Seagull 1963: The Chinese Watch You SHOULD Buy

There are some watches many feel are essential to any budget collection, or any collection at all; the Casio F-91W, the Timex Weekender, the Seiko 5 SNK809, even the Invicta Pro Diver 8926OB are among the many, many watches that many collectors, both green and seasoned, heartily recommend to anyone who wants to graduate from their shitty Armani Exchange watch and get their first purpose-built piece of wrist candy. But out of all the watches you can buy for under $1000, hell, even $500, none top the undiluted bang-for-your-buck value than the one of the mack daddies of cult watches: the Seagull 1963. Powered by the only fully mechanical chronograph movement you can get for a relatively inconsiderable price, these idiosyncratic, anachronistic, proudly Chinese timepieces have become a darling of the watch world since they came out last decade. They’ve been on the wrists of popular watch enthusiasts like Teddy Baldassare, Jody from Just One More Watch, TGV from the Urban Gentry, Marc from Long Island Watch…and *gags* Jory Goodman from the Time Teller. And when you dig a little deeper, it’s easy to see why.

Just a cursory glance at the 1963 shows that it's undoubtedly a beautiful, unique watch. Even though Seagull has committed a kindergarten crime by violating the basic principles of the color wheel, they still make one of the most good-looking affordable watches you can buy. The (unfortunately fake and un-lumed) blued minute, hour and register hands, red chronograph seconds hand, applied gold numerals, sapphire crystal and champagne-colored dial somehow all come together to make something that defies all explanation. The fully-polished stainless steel case wears great too; at 38mm in diameter with a depth of 14.5mm, a lug width of 18mm, and a lug-to-lug distance of 47mm, it wears conservatively, but not delicately, in the way a bona-fide vintage watch would be. If you took away the Chinese text and the communisticial red star right above the 21 ZUAN, you’d have yourself something that looked like it came from La-Chaux-De-Fonds in 1947.

(Image failed to load!)

Speaking of Switzerland, the movement that powers the 1963 was born from one that came from one of the finest pre-quartz crisis Swiss movement makers: Venus. Seagull’s ST-19 movement, which powers the 1963, is essentially a modified variant of the former company’s Calibre 175, a 17-jewel, manual wind, column-wheel chronograph movement that was used in several pilot’s watches from brands like Breitling and Minerva in the 1940s and 50s. Back in the day Venus wanted to fund development of new calibers, so they sordidly sold the tooling and design to Maoist China, who wanted a pilot’s chronograph for their air force. Resultantly, the Tianjin watch factory that would become Seagull threw in an extra couple of jewels and called it a day, and about 1,400 original Chinese air force chronographs were issued. Skip forward about 4 or 5 decades, and Seagull decides to reissue these chronographs with the same movement, resulting in the watch that we all know and love today. If you so desired you could brag to your non-watch savvy friends that you have a watch with a (technically) Swiss movement inside of it, but in actuality that’d be like saying the Nostalgia Critic’s ear-bleeding parody of The Wall was made by Pink Floyd.

(Image failed to load!)


Although the ST-19 is one of the most photogenic movements you can buy for under a grand, it’s not all things to all men. Since it’s essentially powered by a watch movement from the 1940s, the 1963 isn’t exactly on the cutting edge of technological innovation. It only beats at 21,600bph, it doesn’t hack (you can backhack it like a 7S26, though), and its tick is louder than more modern calibers. And given that 1963s-more specifically, the ST-19-is produced on a massive scale by Seagull, quality control on 1963s isn’t nearly on the same level as Tissot, Hamilton, Mido or even Seiko, Citizen or Casio. There are several horror stories from forums across the internet of 1963s just crapping out after less than a year of ownership. Others say that their ST-19 feels gritty to wind, the chronograph hand stutters when you use it, or just stops working entirely. Personally, I haven’t had any functionality issues with the 1963; the chronograph pushers feel satisfying and reassuring to use. I do wish it performed better, though; mine averages about -7spd and has a pretty high beat error of 1.3ms.

