what-time-is-it wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:07 pm
CW: I present our 3 initial designs for MoD approval.
MoD: What's that manufacturers name doing at 21:00 hrs
CW: That's er what we do, we like to be different your excellency
MoD: Ward, get that moved now! Stupid boy...
Whilst this is obviously a jest, and quite an amusing one at that (I can’t get the image out of my head of Chris being bawled out by some MoD top brass chappie), the document below makes interesting reading, as it contains the specification for the issued G10 quartz watches which are familiar to so many.
http://www.h-spot.net/watches/mod/gener ... s_1980.pdf
As you will observe from just a very quick glance, the language has a very precise and prescriptive ring to it.
Now, let us look at the head paragraph from the CW website on the new Armed Forces Collection.
Licensed by the UK’s Ministry of Defence to produce watches bearing the insignia of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force for the general public, Christopher Ward is proud to unveil its new Armed Forces Collection. Consisting of three models – one for each Service – that all take design inspiration from watches historically commissioned for the personnel of each force, with their names taken from associated famous military academies: C65 Dartmouth flies the flag for the Royal Navy, the C65 Sandhurst for the British Army, while the C65 Cranwell represents the Royal Air Force.
All of which begs the question: to what degree of stricture would the designs have been subjected in order to obtain the right to bear those insignia? Or, to reverse the question, how much scope would the manufacturer have been given in the overall design, bearing in mind that the intention was not to commission these watches as issued pieces?
By the way, I have absolutely no idea of the answer to the above. I hope that someone with a more thorough understanding of MoD procedures might be able to enlighten us.