Does the rounded 3's give it away?

 

...and (to me) it don´t looks like a correct Longines case. The font on the inner caseback is wrong, the decoration as well. The cut/perlage (german "Wölkchenschliff") looks suspicious and not like other examples. The length of the h/m-hands is a further problem - too long.

 

I checked and there were many sandwich dials with this print style so I was incorrect in my statement. I guess I have never seen a sandwich dial from the 40s in that condition. The condition reminds me of 30CH chronograph dials from the 60s. Whatever lacquer they were using in the 40s has not survived well.

The logo is printed too large and looks wrong. The second track is also not correct.

 

I found a similar watch from 1938
with a similar dial and I think this is correct.



http://www.iconeek.com/longinesearly1938chronograph13zn.html

 

That's also a redial

 

+1 logo completely off.

Indeed suggests integrity completely lacking.

 

Agreed. To my eyes, the "Longines" marking looks very suspicious. Also, the style of the case looks more typical of the late 1940's and not circa 1941.

 

Just to be clear, I was referring to this watch:

https://www.vintagegoldwatches.com/...n-flyback-chronograph-18ct-pink-gold-1946-47/

 

No need to clarify.

This redial is as unmistakable as they come. To describe this dial as "Original" and "Unrestored", shows an utter lack of expertise. I would expect someone with integrity, and without expertise, to either consult a specialist or refrain from claiming whether a dial is original or not. It is evident that a specialist was not consulted and yet an affirmative claim, regarding originality, was made. My conclusion is the same as @Syrte's.

 

So was I. And while we’re at it let us immortalize the listing for future reference. It would be nice if everyone could use the very nice « screen grab » function on their phones to prevent certain watches from ageing out of the system.

 

...since I paid more than 500 euros to the lawyer of one of the members of this forum, I don´t use other peoples pics in my posts.

rgds - h.u.

 

Thank you.

I suppose that I found the "it may well be a redial, but we don't believe so based upon input received of others," approach to be a fair warning. I simply would not know how to tell one way or the other. Some here suggest "buy the seller" when looking for a vintage watch and in the interest of full disclosure I have purchased a JLC watch from the seller and found them to be pleasant to deal with. "Pleasant to deal with" doesn't say anything about the authenticity of the the offers however. Note that they do offer an authenticity guarantee.

I am new to the hobby. (Under two years of avid reading and some half-dozen purchases.)

I generally word my posts in such a way that the responses may invite insights from the more experienced. The watch looks like a fine watch.

Can you share how it is you recognize it as a redial?

 

...on page 3 of this thread (maybe it is worth reading the complete thread to see some redials?) one can see my 1st comment about this watch. Or is there more than one example ?

 

@Syrte

I linked to the seller's page. The listing will likely persist after the watch is sold as in the case for the one I purchased some time ago:

https://www.vintagegoldwatches.com/...-18k-pink-gold-1963-original-unrestored-dial/

I'll commit to reading this entire thread.

@minutenrohr

Are you suggesting that, a sign that the watch may be a redial has to do with the hour-hand not reaching the hour markers and the minute-hand over-reaching a bit? Center seconds seems OK?

 

Here´s a correct dial and hands combination. The minute hand points on the minute scale, the hour hand reaches just the inner end of the hour markers. I believe that´s the usual design of "classic" chrono dials.
Otherwise it is not a reliable sign for a redial if hands and dial are not matching. But the watch should be assembled from parts that don´t belong together.

 

P.S.: I would say that the center seconds hand of the questionable gold watch is not a typical Longines design...

 

Seems anything but "cut and dried" in this instance.

I do see that some cases are quite obvious while others less so.

. . . And that experienced collectors sometimes do not agree.

Still . . . the discussion is helpful.

 

Which instance? The 13ZN with the black dial? It does not get more obvious or "cut and dried" than that. If there is any disagreement, it is only between those who are inexperienced and those who are not.

 

So far, is seems every responder agrees the sandwich dial can not be 1930-1940 dial Longines made and printed dial.

 

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, 13ZN with black dial.

I am not arguing that the dial is original. I personally have insufficient knowledge and experience to make a determination.

Why not provide a teachable moment? My intent is to learn how one knows whether it is original or not, though I had been willing to give the seller the benefit of the doubt..

You haven't added to the discussion one way or the other. You've simply repeated that it is obviously not original without providing empirical evidence or guidance to help those of us willing to learn.

So far, what do we have?

The seconds hand does not look correct.