Pardon - my mistake. I thought we wrote about the sandwich dial and its hands.

Regarding the black dial: The Longines signature shows a font that never had been used by Longines (respectively Stern Frères - they made most of the 13ZN dials for Longines). The quality of the print is poor. The running seconds counter design was never seen before on a 13ZN dial.
The minute counter should look like the one of the watch pictured below; "15" + "20" with their feet on the ground - not upside down.
This pic shows the correct dial of a late (1947) 13ZN with similar 18k case - so called "transition" because it has the hour glass, which was usually used later for the 30CH models.

 

This exact watch was discussed on this very thread on page 6. If you are interested in learning more about the 13ZN, here are updated versions of the links that @minutenrohr provided in his original response: http://watchexpertise.com/oldlonginespassion/Longines_Passion/13_ZN.html
http://watchexpertise.com/oldlonginespassion/Longines_Passion/13ZN_parte_2.html

 

MR & DD

Thank you again. Both posts are quite helpful to anyone willing to learn. ;-)

In addition, I note that the yellow gold example on page six, though also a redial, is probably a bit better than the one we are discussing here. The printing should be much more fine and crisp as in the photo above.

Cheers,

Joe

 

The way in which gold appears depends heavily on photography. I think it is the same watch.

 

The "Longines" dial signature alone is completely wrong --for any period -- and based on that alone, the mere suggestion that the dial could be original is ludicrous. Are you friends with the seller by any chance?

 

I now see/agree that it is the same watch.

One can note other identical defects such as in the 11 o'clock for example, tip of the 1 on the 10, etc.

Vintage Gold Watches does a good job at photographing rose gold versus yellow gold, but the photo on page six looks yellow but is not - apparently

 

Lol.

No, I am not "friends" with the owner, though I did disclose previously in this thread that I bought a 1963 JLC Memovox from them . . . and further, I put up the link to the seller's site page for the watch that I purchased about a year ago.

I have some knowledge of particular watches based on some research, but no knowledge whatsoever concerning Longines. I am here to learn and I appreciate the efforts of those who choose to share their knowledge.

Cheers,

Joe

 

very interesting and instructive thread about vintage Longines, thanks for all for your contributions

 

World's most incorrect chronograph subdial I have ever seen that it is painful to look at. Must be copied from the subseconds dial on a three hand watch. You have to have never seen any chronographs to think this is acceptable.

 

To further our conversation on the dealer’s integrity, I notice that among the fairly comprehensive array of photos in the listing, a photo of the inside of the case-back is missing. This is an important piece of information for a prospective buyer as it can help to determine whether or not a case is original.

After a bit of searching, I managed to locate a photo of the inside of the case-back of this watch. As it turns out, the case is not Swiss but French. This means that it has no Longines reference number associated with it and that it is less desirable, to collectors, than a case produced in Switzerland.

Looking at a number of other listings by this dealer, I notice that all have a photo of the inside of the pertaining case-back. It would seem quite a coincidence to leave out such a photo and make no mention of the non-Swiss case in the lengthy description of said case.

Furthermore, I am puzzled that a dealer who is willing to write such a long description has not presented an extract from Longines’ archive. Would this not add to the overall package? It undoubtedly would but it may also reveal that this watch left the factory in a different case.

 

At the risk of beating a dead horse . . .

I now see what is an inconsistency in the quality of the printing or screening on the outer dial scales when compared with that of the two subdials. The tachymetre and telemetre scales and the fine markings associated with the outer scales are crisp and appropriately light in weight whereas it appears as if the line weight of the two subdials is two to three times heavier causing the subdials to appear as less fine - or relatively crude appliques. Perhaps the dial may be original but with a poor restoration of the signature and subdials? I accept that the dial ought not be described as "100% genuine and all original". I don't need any additional convincing.

Interesting comments as to the provenance of the case DD.

 

...it´s got the "M". The typical sign of a french cased 13ZN movement. So it could be legit.

 

The left subdial design is completely wrong kind. There has never existed that style subdial on any chronograph from any brand.

That is a subseconds subdial from a non chronograph watch. It is so technically incorrect, only a beginner could make this mistake.

 

I believe it has already been established in this thread that you like to repeat yourself, repeat what others have suggested and employ hyperbole in a mildly insulting manner.

 

I think it probably is legit, in terms of this case being fitted upon arrival to France. But I would expect this information to appear somewhere in the lengthy description.

 

The problems with the outer scales are related to the design and fonts.

The entire dial has significant issues. Of course, in order to recognize this one must study a wide variety of correct dials. Forums like this make the endeavor much easier but it still takes time.

 

did you see this one with original dial?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/202487560508?ul_noapp=truePurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

The style of the case back Longines stamp looks very old. Is that how the French would stamp cases?

 

Yes I guess you could be right, it is possibly a french case. Dial is original!

 

It doesn’t say Swiss on it, the hands are not the correct length for the dial and there’s a gap on the outside edge of the dial. I think it may be premature to sound the all clear