I just bought this 168.015 for everyday wear and I'm very happy with it, but I have a couple of questions for the experts here. I've checked google and I've seen a couple of this model with the same style of writing on the dial (with the upright M), but the hands are the dauphine hands. Are the hands on this watch correct? Also this watch has the "T Swiss Made T" is this okay? or is there a possibility it is a redial? I guess to give complete answers you would need to have the movement number, but the case won't be opened until I send it for a service. Thank you very much for your help.

 

Due to the heavy "constellation" and the size/shape of some of the other letters, and the freshness of the dial I suspect it's a redial.

T Swiss Made T looks OK. Hands are correct for this model.

No big issues if you aren't a serious collector and it will be very pleasing to wear.

Glad you're getting it serviced.

 

Thank you for the reply. I thought at first it was a redial but when I was checking through the threads I came upon this one and the dial looks exactly the same.

 

These dials are not the same. Your ´s has lume dots - some being a little bit off the has the ones at 3 and 7 - and has the T - T.

I agree with JimInOz. But it is still a good looking dial.

 

Thanks. Yes I can see that there is no lume on the other dial, but what about the script? To me it looks exactly the same. I've had a look at the dial under a loupe and the script is slightly raised which is very similar to the script on other constellations I have had. I was going to send it for service at swiss time services in the UK - I guess they will know for sure.

 

Sometimes low light can make script appear heavier than in reality. The dial of this Seamaster chronometer is untouched but you might doubt it from the photo below.

 

Difficult to tell definitively from the pics
But it appears to be missing the corrrect keaning and serifs
Here's a latish 60s .010 I'm wearing today for comparison

 

Thanks for the replies. I'll try and take some clearer photographs and post them later.

 

If it is a redial it is a very good one. But I am beginning to think it could be because I have just noticed the vertical M in Automatic. Of my automatic 500 series Omegas, there is a vertical M in Chronometre and a slanting M in Chronometer, but every one, chronometer or not, has a slanting M in Automatic. I'm not saying that's how it should always be, just what a quick check of my watches and the briefest of flicks through the Internet is showing.

 

I guess the lettering could look bigger because if the glass. Anyway, judging a good looking dial on pictures is always hard - it is obviously easier with bad redials!

I suppose the fonts could be good. But it has probably been relumed.

 

I do not think it is a general rule. See for instance the watches in the thread quoted above.

 

https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/...y-of-watchmaking/s/swiss-t-25-t-swiss-made-1/

 

Stick hands with lume are correct for this watch. Those with dauphine hands usually don't have lume.

As observed, dial printing is a little heavy, but all the typography are correct, as well as the two small markers at 14 and 17 minutes. Adding the lume's condition and appearance, this is likely an original dial, not a redial.

 

But what do you think of the (seemingly) bad lume dots at 3 and above all 7? Could be because of the glass though.

 

Thanks for all the replies. Here is a close up. I'm pretty sure it is not a redial, but when it goes for service we'll know for sure.

 

I'd be pretty surprised if this turned out to be a redial...

 

Nothing is wrong with the lume plots. The one at 3 just shows its age. At 7, part of the plot appears to fall off and stick to the side of the metal index.

Only points of concern are the heavy printing and the rather unclear or missing serif on top of the t's in Constellation. These are minor concerns though.

 

Looks okay to me.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

And on the last pic posted by the OP, the lume looks fully OK.

Actually, I have been too suspicious. Still surprised by the heavy script, but eventually it looks OK to me.