you read the letter from the seiko rep stated where all the seiko divers are made and assembeled or are you just not interested?


I have. Thank you for that!


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

You've not offended me lol. I'm just letting you know that you probably shouldn't believe what you've been told by the person you spoke to. |>


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

Cheers folks - a top evening to all and I shall do more research before I post in the future


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

ThomasMidgley said:


> Again, apologies for offending you.


No need for apologies Tom, just some good debate bro, you certainly didnt offend me, just hope you remember weve been on this topic for years and covered the same ground youre covering now.
I enjoy your passion mate, i can see you have a real passion for the hobby and we both love and appreciate the best brand there is imo, Seiko. (best being personal taste)
Seiko divers are the shiz.


----------



## olli_tr (Dec 31, 2016)

Not sure if this adds much to the discussion, but I recently asked Seiko customer service if SBDC051 is made in Japan or not and the answer was (direct quote):



> As for the definition of "Japan" or "Made in Japan" on the dial and/or case-back of our product , please refer to the following official comment from the company:
> 
> - The inscription "JAPAN" or "MADE IN JAPAN" indicates that the watch was manufactured in our production facilities in Japan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

olli_tr said:


> Not sure if this adds much to the discussion, but I recently asked Seiko customer service if SBDC051 is made in Japan or not and the answer was (direct quote):


I'd for one like to see a screenshot of the actual email, including the email address.


----------



## Jacuzzi (Jul 3, 2017)

So, eh...now what does 'Japan G' stand for? It's on the back of a 6105 I found a few days ago.


----------



## Kulprit (Oct 7, 2017)

Cobia said:


> Lol, have you read the letter from the seiko rep stated where all the seiko divers are made and assembeled or are you just not interested?


The problem is that email has never, to my knowledge, been substantiated. It's just yet another piece of "evidence" being bandied about on the internet by proponents of both sides of the debate.

Given the choice between what someone from Seiko had told me vs. what someone from Seiko purportedly told some stranger on the internet, I'd go with what I was told directly.

Not that I care either way, but I've been following this debate for a few years and I have yet to see any actual, verifiable evidence offered by either side.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Kulprit said:


> The problem is that email has never, to my knowledge, been substantiated. It's just yet another piece of "evidence" being bandied about on the internet by proponents of both sides of the debate.
> 
> Given the choice between what someone from Seiko had told me vs. what someone from Seiko purportedly told some stranger on the internet, I'd go with what I was told directly.
> 
> ...


But doesn't that leave us on the horns of a dilemma? Which stranger on the internet are WE supposed to believe?


----------



## olli_tr (Dec 31, 2016)

Dec1968 said:


> I'd for one like to see a screenshot of the actual email, including the email address.


I wonder what more you could get from a screenshot of an email, but here it is. I simply filled in the contact form on their website (https://service.seiko-watch.co.jp/form/default.asp) and got this answer.


----------



## ThomasMidgley (Oct 7, 2017)

That's what my response said too, albeit not in relation to that specific model. I also had another para stating that other letters and markings are for manufacturing control purposes and of no particular significance to our general consumer.

They will not be drawn further, either


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

olli_tr said:


> I wonder what more you could get from a screenshot of an email, but here it is. I simply filled in the contact form on their website (https://service.seiko-watch.co.jp/form/default.asp) and got this answer.
> 
> View attachment 12726229


It matters a great deal to many - thus has long been a debate on the origins of manufacture. Wonder if I sent one re:SKX007 if the response would be the same. Many have stated the SKX007 is different.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## Kulprit (Oct 7, 2017)

Seabee1 said:


> But doesn't that leave us on the horns of a dilemma? Which stranger on the internet are WE supposed to believe?


I guess that's my point, we don't know who to believe, so we shouldn't go around declaring either as correct. Like most multinationals, Seiko doesn't make that information publicly available, so we have to accept that we don't know and won't know unless they decide to release that information themselves. If Seiko told me that "Made in Japan" means just that, then I would accept that. But if I were to tell you that Seiko told me that, that doesn't mean you should take my word for it. Who am I to you? That goes for equally for those to whom "Seiko" disclosed that "Made in Japan" is meaningless.

People are perfectly free to theorize, argue, advocate their position, and discuss--that's why we're here after all--but we should be very careful about declaring a winner when the only source to which the victor can cite is another anonymous guy on the internet. That's not evidence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Made in Japan merely means the watch was inspected by a Japanese citizen-employee at the point of manufacture in whatever country, be it Malaysia, Phillipines, China, wherever. 

Otherwise the watch was inspected by a non-Japanese citizen.

For all practical purposes, it doesn't friggin' matter.


----------



## Kulprit (Oct 7, 2017)

yankeexpress said:


> Made in Japan merely means the watch was inspected by a Japanese citizen-employee at the point of manufacture in whatever country, be it Malaysia, Phillipines, China, wherever.
> 
> Otherwise the watch was inspected by a non-Japanese citizen.
> 
> For all practical purposes, it doesn't friggin' matter.


Still waiting for *actual* substantiation for this ol' chestnut as well.

I think it's highly doubtful that in the Hong Kong or Malaysian factory there are "Made in Japan" shifts with Japanese supervisors and dials, and then a whistle blows and the Chinese or Malay supervisors arrive along with the "K" dials.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kaptenmlaar (Nov 2, 2009)

try to email seiko too.. surprisingly, the reply was quite fast.. |> seiko..

and here's the reply..


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

olli_tr said:


> Not sure if this adds much to the discussion, but I recently asked Seiko customer service if SBDC051 is made in Japan or not and the answer was (direct quote):


My read on this is that it is only somewhat useful... and that it won't settle the debate once and for all because, from what I understand, your question was specific to the SBDC051.


----------



## mrfourcows (Aug 3, 2014)

Dec1968 said:


> I'd for one like to see a screenshot of the actual email, including the email address.


I think it wouldn't make much of a difference given that the question was specific to the SBDC051.


----------



## adrian44 (Oct 23, 2014)

Razvan said:


> <<".....due to the nature of customs and labor laws in Japan, products are generally allowed to be stamped with Made in Japan if they are produced outside the national boundaries as long as they are manufactured in a wholly owned Japanese firm where the work is overseen by Japanese nationals


This is an old thread but I think it's worth bringing up. I highly doubt that this piece of information is true. If someone has proof from an official source please share it. I could not find this referenced in any credible source, and to me it makes no sense and would certainly go against international regulations as well as local regulations in importation countries. FTC would certainly take an issue with an item wholly manufactured in China but bears "Made in Japan" regardless of the reason.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

adrian44 said:


> This is an old thread but I think it's worth bringing up. I highly doubt that this piece of information is true. If someone has proof from an official source please share it. I could not find this referenced in any credible source, and to me it makes no sense and would certainly go against international regulations as well as local regulations in importation countries. FTC would certainly take an issue with an item wholly manufactured in China but bears "Made in Japan" regardless of the reason.


