Greetings everyone, I usually stick to Constellations and have managed to stay out of trouble by asking more knowledgeable folks (thanks Desmond!) what they think before I take the plunge. The 381 Cosmics are very appealing but I see so many differences in the dials it's been harder for me to judge them. I bought one a few weeks ago that MSN has told me is a very obvious re-dial. Certainly I trust his judgement over mine, but..I would hope others weigh in with their opinions so as to give the seller enough proof that it is indeed a re-dial. Which is unacceptable to me as the watch was advertised as having the original finish. Thanks in advance for your replies. cheers, Todd
First off the most glaring mistake is that the date track should be the shame shade of blue as the pointer hand. That's enough for e to say its been refinished.
Not forgetting the big giveaway, the "radial flip" of the numbers in the date track. I'll post a real one in a minute.
They're lovely, aren't they? Really gorgeous. And what a shame about the refinished one. If you are going to do it, you should really do it right. And now it's ruined . . .
Thanks to all for such valid and helpful info. I've seen so much variation with these dials that at first I thought that the black date track and "radial flip" were just more variations. I think that my older Cosmic (shown below) is probably an original dial..... is it?? I'm having problems with my micro lens these days but can try to get you something more high rez if necessary. Thanks
Well in that case, until you start watermarking your pics like Lou does I'm just going to assume that every pic of a minty desirable comes from your collection !
Guys....could you please tell me if the last picture I posted of my other, dirtier Cosmic is original? I have always thought it was but am now a bit nervous... thanks Todd
I'm bothered by a number of things with the OP's other TDMP - fonts appear to me a bit thick, hash marks both minute and subdial also look a bit too thick to me and the date numbers look unevenly printed - look at "22" While it still could be an original dial, there are enough issues with it that I would at the very least have doubts. Here is another one from my collection - it is in the less common jumbo 37.5mm stainless steel case and while the dial design is not identical, I think you can see what I mean by the points I have raised.
I will try to take a better picture. Actually the "22" is perfect under high power loupe, but somewhat distorted by dirt. Please let me know if there are specific areas you would like me to photograph
Hi Spike, Is the "radial flip" always a giveaway? I've done quite a bit of searching and see that now and then one shows up. So can one safely say that any Cosmic with a "radial flip" is a re-dial? thanks Todd
For the round cosmics yes - have yet to see a dial with a flip that was clearly original and I've seen a lot. For the square ones I've seen the flip in what appeared to be original dials.
Thanks MSN, this is helpful. And the dealer who I bought the Cosmic redial from has graciously offered me a full refund. Next time I go Cosmic shopping is it OK if I post the link on the forum for advice? best Todd
