13ZN Chronographs Inquiries and Information.

DirtyDozen12 · Jan 8, 2019

@LogisBizkit Great watch. Both case and dial design are relatively uncommon. Looks to be around 34 mm in diameter and from circa 1942.

@olivecrona and @minutenrohr It is difficult to tell from the photos but I wonder if either of you think that the dial looks to have been lightly cleaned?

LogisBizkit · Jan 9, 2019

@DirtyDozen12 you are right this watch was sold in 1942 in Milano!

DirtyDozen12 · Jan 9, 2019

L LogisBizkit
@DirtyDozen12 you are right this watch was sold in 1942 in Milano!

You have the papers? A wonderful heirloom.

LogisBizkit · Jan 9, 2019

Unfortunately not, I asked Longines for information about the serial number and they told me, that it was sold in Milano 1942

yako54 · Jan 9, 2019

Franken?

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.de/ulk/itm/323641818574

DirtyDozen12 · Jan 9, 2019

yako54
Franken?

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.de/ulk/itm/323641818574

Case-back is from a 30CH so yes, a franken. The printed winged-hourglass on the dial is also atypical for a 13ZN, especially given the approximate production date of 1943. Of course, a 30CH dial would not fit on a 13ZN without extensive modification. It would be nice to see the back of the dial but alas. Additionally, the crown is more indicative of a 1950's waterproof Longines (e.g. 6474 or 6075). The ends of the hour and minute hands look shorter than usual too (especially evident in the hour hand).

Maybe @divetime can shed some light on this one?

DirtyDozen12 · Jan 9, 2019

P.S. I will add that the backs of the lugs appear to have been polished. This conveniently prevents comparing the case number on the back (3) with the one on the mid-case to confirm their originality.

yako54 · Jan 10, 2019

Many thanks for the insights! My point was that I never saw a genuine 13ZN dial with hourglass logo. I didn't noticed the issue with the case back or the polished backs of the lugs. I have a kind of feeling that the seller might be well aware of all this 👎

minutenrohr · Jan 10, 2019

In my Opinion it is a 13ZN dial (though I haven´t seen one with printed hourglass - usually transitional 13ZN dials have applied hourglasses) because of the asymmetry of the counters. But the 6,4xx xxx movement number does not match a transitional dial. The case is for sure from a 30CH. Furthermore the minute hand is too long.
So we have a movement from 1943/44, a dial (if it is legit) from 1947 and a case from the early fifties (3rd revision of ref. 6075)
Edit: or a caseback from the early fifties, if the case is earlier. But (imo) this case style does not match a 6,4 mio movement...

Radiumpassion · Jan 10, 2019

But but the owner had it for thirty years😜

minutenrohr · Jan 11, 2019

Game over. Congratulations to all who didn´t buy this one.

minutenrohr · Jan 12, 2019

https://www.ebay.de/itm/323645104352?ul_noapp=true

Back on the scene - someone tried to hack sellers account (!)

n_m_d · Jan 13, 2019

https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-LONGI...1-941-/352565316689?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true
The auction itself looked fishy (lack of vendor rating, bank transfer only, no eBay protection...), I stayed out.

But what about the watch itself? I'm no expert, but this doesn't look authentic, right?
Dial seems much too clean compared to the movement (which has some corroded parts, whilst also looking like having been aggressively cleansed - shouldn't the plated be either frosted gold gilt, or rhodium Geneva stripes?), the shape of the hour markings is somewhat weird (in particular the 6, also the 5 and 7), I'd also have expected 2, 4, 8, 10 (cut) hour markings, chronograph hands look wrong to me too...
Am I correct, or completely off and wrong?

On the other side, even with wrong elements, at €1300 this would have been quite a steal... if the watch ever arrives to the happy buyer, does work (or is repairable), and wasn't a stolen one. Well, if not, it was indeed also a steal!

DirtyDozen12 · Jan 14, 2019

N n_m_d
https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-LONGI...1-941-/352565316689?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true
The auction itself looked fishy (lack of vendor rating, bank transfer only, no eBay protection...), I stayed out.

But what about the watch itself? I'm no expert, but this doesn't look authentic, right?
Dial seems much too clean compared to the movement (which has some corroded parts, whilst also looking like having been aggressively cleansed - shouldn't the plated be either frosted gold gilt, or rhodium Geneva stripes?), the shape of the hour markings is somewhat weird (in particular the 6, also the 5 and 7), I'd also have expected 2, 4, 8, 10 (cut) hour markings, chronograph hands look wrong to me too...
Am I correct, or completely off and wrong?

On the other side, even with wrong elements, at €1300 this would have been quite a steal... if the watch ever arrives to the happy buyer, does work (or is repairable), and wasn't a stolen one. Well, if not, it was indeed also a steal!

Dial has been refinished. Photography can affect the visibility of Geneva stripes. Crown is incorrect and case has been polished. Chronograph second hand is incorrect.