None of the watches sold here say "Made in Japan" on them. They just say "Japan" or something similarly vague, which could just mean it's designed there.

We all know "Swiss Made" doesn't mean what most people think it means. And Shinola boldface lied about where their watches are made for years before they got called out for it and had to change their branding.

We're in a globalized economy now. It doesn't matter anymore where something is made.


----------



## adrian44 (Oct 23, 2014)

Great information, thank you. I'm talking about something else though. This quote from earlier



Razvan said:


> <<".....*due to the nature of customs and labor laws in Japan, products are generally allowed to be stamped with Made in Japan if they are produced outside the national boundaries as long as they are manufactured in a wholly owned Japanese firm where the work is overseen by Japanese nationals*


Does anyone have an official reference to the law or regulation which supposedly allows products to be stamped Made in Japan if they are built in another country in Japanese owned and supervised factories?


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

The known Seiko factories and contract vendors actually located on Japanese islands only manufacture the expensive Seiko lines like Credor and Grand Seiko.

The low priced lines are made in known factories in Asia not actually located in Japan and they produce both K series and J series labled Made In Japan as they are inspected by Japanese citizens, which is all that is needed to qualify as Made In Japan.


----------



## adrian44 (Oct 23, 2014)

yankeexpress said:


> *not actually located in Japan* and they produce both K series and J series* labled Made In Japan as they are inspected by Japanese citizens, which is all that is needed to qualify as Made In Japan*.


I'm looking for a reference and sourcing for this information. I would appreciate it if you can link it from any official site of a regulatory body, even if in Japanese language. Something that states an item made entirely outside the borders of Japan can be labelled "Made in Japan" because a Japanese citizen inspects it. Thanks in advance.


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

adrian44 said:


> I'm looking for a reference and sourcing for this information. I would appreciate it if you can link it from any official site of a regulatory body, even if in Japanese language. Something that states an item made entirely outside the borders of Japan can be labelled "Made in Japan" because a Japanese citizen inspects it. Thanks in advance.


That's very doubtful. AFAIK according to JCWA, by law only the movement needs to be assembled in Japan to qualify the "Made In Japan" sticker. Additionally JCWA added "cased in Japan" to regulate their members -- but that is hardly any law. In any case, there is no restrictions on the inspectors' nationalities.

I read this from someone who actually wrote to JCWA and got the above reply.


----------



## adrian44 (Oct 23, 2014)

jerouy said:


> That's very doubtful. AFAIK according to JCWA, by law only the movement needs to be assembled in Japan to qualify the "Made In Japan" sticker. Additionally JCWA added "cased in Japan" to regulate their members -- but that is hardly any law. In any case, there is no restrictions on the inspectors' nationalities.
> I read this from someone who actually wrote to JCWA and got the above reply.


Indeed, that is exactly what I'm aware of and it's in line with the regulations for "Made in XXX" of many countries. Final assembly or some sort of substantial transformation must take place inside the country then they can put "Made in country" on the product. The statement I'm questioning here is quite outlandish and have not found it in any official document of a regulatory entity. I do not believe that you can put "Made in XXX" on a product that is fully made outside the country based only on the ownership of the factory or the nationality of inspectors. This statement has been copied on multiple pages and is quoted in social media, and it's usually attributed to this forum. I'll quote it again for reference, and I'm open to being corrected if it can be sourced in an official document



> <<".....due to the nature of customs and labor laws in Japan, products are generally allowed to be stamped with Made in Japan if they are produced outside the national boundaries as long as they are manufactured in a wholly owned Japanese firm where the work is overseen by Japanese nationals


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

adrian44 said:


> Indeed, that is exactly what I'm aware of and it's in line with the regulations for "Made in XXX" of many countries. Final assembly or some sort of substantial transformation must take place inside the country then they can put "Made in country" on the product. The statement I'm questioning here is quite outlandish and have not found it in any official document of a regulatory entity. I do not believe that you can put "Made in XXX" on a product that is fully made outside the country based only on the ownership of the factory or the nationality of inspectors. This statement has been copied on multiple pages and is quoted in social media, and it's usually attributed to this forum. I'll quote it again for reference, and I'm open to being corrected if it can be sourced in an official document


That statement about overseer's nationalities is equally questionable. I do not believe such laws would define people's nationalities -- laws about who can be Prime Minister maybe defines that but laws about industrial production would be very unlikely.

Actually I find the above reply from JCWA rather convincing. For instance, compare to Japan, the US is believed to have tighter regulation when it comes to "Made in XXX" labeling. SEIKO Turtles, which are officially sold in both countries, could qualify "Made in Japan" in Japan but only "Movt' Japan" in the US. It's unlikely that SEIKO would produce these seemingly same models from two different factories but the above reply could explain it perfectly.


----------



## HmJ_FR (May 19, 2017)

The statement is correct: final assembly must be made in Japan with final inspection organized by Japanese nationals domestically. But it's not far from some Swiss maker who import the mechanism from China, although they may guarantee a (very) minimum % of added value performed locally.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

adrian44 said:


> I'm looking for a reference and sourcing for this information. I would appreciate it if you can link it from any official site of a regulatory body, even if in Japanese language. Something that states an item made entirely outside the borders of Japan can be labelled "Made in Japan" because a Japanese citizen inspects it. Thanks in advance.


Why not do your own research, and report back here if you wish? That way you are adding to the topic, instead of asking others to satisfy your curiosity for you.

So many have been curious like you, done their own work, found their own answers, and shared that here. Why not start there?

Look up trade pacts between China and Japan. Other industries besides just watches. Look up Japanese requirements for origin labels on products sold in Japan. Compare that to other counties regulations. What does Japanese regulation say about use of "Made in Japan"? How about on watches?

Of course the "inspected by a Japanese citizen" is not true. Did you really believe that? You're being made sport of.

In a global economy, few things are made in just one country. Unless you're talking vegetables or things made by local artists. Everything from the car you drive, the appliances in your home, to the computer you're using to get on WUS is made from parts made all over the world, from materials gathered from all over the world.... often with sub- assemblies made in different countries, with final assemblies into finished goods taking place in even other countries.

Countries enter in to trade agreements that allow for transfer of parts and sub-assemblies in all kinds of ways. The same part can be made in two different countries, send to a third country where they are co-mingled together in a parts bin, for final assembly into a finished product. How could you possible label a product for origin if you had to document where every part came from?

