Sold in 2006 for CHF 21.600: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-l...00397/?from=searchresults&intObjectID=4700397
They have amended their condition report to more accurately reflect redial, replaced pushers, crown and hands. I'm curious what condtion report suggested 15 years ago...
Nice catch Ref 3289 sold by https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auc.../reference-3289-a-stainless-steel-chronograph for USD 2.520
Do you have any movement photos? Also, I would guess that 3289 is the order number. The reference number should be higher.
No. Just posted the link and had no other contact with the auctioneer. These online only auctions are really becoming a smash and grab business model for the big auction houses. Spend as little as possible. No watchmaker to open up watches, let the intern do the write up. But hey: it can always be worse… Enjoy: https://www.invaluable.com/catalog/kz3ridoeh9?size=50&page=4&categories=
Hi Everyone, Great thread - didn't know much about the 13zn before reading through. I have been shown this photo of a 13zn, and thinking it is a redial? - most of the chrono counters i have seen are 2 circles, one inside the other to form a track. What do you think?
If it's a refurbished dial, at least it's well made. 90% are coherent because it is a relatively late movement (7.0xx xxx?). What I don't like is the right subdial, because the numerals "2" and "3" are printed too large and the seconds scale doesn't protrude into the subdial. Also, of course, the white dial foot (not copper colored as it should), the somewhat rounded edges of the subdials depending on the interpretation of the photo and the not perfect centering. Otherwise, surprisingly, quite a lot is correct and I have never seen a restored dial in this quality. Regards - HU
Imho the dial has a late 1930s style, the movement is about years later and yes. the subdial print is a bit too large. Beside this a really good redial.
@EdtheAussie You are right, most 13ZN dials do not have sub-dials like this. The more typical designs are marked 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 (seconds) and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 (minutes). There are, however, certain reference that commonly have sub-dials like this, such as ref. 5415. Comparing the two, I notice that the difference in length between the short and long hash marks on the dial in question is more pronounced than on original 5415 dials. This is not necessarily a red flag but it is noteworthy. I also notice that the edges of the sub-dials on the dial in question appear a bit more rounded than the sharp edges of original dials. This is quite subtle and possibly an erroneous observation that is due to the photography. Moving onto the signature, I believe that the "S" is not quite right. Again, this is quite subtle but possibly more telling than the soft sub-dial edges. Next, I think that the telemetre scale has a few problems. Firstly, the letters of the word "telemetre" look vertically compressed and too closely spaced. Secondly, I would expect the 5s and 3s to have flat rather than curved bottoms, as seen in the seconds scale. Thirdly, while a capital "M" in "KM" can be seen on some original 13ZN dials, a lower case "m" is more typical. Looking at the movement shot, a silver-toned dial foot (as opposed to copper-toned) is not a good sign. Putting it all together, I believe that this is a redial. However, I agree with @minutenrohr that it is quite well done, especially the seconds scale. P.S. I wonder if there is too much space between the telemetre and tachymetre scales.
I agree with @minutenrohr that this style of dial is more indicative of a later 13ZN (from the mid-late 1940s) than one from the 1930s. For example, 13ZN dials with sub-dials that have just three numbers (as opposed to six) are not typical of the 1930s or even early 1940s. The serial number of the watch in question dates the watch to circa 1946.
This one sold yesterday for EUR 2.300 excl. 23.69% at a coin auction in Italy: https://www.biddr.com/auctions/nomisma/browse?a=1784&l=1937489. No reference mentioned but described as 35mm