The one I bought-which came from “Tourbillon Watch 0fficial Store” on Aliexpress-also isn’t a “real” 1963, even though in order for “Hong Kong Sky Timepiece” (who made my 1963) to produce the watch, Seagull would have to sell the makers of my watch an ST-19 in the first place. Supposedly the only “real” 1963s come from Seagull’s Aliexpress store, and during their famous 11/11 sale, they wanted $570 for one. Granted, that’s still cheaper than other new mechanical chronographs out there, but it’s not an inconsiderable amount of money when you compare it to ETA and Valjoux movements. Besides, most people who buy a 1963 are gonna get one from one of the “fake” retailers, since mine only cost me about $150.

The 1963 comes on a pretty stiff NATO strap, which I’d reckon is about the same quality as something you’d get with a brass-cased Timex. It also boosts the wrist profile of the watch, making it wear as awkward as that one kid in high school who wore the same smelly Vocaloid shirt every day and sat by himself during lunch. Luckily the makers of my watch shipped it with a pretty decent leather strap for free, which is what I’ve kept it on since I first unboxed it. Given the paradoxically militaristic and dressy style, I’d say that you could pull off a variety of straps with the 1963, although personally I’d recommend a good quality leather strap.

(Image failed to load!)

I also get a very strange feeling when I wear my 1963; even though a majority of the people I encounter won’t give two shits about what’s on my wrist, I still feel morally conflicted wearing my 1963 and my “classic” Vostoks, and I would be wearing an original Stowa, Laco or even a Moranbong. Sure, all the above watches are cool as hell, but for some reason I feel odd about wearing a watch that was made and produced by a totalitarian regime. I’m assuming it’s because I don’t want people thinking that I support those governments, but as I mentioned, nobody really cares what you wear; unlike what Hodinkee and r/watches will tell you, most people won’t compliment a white gold Daytona. Hell, my Brew Retrograph, a $350 quartz chronograph from a microbrand, has gotten more compliments than watches from mainstream brands. I also haven’t really heard of anyone else feeling this way either, so it’s doubly confusing why I do. I guess it’s just because I feel very strongly about China, Nazi Germany, the USSR and North Korea.

Regardless, even if the Seagull comes out of a country with a dubious human rights record, it’s still a damn good watch. Even with it’s hit or miss quality control, its origins as a military watch for the PRC, mediocre (and arguably contradictary) NATO strap, it’s positive qualities definitely outweigh whatever bullshit Xi Jingping does.

Seagull 1963: The Chinese Watch You SHOULD Buy

3.8
Yes No
4/5
4/5
3/5
4/5
4/5
  • Most affordable mechanical chronograph on the market
  • Design/colorway is idiosyncratic yet iconic
  • Is surprisingly versatile in spite of it being a "military" watch
  • See-through caseback allows you to see one of the most beautiful movements in affordable watchmaking
  • Chronograph buttons feel solid and reassuring to use
  • Pricing is inconsistent, "real" 1963s aren't nearly as affordable
  • Owner must decide between price and speed of shipping for purchases
  • QC is a bit hit or miss
  • Service/repairs could total the watch
  • Stock straps are just okay
  • Weeblewobbles might think you’re a communist if you wear one
Reply
·

"that’d be like saying the Nostalgia Critic’s ear-bleeding parody of The Wall was made by Pink Floyd."

Ah, a man of culture!

I never really wanted a mechanical chronograph because I have multiple #casio digital watches that can do that function even more reliably at a fraction of the price. The Seagull 1963 is the only mechanical watch that I truly consider of buying and your review helps a lot. Thanks!

·
justnathania

"that’d be like saying the Nostalgia Critic’s ear-bleeding parody of The Wall was made by Pink Floyd."

Ah, a man of culture!

I never really wanted a mechanical chronograph because I have multiple #casio digital watches that can do that function even more reliably at a fraction of the price. The Seagull 1963 is the only mechanical watch that I truly consider of buying and your review helps a lot. Thanks!

I'm totally with you on the chronograph thing. I think the Seagull is a good watch if you wanna test the waters with a mechanical chrono, but not necessarily as a first mechanical watch or first watch in general. Admittedly I don't wear it as much as I used to when I first got it because of the QC issues I've heard of

·

Nice watch, but yours one is a fake on. Sorry to say.

·
Knight8

Nice watch, but yours one is a fake on. Sorry to say.

or modified by a third party