It is known that in certain industries there are trade pacts between China and Japan that allow some parts and sub assemblies made in Japanese owned factories in China by the same company (i.e Seiko, Toyota, Nikon, etc), to cross borders and be intermingled for final assembly in Japan into a finished product that may meet Japanese requirements for "Made in Japan". Others may not, depending on the industry and agreements.

At the same time, that "Made in Japan" product may not be able to be imported into another country labeled as such, based on that country's origin requirements.

In the US, imported watch origin is the country where the last major improvement to the movement was performed. So a movement can be assembled to a large % in Malaysia from parts made in China, Japan, and Malaysia, shipped to Japan for the rotor to be installed, then shipped to China as a completed movement for final assembly into a various watch models. US law would require that watch to be labeled "Movement Japan". If intended for sale in the EU, that watch might be have to be labeled "Made in China", if import laws were based on where final assemble took place.

I'm sure some of the things thought or known to be true 5, 10, 15 years ago may have changed. So we welcome your findings. Please be sure to include links to all your sources.

The truth is out there....


----------



## adrian44 (Oct 23, 2014)

nepatriot said:


> Why not do your own research, and report back here if you wish? That way you are adding to the topic, instead of asking others to satisfy your curiosity for you.
> 
> So many have been curious like you, done their own work, found their own answers, and shared that here. Why not start there?
> ...................................
> ...


You do have a lot of time on your hands, don't you? I mean writing that huge message must have taken some work, even with the hilarious grammar and dubious syntax.

Now this is certainly going to go above your head, but for the benefit of others who would not want to read 11 pages, I found a statement made here, said very clearly that I could not find it sourced in any official documents, therefore I'm asking if the forum members can source it. As intellectually challenged as you seem to be, I'm sure that even you can't find something wrong in asking a group to source a claim posted on that group when no other source could be found. You implied that I believed it and that I'm being "made sport of", which appears to be pulled straight out of your nether end since I'm clearly here to dispute it. I called it "outlandish", said it defies logic and explained how it's in contrast with everything known about this subject. Yet you still imply that I believe it and attack me based on that in a pathetic implementation of the Strawman Fallacy. Google it, although I have a feeling comprehension is not your forte, nor is intelligence or decency.

To the board moderators- I'm sure his inflammatory post goes against the rules, unless the rules state "You can act like a disrespectful fool because we welcome cowardly soy boys who like to take their frustration with the world on others while hiding behind a keyboard". Yet I'm sure I'll be the one who gets punished, so I'll save you the work and leave now, happy in the knowledge that at least I dispelled a myth that was left unchallenged here and been copied around the web. Stay well ;-)


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

adrian44 said:


> You do have a lot of time on your hands, don't you? I mean writing that huge message must have taken some work, even with the hilarious grammar and dubious syntax.
> 
> Now this is certainly going to go above your head, but for the benefit of others who would not want to read 11 pages, I found a statement made here, said very clearly that I could not find it sourced in any official documents, therefore I'm asking if the forum members can source it. As intellectually challenged as you seem to be, I'm sure that even you can't find something wrong in asking a group to source a claim posted on that group when no other source could be found. You implied that I believed it and that I'm being "made sport of", which appears to be pulled straight out of your nether end since I'm clearly here to dispute it. I called it "outlandish", said it defies logic and explained how it's in contrast with everything known about this subject. Yet you still imply that I believe it and attack me based on that in a pathetic implementation of the Strawman Fallacy. Google it, although I have a feeling comprehension is not your forte, nor is intelligence or decency.
> 
> To the board moderators- I'm sure his inflammatory post goes against the rules, unless the rules state "You can act like a disrespectful fool because we welcome cowardly soy boys who like to take their frustration with the world on others while hiding behind a keyboard". Yet I'm sure I'll be the one who gets punished, so I'll save you the work and leave now, happy in the knowledge that at least I dispelled a myth that was left unchallenged here and been copied around the web. Stay well ;-)


Oh brother ... Are you in high school?


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

HmJ_FR said:


> The statement is correct: final assembly must be made in Japan with final inspection organized by Japanese nationals domestically. But it's not far from some Swiss maker who import the mechanism from China, although they may guarantee a (very) minimum % of added value performed locally.


That's correct. The so called "Swissness laws" requires at least 60% of Swiss *VALUE* to qualify "Swiss Made"(there are other criteria as well). So if you can source a $1 Chinese watch and pay someone $6 to inspect it in Switzerland then sell it for $10, in numbers at least it meets that requirement(not to say other criteria though).

However, there is no such law made by Japanese government. Watches with 100% imported parts can still be legally labeled as "Made in Japan", as long as the movement is assembled in Japan.

"Made In Japan" is quite a pointless label if you ask me. But people who value it are out there and willing to pay extra. Good for economy.


----------



## HmJ_FR (May 19, 2017)

Not easy to find info by oneself, especially such technical point. Of course "Japanese citizen" is just a shortcut, but that's the same as with Nissan cars: after producing goods, they have to be inspected. This requires qualifications that foreign workers never bother to pass because it takes time and resources, so in the end that's a Japanese operator who do this (QA or whichever department). Now of course Nissan proved that it's not because the process is designed that it's perfectly enforced...

In the end: having final assembly and inspection in Japan should mean something.


----------



## ronkatct (Sep 27, 2018)

Does this mean that my Authorized Agent Purchased (Macy's) USA model, Seiko Presage SRPB77 with Made in Japan in the dial, Made In Japan on the caseback,and 4R35B JAPAN Movement marking is not made in Japan? Next Rolex will be found to be mostly not made in Switzerland.


----------



## jerouy (Feb 13, 2017)

ronkatct said:


> Does this mean that my Authorized Agent Purchased (Macy's) USA model, Seiko Presage SRPB77 with Made in Japan in the dial, Made In Japan on the caseback,and 4R35B JAPAN Movement marking is not made in Japan? Next Rolex will be found to be mostly not made in Switzerland.


You are missing the point here.

Those labels, Made In Japan or Swiss Made, only need to meet authorities' requirements, not your requirements.

Now the key point is: which authority?

I can tell you this: Swiss Made is regulated by Swiss authority, who went as far as registering TMs in the US, whilst that Made In Japan label you found at Macy's is only as accurate as US federal government says it has to be. That makes the two highly incomparable already. Not to mention those famous/infamous J models with Arabic day wheels.


