There is lots of debate on this, but simply put, SKX007K is “made in Singapore,” while SKX007J is “made in Japan”

I’ve owned both the “K” and “J” version. They are identical, in my opinion, aside from the words “21 Jewels” and “Made in Japan” on the dial of the “J” version.

I recommend you look at the two versions and decide which dial you prefer, the cleaner “K” version with less text, or the more verbose “J” version with the extra words.

Regards,

Bryan

Thank you for your comments. By the way, I read your blog every day. You made a great point here when you wrote: The orange chapter ring on the 011 is seen as part of the dial and hence makes it look bigger compared to the A55. It takes a keen eye to see that kind of detail. Fascinating.

Like you, SKX007K was my first Seiko automatic. I had many Seiko quartz watches before I bought my first SKX007, but a man’s first Seiko automatic divers watch seems to make the deepest impression. For instance, Shawn Taylor often talks about his first Seiko auto diver, a 6309 model. For others, it’s a 6105 that was their first. And for still others, it was a 7002. For Sir Les Zetlein, it was his SKX171. Whichever it was, that one holds a special place. Like you, for me, it’s SKX007.

Maybe 6309s, 7002s — and certainly Grand Seikos — are nicer than SKX007. But you know what? I should say this quietly . . . SKX007 is my favorite Seiko watch …. Sort of in the same way that a pair of $175 Nike Air Jordans XX2s may be “nicer” than a pair of $40 black high-top Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars, but guess which ones I prefer? . . .

OK, the Jordans ARE sweet . . .

Regards,

Bryan

Here’s my SKX011J.

Regards,

Bryan

Regards,

Bryan

As to the future value of SKX007, I can see a couple of possible scenarios.

In the first scenario, Seiko discontinues production. Think of how Seiko divers watch fans would immediately scramble to get a new in box (NIB) one. That’s what happened when the Casio DW-8400 Mudman unexpectedly went out of production in late 2005. Like the SKX007, it was a pedestrian watch (strong, basic functions, very reasonably priced). Prices for NIB ones doubled overnight.

In the second scenario, Seiko continues to make SKX007 for decades to come, like Converse with the Chuck Taylor All Stars. In that case, prices for the watch NIB continue to rise with inflation (like in the case of Chucks), but never reach the sky.

A word about my lead paragraph and SKX007 modifications. I’m not against all mods. Some are good. But many turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear. I mention that because you did a story about modding awhile back, and just want to clarify I’m not again all mods. But I do like original Seiko designs better than most mods.

Finally, on the Monster. There are a number of quirky Seiko divers watches from the past, particularly quartz, especially ones from the late-’70s and early-’80s, and kinetic ones from the ’90s, for instance some of the Pipin Ferraras models that surface from time to time. Perhaps we’ll view the Monster like one of those — a curiosity. On the other hand, the sheer number of Monsters produced and their relatively long production run might put them in a new category. Perhaps Monsters will be made for years, even decades, to come. I sort of doubt it, but, who knows?

Lots of speculation there. But one this is certain, if either SKX007 or SKX779 are discontinued, it will cause quite a stir among Seiko diver watch fans, and a feeding frenzy of buying. That would be fun to see.

Regards,

Bryan

Best
Jim

SKX007, SKX009, SKX011, SKX173, SKX175, and SKXA35 are all essentially the same watch, except for differences in coloring, and second hands.

Check out Kevin Chan’s Seiko Divers Reference on the SKX divers series. There is a lot of good information there, volumes of stuff. A lot of what we know about these watches has been pieced together by many people, little by little, over time. The main thing you need to know about all these watches, however, is that they are simply awesome.

Regards,

Bryan

I agree that looks are important. It’s often easier to make something complicated than to make it simple. Especially when new technologies and materials allow us to make fantastic creations like those 2007 Adidas Crazy 8 basketball shoes. I like designs that are simple and clean, like Adidas Superstars, and like Seiko SKX007K. I know you do too, so I just took this picture for you to enjoy.

Great comments. They add to the article. One of my colleagues at GMT+9 just e-mailed me to say he enjoyed your remarks, and along with us, I think others will find them of interest too. I appreciate your feedback.

Best regards,

Bryan

Is it possible that the DESIGN of a watch is THE major factor as far as how much
most watch lovers will love a watch. I mean, the fact that the watch is well
crafted, keeps relatively good time etc are a given. Kind of like a girl friend. We
expect her to be polite, healthy, nice to us etc, but then comes the looks. We want
the one that has the looks that appeal to us. So in the same way, we expect the watch
to work, keep good time, have relatively sturdy construction. But the ultimate
attraction for us, is the looks. I think, as far as I am concerned, no matter how
well the watch is constructed, how accurate it is, how expensive it is, etc, if it
looks “funny”, I am not interested.

You are absolutely right about the SKX007 watch. It has great looks, all the way
from the shiny sides, the crown at 4 o’clock, the flat sturdy bezel, to the watch back.
But I think the face and hands are just not improveable. The extra-large, round hour
markers, the fat stubby hands, the black background. When I compare the face to the
classic Rolex diver, I see that the Rolex hands are absolutely too skinny. The hour
markers are too small. No matter, what Seiko does to the case of the watch, I
hope they never stop using the face.

This all reminds me of the article you did on the Alessi watch by Achille Castigleon.
Once again, that design is beautiful. I would say that, in spite of the fact the
company is selling it for $90, it is hard to find a design better looking than that
watch for a modern look. I guess that is why it is in the New York MOMA.

Once again, thank you for pointing out what appears to be obvious, but it is
obvious only after you have pointed it out to us. Paul Anders