Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+CB\&Q\s+approved\s+watches\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Re\:\s+CB\&Q\s+approved\s+watches\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Re: CB&Q approved watches (score: 1): Author: "glen brewer" <gbrewer@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:54:07 -0600; Gerald, In one way, they still can be. Most of the watches on your list are still superior time keepers. I carry my 992B every day. Glen -- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go; /archives/BRHSLIST/2010-07/msg00217.html (10,099 bytes)
2. RE: [CBQ] Re: CB&Q approved watches (score: 1): Author: "Robert McNay" <CptMatt@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:15:51 -0500; I have a Citizen watch called a Navihawk that is never more than 5 seconds off when I do the DST switch (I check it against the NIST Atomic Clock online). It cost $400 but I'm sure those approved poc; /archives/BRHSLIST/2010-07/msg00218.html (11,459 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]