----------



## aks12r (May 23, 2017)

read this a few months ago after buying my first Seiko a shogun sbdc029 - a few years old so may be changed but gives a detailed overview of the multinational side of production

https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/where-seiko-watches-really-made-juicy-mistake-1084156.html


----------



## HmJ_FR (May 19, 2017)

aks12r said:


> read this a few months ago after buying my first Seiko a shogun sbdc029 - a few years old so may be changed but gives a detailed overview of the multinational side of production
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/where-seiko-watches-really-made-juicy-mistake-1084156.html


Funny I never ran into that thread, that's an amazing piece of information! Even though many newer models are missing, the point is clear. Anyway I want to emphasize that "overseen by Japanese technicians" requires some qualifications that take years to achieve for the highest level (from L4 up to L1).


----------



## aks12r (May 23, 2017)

aks12r said:


> read this a few months ago after buying my first Seiko a shogun sbdc029 - a few years old so may be changed but gives a detailed overview of the multinational side of production
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/where-seiko-watches-really-made-juicy-mistake-1084156.html


it is interesting that in the information provided it is noted that the "overseen by Japanese technicians" Is what allows the watches to be branded as "Japan Made"

I suspect this is literally a quality control process and although it sounds misleading it isn't as it also notes that all factories / processes are under supervision of a Japanese National. *If* this denotes implementing Japanese regulations and QC for the manufacturing process then it doesn't matter where the parts are made or finished, as long as the regulations & QC that the consumer is trusting in are being honoured.

whether swiss made or japan made or made in Taiwan is better - is down to the actual margins of error allowed in the actual regulation and QC for each regulatory body, which clearly nobody on this forum has a clue about 

comparable industry giant is Apple Nearly everything comes from china or se asia or is made there but because of the very strict QC apple have applied to the process the resulting hardware is arguably the best phone and laptop hardware commercially available, even though the company is American.


----------



## aalin13 (Apr 2, 2010)

aks12r said:


> read this a few months ago after buying my first Seiko a shogun sbdc029 - a few years old so may be changed but gives a detailed overview of the multinational side of production
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/where-seiko-watches-really-made-juicy-mistake-1084156.html


This has been brought up before whenever this topic comes up, but I don't think the OP posted any screen shot to verify the content.

IMO, I don't believe it is entirely correct due to the following:

1. Both the SBDX001 and the SBDX011 come with a hang tag saying it's assembled in Shizukuishi Watch Studio, which is in Japan. There's also this old video about the studio that used to be embedded on Shizukuishi's own website, and if you pause at 2:59, it shows the assembly of the 8L35A, which is used in both of these watches.
Video: 




2. The post mentions some GS quartz movements are made in Japan, but according to Grand Seiko's website, the quartz are made in Shinshu Watch Studio in Japan. Link: https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/manufacture/

Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if the lower priced watches (those with 7S, 4R and 6R movements) are not made in Japan due to selling price vs. labour cost, but I find what the OP said about the MM and GS line hard to believe.


----------



## Kulprit (Oct 7, 2017)

nepatriot said:


> Why not do your own research, and report back here if you wish? That way you are adding to the topic, instead of asking others to satisfy your curiosity for you.
> 
> So many have been curious like you, done their own work, found their own answers, and shared that here. Why not start there?
> 
> ...


I'm not going to wade into another one of these threads, nor am I going to read all 112 posts in this thread regurgitating information from the hundreds of other posts I've read in the countless number of other threads on this subject that have cropped up over the years.

What I'll say is this: when other people come here spouting "facts" that they've acquired from their "research", without any citation as to the source or authenticity of those "facts", the onus is on the proponent to support his/her allegations. If they can't do so then they need to stop stating them as fact. It's not lazy to ask them to cite to something, anything, to support their position. In fact, by asking the question, adrian44 is doing the community a far greater service than those who simply regurgitate rumors or things they read on a forum.

Every time one of these threads pops up it ends up devolving into a farce, with people posting/reposting laughable information and then talking down to people who remain unconvinced that "Made in Japan" means anything other than just that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

Kulprit said:


> I'm not going to wade into another one of these threads, nor am I going to read all 112 posts in this thread regurgitating information from the hundreds of other posts I've read in the countless number of other threads on this subject that have cropped up over the years.


Sure, I wouldn't do that either .... unless I was interested enough in the topic. This one has been beaten to death many times over, but that's because its such a good one.



Kulprit said:


> What I'll say is this: when other people come here spouting "facts" that they've acquired from their "research", without any citation as to the source or authenticity of those "facts", the onus is on the proponent to support his/her allegations. If they can't do so then they need to stop stating them as fact.


On this topic, there are countless other threads besides this one, some going back a decade or more before 2017. Many do contain links, quotes, etc. See what I mean? If you looked through them - if your were motivated enough on this particular topic that is - you would know this.

Secondly, this is anonymous board where people who like watches come to talk about watches. There is therefore no "onus" on anyone to do anything, no requirement for "citations". There are no "allegations", or preconditions for establishing authenticity.

Nice if you do, of course. But making demands? Who are you, or our little friend Adrian, to tell anyone here what they can and cannot choose to share?



Kulprit said:


> It's not lazy to ask them to cite to something, anything, to support their position.


But many have included links etc....

What strikes me as lazy is not doing a one's homework first, finding the posts with what you are looking for, instead of demanding to be spoon feed.



Kulprit said:


> In fact, by asking the question, adrian44 is doing the community a far greater service than those who simply regurgitate rumors or things they read on a forum.


But young Adrian would do far more of a service for our little community, IMHO if, instead of demanding others satisfy his curiosity, he took the initiative himself to go out and do some digging, and then post his findings here for all to see. In scholarly manner, with citations and links etc., if he so chooses. That way he is setting an example for everyone else. Leadership.



Kulprit said:


> Every time one of these threads pops up it ends up devolving into a farce, with people posting/reposting laughable information and then talking down to people who remain unconvinced that "Made in Japan" means anything other than just that.


Every few years there seems to be new group of watch enthusiasts who re-discover posts about Seiko origin. New threads pop up, old ones brought back to life. Everything gets rehashed. New pieces of the puzzle get added, some old believes are validated, others debunked. Some howl in protest at what they do not want to believe or cannot understand. Others find enjoyment in learning.

At the end of the day, no one can tell you what to believe, anymore than you can tell anyone else what what the should believe.

I sincerely hope you, young Adrian, and others are curious enough to search for the posts that interest you most on this topic, and go out and seek answers, find proof. Debunk what is not correct. And add to the dialog by sharing what you have learned.

May you find the answers you seek.


----------



## beanerds (Jun 18, 2017)

My orange Monster in made in Japan and my Turtle , Tuna , GMT land are K models and the build quality is basically identical , but there is something about ' Made in Japan ' on the dial .

Beanerds.


