Look at 13.33z.

 

I asked Jennifer Bochud to show me Longines watches with inverted 15 and 20 four years ago when you first showed the watch in question. Every one she could find was a 13.33Z. None were 13ZNs and, as I’ve mentioned, none of the 13ZNs in Goldberger’s book have them. Do you think your watch is really really rare or do you think it’s more likely your watch is redialed? You have to start with the assumption it’s a redial and then go from there and provide clear arguments for why it isn’t. In this case not only aren’t there any good arguments as to why it’s not a redial, there’s strong evidence that it is. Why don’t you show Jennifer Bochud and Auro Montanari your dial and specifically the inverted numbers and see what they say.

 

As a side note, I believe that there are 13ZN dials with upside-down numerals in the minute counter. Among others, UN used dials like this too (see below). Longines examples found here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/13zn-chronographs-inquiries-and-information.32929/page-9#post-711368

 

It’s not hard to find 13.33Zs with this configuration on the left and right subdials, but they are from an earlier period. The black dial watch that was linked has an obscenely low serial number. We can check with Longines if that’s a 13.33Z dial or a 13ZN dial on the watch Dr Crott had. They sold a questionable R. Marina 13ZN a few years ago with an enamel dial and inverted numbers. Same watch James Dowling tried to peddle also. For that watch the Longines archive clearly showed it wasn’t delivered to the Institute. Seiji’s watch is much newer and has a much newer dial type

 

I notice that you did not include the final letter of "Longines", why is that? The "S" is an important letter that is often butchered in redials. I find the "S" on the radium dial to be atypical.

 

The Dr. Crott example is a very early 13ZN. I am quite confident that the dial is original but it differs from Seiji's radium dial in a number of significant ways. Just an aside.

 

I’m not saying I disagree it’s an original Longines dial. My question to Ms Bochud would be if that dial belongs on a 13ZN or is a 13.33z dial that someone moved over to an early 13ZN. The dial foot location didn’t change and everything else lines up so moving a dial over is easy

 

Sorry for the newbie question, do 13.33Z have metallic dials with varnish? I thought most of them were enamel?

 

I would doubt there’s a hard cutoff between the 13.33z dials and the introduction of the 13ZN in 1936, but that’s a better question for Ms Bochud. To me, the scales on the black Dr Crott watch look like 1920s, not 1930s. I’ll email Longines and we’ll see what comes back

 

I spoke with her just after the auction, the dial is almost certainly correct.

 

I think all known are enamel.

 

Wow . Nice picture of the. Alps!

 

I have an old dial “Anti-Magnetique" Chronograph.

 

Not the case. I have seen a number of correct, 13.33Z examples with non-enamel dials. They are uncommon but out there.

 

As photos get blown-up and their resolution decreases, everything begins to look the same since detail is lost. Anyway, I have given my opinion on your radium dial's signature before and I still feel that it does not look correct when compared with dozens of original signatures.

If you want other collectors to properly assess your dial, make sure they are aware of the two other examples that I have found with the same fonts. I believe that all three of these dials should be considered together as they likely come from the same source. All three are visible in this thread: https://omegaforums.net/threads/speculate-on-value-of-this-early-13zn.47028/page-2

P.S. And address the silver foot, which is a glaring issue in conjunction with the other atypical features.

 

Hi guys, thanks in advance for your willingness to share such valuable opinions. Although there is a similar dial in Goldberger's book, not sure about the one in the photos I am attaching, could you please advise?

 

redial

 

Ok, thanks. Could you please drop a couple of lines on why?

 

For me the entire printing looks "off" compared to other Longines dials, particularly the logo and the subdials

 

Agree, the giveaway for me is the size of the logo.