----------



## Kulprit (Oct 7, 2017)

nepatriot said:


> Sure, I wouldn't do that either .... unless I was interested enough in the topic. This one has been beaten to death many times over, but that's because its such a good one.
> 
> On this topic, there are countless other threads besides this one, some going back a decade or more before 2017. Many do contain links, quotes, etc. See what I mean? If you looked through them - if your were motivated enough on this particular topic that is - you would know this.
> 
> ...


My response will be brief.

If you re-read the preface to my post-which conveniently, you quoted at the beginning of yours-you'll see that I have done a LOT of reading on this subject. I've read most (if not all) of the threads on this topic that have come up on the various fora over the years, comprising hundreds of posts. This is a topic that is of interest to me, which is why I've done so. I've participated in some of these threads (including, unbeknownst to me when I posted yesterday, this one) and I've read what everyone has shared about this subject.

And what I've found-with very few exceptions-is people stating opinion or hearsay as fact, other people citing those first people as sources, and still others accepting that assertions as being fact simply on the basis that they were asserted.

As someone whose academic and professional careers have been based on empiricism and discerning fact from conjecture, I find the misinforming of newbies, earnestly searching for answers, through the repetition of shockingly incestuous facts, to be both frustrating and tiresome. So if I've chosen to withdraw to some degree from the endless debate, it's not because I don't care about the subject matter or that I'm not interested in learning more, it's because so little of substance has ever actually been contributed.

And you are correct, nobody here owes anyone else an explanation. But if one member is going to repeatedly assert something as fact, and especially if they're going to condescend to others for not accepting their assertions, I think they should "put up or shut up", and any member, like Adrian, has a right to call for proof.

Okay, I suppose I've been anything but brief, but I'll end this by pointing to one of the few pieces of apparently valid sources of information on the topic. One from this very thread. As far as I'm concerned, this is dispositive unless something new (and credible) comes along:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

Kulprit said:


> Okay, I suppose I've been anything but brief, but I'll end this by pointing to one of the few pieces of apparently valid sources of information on the topic. One from this very thread. As far as I'm concerned, this is dispositive unless something new (and credible) comes along:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The letter from Seiko posted is in conformance with Japanese law, specifically the Prevention of False Premiums and Fair Labeling Act. (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法). Under this law, labels must include the product's country of production. The law defines country of production as the place where "activity which substantially transformed the contents of the product" ("その商品の内容について実質的な変更をもたらす行為") occurred.

'Substantially transformed' leaves room for interpretation. Fortunately, there are regulations under the Act which specifically mention watches. As far as watches are concerned, country of production is defined under these regulations to be the country where the movement was assembled. However if the band or bracelet or special characteristics such as water resistance are an important element of the watch, then the country where the band or bracelet or case were made must also be included. See:

http://www.caa.go.jp/policies/polic..._labeling/guideline/pdf/100121premiums_27.pdf

Needless to say, all this only concerns watches sold in Japan. Other countries have their own labeling requirements & regulations.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

Kulprit said:


> My response will be brief.
> 
> If you re-read the preface to my post-which conveniently, you quoted at the beginning of yours-you'll see that I have done a LOT of reading on this subject. I've read most (if not all) of the threads on this topic that have come up on the various fora over the years, comprising hundreds of posts. This is a topic that is of interest to me, which is why I've done so. I've participated in some of these threads (including, unbeknownst to me when I posted yesterday, this one) and I've read what everyone has shared about this subject.


Very good! My comment on this was in regards to young Adrian, and others like him, who do not.



Kulprit said:


> And what I've found-with very few exceptions-is people stating opinion or hearsay as fact, other people citing those first people as sources, and still others accepting that assertions as being fact simply on the basis that they were asserted.


Don't we all believe our opinions to be based on fact? Or logic? And don't we all, when we believe something to be true, share our opinions when we have conversations with others interested in that topic?

This part of your statement above suggest that even you do this: "And what I've found-with very few exceptions....". You have selected and rejected information based on what you believe to be true, or not, and made a conclusion of "very few" pass your test of credibility.

Isn't this to some degree subjective? Isn't it possible that someone else, equally as trained as you, with comparable experience and intelligence, could do the same review, and conclude more than "very few exceptions" are credible?



Kulprit said:


> As someone whose academic and professional careers have been based on empiricism and discerning fact from conjecture, I find the misinforming of newbies, earnestly searching for answers, through the repetition of shockingly incestuous facts, to be both frustrating and tiresome. So if I've chosen to withdraw to some degree from the endless debate, it's not because I don't care about the subject matter or that I'm not interested in learning more, it's because so little of substance has ever actually been contributed.


First, let me welcome a professional and scholar of your stature! Lord knows we can use more of that here - especially on this topic - to help keep threads more empirical and academic, and from degenerating into what you so aptly describe above.

I will admit, however, that this might take some of the fun out it... we've had some colorful posts!



Kulprit said:


> And you are correct, nobody here owes anyone else an explanation. But if one member is going to repeatedly assert something as fact, and especially if they're going to condescend to others for not accepting their assertions, I think they should "put up or shut up", and any member, like Adrian, has a right to call for proof.


With all due respect, I have do disagree on the last part. That might be true in many places, like perhaps a classroom, with young Adrian as the professor, and he is challenging students he feels are taking the lazy way out. Or in a business meeting, where he is the senior manager and we are his employees.

But on an anonymous public forum? This is more like a bar room, where a bunch of friends gather to solve the world's problems. In that setting, young Adrian might be viewed quite differently.



Kulprit said:


> Okay, I suppose I've been anything but brief, but I'll end this by pointing to one of the few pieces of apparently valid sources of information on the topic. One from this very thread. As far as I'm concerned, this is dispositive unless something new (and credible) comes along:


Yes, your example below is consistent with what I believe many, if not most (yes subjective) of us, have concluded, in our own way, when we first were drawn into this debate. It does play a little loose with "assembled" and "manufactured", but I'd say that's just wordsmithing.

It could be "dispositive"... but in reference to a specific condition.

Now, a little gentle prodding ... academic debate, if you will:

In reading all the posts and threads on this topic, which contain maybe a half dozen other alleged letters and memos from Seiko, you concluded this one to be authentic.

How so? You do know that it is very simple, for those with the right skills, to create an authentic looking document, especially if it is a cut and past, into a board like this? Many of these have been challenged and debate here and elsewhere, and not just on this topic. Many have been debunked, others discredited.

Should we not at lease consider that this could also be less than authentic? Perhaps edited?

I have a little experience on the manufacturer side, having had the good fortune to work for several global companies over 30+ years. Companies that own smaller companies, like Seiko; some of those even in Japan. Quite a bit of my experience involves meeting with customers (not consumers). Frequently that involves responding to their inquiries about internal issues, which often involve confidential information. Answers often require researching down to production level, reviewing consumer inquiries, or following a trail through various functions.

Large corporations, even modest one like Seiko, have protocols and process for responding to consumer inquiries. Clearly this is a response to a consumer.

Responses to common inquiries are carefully scripted. You would be surprised to know how many scripts manufactures have prepared: just about every contingency you can imagine. "Dear Sir" often indicates a scripted response was used as a template.

There are dedicated departments that handle all consumer inquiries. This is so even in most small companies. The people staffed there are trained in company process and protocol; they document all inquires and responses. This data feeds reports and analysis, which is reviewed by senior management. Employees out side this function are trained NOT to address any consumer inquiries, and on the protocol to forward these to consumer affairs. In most companies, anyone responding to consumer inquiries, outside of the designated department, is made aware that can result in termination.

Japanese companies are particularly known for having detailed protocols, extensive lists prepared responses to choose from. Equally important, there is usually very high employee adherence to process and protocols. Their scripts are often "best practices" models of brevity and simplicity, a perfect balance of just the right amount of information, and not a smidgen more.

What strikes me about this letter, first and foremost, is it's length and detail.

This is a common inquiry for Seiko, I would imagine, and examples of Seiko responses (which I'm sure you found) are brief. Japanese companies, especially older ones, are notorious for avoiding sensitive issues. Many, like Nikon, Cannon, and Toyota, have had in the past well documented struggles with consumer inquires involving quality control issues, and other topics that they consider challenges to their corporate integrity and honor. More often than not, such inquiries are simply ignored.

Questions that suggest or imply something deceptive fall into that camp.

Now, I am not saying this memo is not credible. Note that I have already stipulated that it consistent with what I, and many others, believe to be true.... for a specific set of circumstances.

I'm just pointing out that this appears to be a significant deviation from other consumer responses posted on these boards that are also alleged to be from Seiko.

In my experience, which has no connection to Seiko of course, this also highly inconsistent with things I have seen (personal and business) from other Japanese companies similar to Seiko.

Lastly, in my professional capacity, I have been in roles where I have reviewed consumer inquiries and response analysis, sometimes even approving, occasionally editing, responses on sensitive issues. I would have an issue if I saw such a letter sent in response to a consumer inquiry. It should have ended below the two links.

This may be authentic, but my suspicion is it may have been edited or altered.

Regardless, I appreciate that you DID the research, and posted a very well thought out response. You, unlike young Adrian, contributed to this topic, and added value.

I'd like to hear why you chose this letter as authentic ... your thoughtful comments would be of value.



Kulprit said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

barutanseijin said:


> The letter from Seiko posted is in conformance with Japanese law, specifically the Prevention of False Premiums and Fair Labeling Act. (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法). Under this law, labels must include the product's country of production. The law defines country of production as the place where "activity which substantially transformed the contents of the product" ("その商品の内容について実質的な変更をもたらす行為") occurred.
> 
> 'Substantially transformed' leaves room for interpretation. Fortunately, there are regulations under the Act which specifically mention watches. As far as watches are concerned, country of production is defined under these regulations to be the country where the movement was assembled. However if the band or bracelet or special characteristics such as water resistance are an important element of the watch, then the country where the band or bracelet or case were made must also be included. See:
> 
> ...


Excellent observations - mostly applicable to JDM Seiko's.

I'm inclined to think this may be modified from a much simpler, perhaps authentic, consumer response, possibly from Seiko's JDM business unit. There is too much detail, and structural inconsistencies, like two different bullet point formats.

The section below the 2 links, IMHO, almost seems to have been added or edited. Most points address JDM, but some seem to awkwardly mix in points applicable to non-JDM Seiko's.

As a result, I could select what points I choose to apply to JDM watches, and say this letter is consistent with what I believe to be true about JDM's. At the same time, I could select and apply whichever points I believe to be true about non-JDM's to support my POV on those.

Example: I could take the bullet that states any Seiko with "Made in Japan", or "Japan" on the dial, is "manufactured" in Japan, from parts sourced from Japan, and\or including parts from Seiko factories outside Japan, apply that to one of my 007's, and argue this letter proves my 007 is manufactured (not assembled) in Japan. And my other "K" 007 is not.

There is also a point about some Seiko's being made in Japan from parts sourced only from Japan. Even Grand Seiko makes no such claim now. In the recent past, they used a qualifier that not all parts were made in Japan. Now their website carefully omits that. That bullet raises doubt about credibility about this memo.


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

My Seiko SRPB43 Cocktail Time watch for US market states "JAPAN" on the rotor, and "MADE IN JAPAN" on the dial and the case back. But when I opened it up to regulate it, it says "CHINA CASE -KY" on the inside of the very same caseback l!!!! So I wonder if the back of the dial says made in Singapore? The clasp does say "CHINA-W". Keep in mind that this is not a Malaysia Movement, or a Seiko without the "Made in Japan" designation the dial or case back. So it does beg the question of what "Made in Japan" really means. Does it mean simply that the only the movement is made or at least assembled there, but that the rest of the watch is assembled in China or elsewhere as some posters here have suggested. Probably not, since that probably applies to the Seikos that instead say "Movt Japanese" as seen on some of my other Seikos. But, on the "Made in Japan" watches, one would certainly hope that at least the final watch would also be cased up and tested in Japan, like what is required under the Swiss rules to be called "Swiss Made." The email communications from Seiko Corp. would tend to support this.

FYI, there is a Swiss rule that treats foreign made movement parts as Swiss if they are "certified equivalents". So it wouldn't be all that farfetched if the Japanese did the same. After all, parts made in a Japanese-owned factory in China, with Japanese supervision and training could technically be "Japanese Made" although not really "Made in Japan!" We may never know exactly what is going on, but it is apparent that Seiko's are not made entirely in Japan, despite the "MIJ' designation implying this. Since Japanese manufacturing is not cheap, it's common sense that Seiko's marked "Made in Japan" that sell for only 20% more than Malaysian Made Seikos, are not made entirely in Japan.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Dan Finch said:


> My Seiko SRPB43 Cocktail Time watch for US market states "JAPAN" on the rotor, and "MADE IN JAPAN" on the dial and the case back. But when I opened it up to regulate it, it says "CHINA CASE -KY" on the inside of the very same caseback l!!!! So I wonder if the back of the dial says made in Singapore? The clasp does say "CHINA-W". Keep in mind that this is not a Malaysia Movement, or a Seiko that does not have the "Made in Japan" on the dial or case back. So it does beg the question of what "Made in Japan" really means. Does it mean simply that the only the movement is made or at least assembled there, but that the rest of the watch is assembled in China or elsewhere as some posters here have suggested. Probably not, since that probably applies to the Seiko's that instead say "Japanese Movt." On the "Made in Japan" watches, one would certainly hope that at least the final watch would also be cased up and tested in Japan, like what is required under the Swiss rules to be called "Swiss Made." The email communications from Seiko Corp. would tend to support this.
> 
> FYI, there is a Swiss rule that treats foreign made movement parts as Swiss if they are "certified equivalents". So it wouldn't be all that farfetched if the Japanese did the same. After all, parts made in a Japanese-owned factory in China, with Japanese supervision and training could technically be "Japanese Made" although not really "Made in Japan!" We may never know exactly what is going on, but it is apparent that Seiko's are not made entirely in Japan as some think. Since Japanese manufacturing is not cheap, it's common sense that Seiko's marked "made in Japan" that sell for only 25% more than the same Seiko so marked, are not entirely made there.


These are the marking requirements for watches being imported for sale in the U.S., all below from here:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Apr/icp055_3.pdf
(Bolding is mine)

_• 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._

_Acceptable markings for watches and clocks consist of just the name of the country of origin or the name of the country of origin preceded by "Made in," "Product of" or similar words. Also acceptable is the use of the word "Movement" or an abbreviation such as "Mov't" or "Movt" along with the name of the country. Examples of acceptable markings for a watch or clock if the movement is assembled in Hong Kong would be: "Hong Kong," "Hong Kong Movement," "Movement Hong Kong," or "MOVT Hong Kong." The wording "Swiss Made" is another example of an acceptable marking if the country of origin is Switzerland. _

_Where the parts of a movement are from one country, and the parts are assembled into a movement in a second country (the country of origin), the marking on the watch and clock may identify the country where the parts of the movement are made (in addition to the country of origin of the watch or clock), as long as the marking is in compliance with the requirements of 19 CFR 134.46._


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

Seabee1 said:


> These are the marking requirements for watches being imported for sale in the U.S., all below from here:
> https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Apr/icp055_3.pdf
> (Bolding is mine)
> 
> ...


Thanks for that info. Was able to locate similar Japanese Rules.

The Japanese APEC origin regulations state that, _"the country in which calculators or *watches* were assembled is regarded as the country of origin of such goods." _But doesn't specify if that applies to just the movement or the entire watch. However, it appears that in order to avoid misleading consumers, member companies of the watch assoc. JCWA like Seiko, use the phrase 'Made in Japan' only when movement assembly *AND* complete watch assembly were performed in Japan. This is supported by Seiko's third designation, the P model suffix for models that are "Mvt Japan" but not also cased in Japan. It is reassuring to know, that Japanese watchmaking follows Swiss rules in this respect, and actually goes a step farther than US Trade laws in requiring the entire watch, not just the movement to be assembled in Japan to use "MIJ." At any rate, it definitely seems like both US and Japanese regulations would preclude Seiko from using any loophole to say a watch is "Made in Japan" when in fact it is not, as purported by the some posters here. But, it is still misleading since "Made in Japan" only applies to the assembly of the watch, and not the parts! So they can be from Malaysia or China, which explains why my watch is stamped "China Case."

APEC RULES OF ORIGIN - JAPAN
https://www.jcwa.or.jp/en/


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Firstly, the J and K designations do not indicate where a particular watch was made or assembled; only what market they were intended for.
> 
> The same applies to the older designations like 7040 vs 7040; intended market not location of manufacture. In fact most of these watches were made in the same plants on the same assembly lines and then supplied with the case back appropriate for the market into which it was going to be sold.
> 
> ...


Actually, this is mistaken. The J and K designations do indeed indicate where the watches were made (or more accurately assembled, as the parts can be from anywhere.) I could find absolutely no evidence to support that K and J models are sold exclusively in any specific countries. On the contrary, J, K, and even P (Japan mvmt. cased in China) are officially sold alongside each other in virtually all markets around the world. And not just in the gray market. Although there may be a trend for J models to be sold in higher priced markets and K models to be sold in lower priced markets, which has nothing to do with import laws. Most lines nowadays seem to be either K or J, but not both. At one time, the Seiko 5 line was the primary one that sold both J and K versions of the same models, but since 2019 it offers only K. The Seiko 5 line is not sold in the US at all.

*Here is some supporting data from Seiko's own worldwide websites.*
https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/products
https://www.seikoboutique.co.uk
https://www.seikowatches.com/fr-fr
https://seiko.ru
https://www.thongsia.com.ms
https://www.thongsia.com.hk


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Dan Finch said:


> Actually, this is mistaken. The J and K designations do indeed indicate where the watches were made (or more accurately assembled, as the parts can be from anywhere.) I could find absolutely no evidence to support that K and J models are sold exclusively in any specific countries. On the contrary, J, K, and even P (Japan mvmt. cased in China) are officially sold alongside each other in virtually all markets around the world. And not just in the gray market. Although there may be a trend for J models to be sold in higher priced markets and K models to be sold in lower priced markets, which has nothing to do with import laws. Most lines nowadays seem to be either K or J, but not both. At one time, the Seiko 5 line was the primary one that sold both J and K versions of the same models, but since 2019 it offers only K. The Seiko 5 line is not sold in the US at all.
> 
> *Here is some supporting data from Seiko's own worldwide websites.*
> https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/products
> ...


Bit confused here, in this post you list as supporting data a number of seiko websites but I fail to see the connection to J and K.
In your earlier post you list a website for Japanese watches and history, in which I saw nothing that explained J or K and in the APEC rules link, nothing again. If there is supporting data for J and K it might be easier to copy/paste the relevant passages as a hyperlink to the source. As it stands it doesn't appear to support your claims. I can't tell if they are talking about exporting to other countries, importing to Japan or something entirely different.

I'm sure you're aware but watches like the SKX were not made for north american market and are available through the grey market so a watch that may say made in japan and is being sold in the u.s. does not violate CBP regulations since the SKX was not destined for the u.s.

As for comparing seiko regs to swiss I think you may be mistaken as I believe that swiss require 51% of either cost or materials/parts/assembly (something along those lines but definitely not 100% all swiss). The u.s. I believe does require 100% of a watch to be made in the u.s. (although I believe it does involve raw materials and may not involve thinks like wire stock for pinions etc but I could be wrong).

Near as I can tell the only seemingly absolute here are the requirements by CBP for watches being imported to the u.s. Beyond that all the old questions still remain, near as I can tell anyway.


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

Seabee1 said:


> Bit confused here, in this post you list as supporting data a number of seiko websites but I fail to see the connection to J and K.
> 
> _I usually try to keep things as brief as possible to keep things from getting ridiculously complicated. But I will try to elaborate here a bit to help make things clearer....
> 
> ...


ok


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Dan Finch said:


> ok


I gotta admit I'm having a hard time following you, so for simplicity's sake, can you define exactly what it is you mean with regard to J and K?


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

Seabee1 said:


> I gotta admit I'm having a hard time following you, so for simplicity's sake, can you define exactly what it is you mean with regard to J and K?


DELETED


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

FYI, in doing more research, it seems that there are FTC laws specifically relating to watches. These are more or less like the Swiss FH rules, and speak more to quality concerns as opposed to customs and tariff concerns. It seems like there are efforts to attempt to harmonize all the separate definitions around the world regarding watches.There is input taken from the watch industry as well as general consumers. I think that some manufacturers will follow the minimum tariff laws, while others like Seiko and the Swiss will follow the more restrictive industry association rules. In the US, the FTC seems to be mostly concerned about misleading practices and labelling, counterfeiting. They seem to increasingly be letting ISO standards and industry practices dictate matters of quality.

I was surprised to find that in 1990, the FTC took a big step backwards, and eliminated certain rules applying to watches, essentially removing any restrictions related to the PARTS origin of watch movements! This was in order to "harmonize" it with the less restrictive US Customs laws, which is only concerned with the country in which the movement was ASSEMBLED. If Seiko can demonstrate that a watch labelled "MIJ" designed and overseen by a Japanese company, but assembled directly by them (with Chinese parts) in an offshore subsidiary is essentially of identical quality to their "MIJ" watches, is a standard practice in their industry, and is what a Seiko customer has come to expect, then perhaps they could make a case for it not being misleading to be labeled "MIJ." Seems like a stretch, especially because there's a trend to harmonize world standards. We know that the Swiss have ETA factories in China and allow 50% foreign parts in their movements and apparently have a provision to allow a limited amount of offshore movement components to be used to meet that, as long as they are "certified equivalents", But they still assemble movements and watches in Switzerland. So it would probably take a lawsuit to find out if Japanese off shore assembly would fly! 
* 
US requirements to say "Swiss Made" prior to 1999:*
A watch containing a movement assembled in Switzerland from 50% parts made in Switzerland. Final watch can be cased anywhere, using parts from anywhere.

*Current US requirements to say "Swiss Made".*
A watch containing a movement assembled in Switzerland. Parts can be from anywhere. Final watch can be cased anywhere, using parts from anywhere.

*Current Swiss requirements to say "Swiss Made".*
A watch containing a movement assembled in Switzerland using at least 50% Swiss Parts by value. Some of these can be "Certified Swiss Equivalents" from elsewhere". The final watch must be designed, cased and tested in Switzerland, and contain at least 60% Swiss parts by value, including assembly costs.

*Here is the original US FTC clause that was removed&#8230;.*
FTC Section 245.10 advises, in subsection (a), that watches with movements or movement parts of foreign origin should not be offered for sale or sold without a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the country (or countries) of origin of the movement. This section further specifies that the country of origin of the movement depends upon two factors: *(1) Where the movement is assembled and (2) the origin of the parts used in assembling the movement.* Under section 245.10(b)(1), if the movement is assembled in the same foreign country in which movement parts constituting 50% or more of the cost to the assembler of all the parts of the movement have been manufactured, the name of that country alone may be used to designate the origin (e.g., ''Swiss Made''). Under section 245.10(b)(2), if movement parts constituting 50% or more of the cost to the assembler of all the parts of the movement have been manufactured in a single country different from the country in which the movement is assembled, the names of both countries, and no other country, are used to designate the country of origin of the movement (e.g., ''Assembled in France from Swiss parts'').

https://www.fhs.swiss/eng/swissmade.html

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/guides-watch-industry-16-cfr-part-245/990609guidesforthewatchindustry.pdf


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

Dan Finch said:


> Yes OK, here's my basic determination thus far:
> 
> Here's an example of the four possible variants of a single model:
> 
> ...


I dont know if this was just an example of a model ref without a suffix, but SRPB43 isn't for Japan. JDM models have completely different references to international models.

Also this topic Is absolutely done to death, even I'm becoming tired of it now. I reckon until somebody has something conclusive, and unless one of us infiltrates Seiko that will probably never happen, we should probably just leave it alone.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchman Dan (Jun 29, 2014)

clyde_frog said:


> I dont know if this was just an example of a model ref without a suffix, but SRPB43 isn't for Japan. JDM models have completely different references to international models.
> 
> Also this topic Is absolutely done to death, even I'm becoming tired of it now. I reckon until somebody has something conclusive, and unless one of us infiltrates Seiko that will probably never happen, we should probably just leave it alone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Yeah I know. Also this model doesn't come in a P model either. Just trying to keep it simple to illustrate the idea...


----------



## Josephben (May 13, 2020)

We’ll never know what is the intention OF Seiko in made in Japan, movement in ? Assembled, low end Seiko 5, high end Seiko assembled. We Will never know un less Seiko tell us. They Are now lol ON right now haha


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Josephben said:


> Weâ€™ll never know what is the intention OF Seiko in made in Japan, movement in ? Assembled, low end Seiko 5, high end Seiko assembled. We Will never know un less Seiko tell us. They Are now lol ON right now haha


I know even less after reading your 'comment'


----------



## Ginseng108 (May 10, 2017)

Seabee1 said:


> I know even less after reading your 'comment'


Seems like a wave of newly-registered necropost revivers. Could be potential scammers looking to get up to 100 posts.
Not as bad as the thread where the last post was 12 years ago. Perhaps they're learning to be more discrete.


----------



## complexcarbs (Sep 9, 2020)

Why does my SRPD79K1 say 4R36 on the dial but my SRPD79P9 says Made in Japan on the dial? The K1 keeps better time too.


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

complexcarbs said:


> Why does my SRPD79K1 say 4R36 on the dial but my SRPD79P9 says Made in Japan on the dial? The K1 keeps better time too.


"Made in Japan" on the SRPD79P9 dial means that model was intended to be sold in a regional market that requires the country of origin printed on the dial. Because Seiko is a Japanese company, it says "Made in Japan" even if the watch and/or its movement might not be assembled in Japan.


----------



## Dr. Who84 (May 10, 2021)

I don't know if it's been said (written) before but, contrary to the posts on the first page of this (albeit, old) thread, 

* If "Made in Japan" is etched on your case back, then your watch is *Made* (Parts & Assembly) i*n Japan*!

If only - 

* "Japan" is indicated then this only identifies final assembly. The parts can be from either China, Korea or Malaysia

Most of the actually affordable Seiko's we love are no longer, Made in Japan.

:-


----------

