Greetings to everyone,
This one stunned me when I saw it.
At 35mm, 18k gold men's dress watch, clearly 1940s design, beautiful gilt caliber (12.68Z?) -- the pure clean lines and that dial -- it looks quite out of the ordinary compared to the thousands of Longines we usually see.

But with that number 6 cut by the subdial is it a redial?? The patina looks quite genuine.
Not cheap at 2000 USD - but I'd find the discussion interesting. Pics below.

 

Like you mentioned, the cut out 6 looks too out of place and I don't like how it look overall. Highly suspicious to me.

 

The inside of the case back doesn't match the condition of the movement by a long shot.

 

At $2000, this watch is overpriced. Though the dial seems "out of the ordinary", when compared with the 'average' Longines watch, similar dials can be found periodically and for far less. The cut off six is of no concern (this is typical), however the lack of minute markers is very odd. The "Longines" signature is in the correct (and very difficult to replicate) font, which leads me to believe that the dial may be original.

P.S. The caliber is a 27.O ("O" standing for Or, which is gold in French).

Here is one of my watches for reference. The serial number is 6290xxx (1942) versus ~1940 for the OP's example.

 

Thanks so much to all and Dirty Dozen, this clarifies a great deal.

 

I am sorry and have had to suffer this in the past. I do vote redial as between the batons the mins should be marked. Dirty Dozen is correct. You have to do your homework when it comes to vintage.

 

Could it be that the minute markers are in fact present, but hidden underneath the bezel? If you notice the numbers are incredibly close to the inside edge of the bezel, almost to the point of touching --contrary to Dirty Dozen's example where there's more space outside the numbers --and the minute markers fit right in that space.
If the dial and movement were recased at some point, this could have caused the minute markers to be hidden, and it would also be consistent with Devnull's observation that the inside caseback and movement are in very different condition.

It would also explain how those markers could appear to be missing while the "Longines" font looks original.

 

I do not believe this design of dial requires minute markers - it's perfectly appropriate not to have them. As for them possibly being hidden by the bezel - I'm confident they wouldn't be. The minute markers would not be significantly fartherer back than the hour markers.

I'd say there a reasonable chance the dial is original. As for the case - I'd not sure. I've never seen a Longines case signed that way. It's best to just stay away from this one.

 

I strongly disagree with this statement. I have yet to encounter such a dial without minute markers and the proximity of the hour markers to the edge of the visible dial is highly uncharacteristic.

View attachment 183958

Once again, I have to disagree. The bezel on this gold case is significantly wider than the bezel of stainless steel cases with very similar dials, diameters, and calibers (proportions). This, compounded with the fact that I have not yet encountered a gold case with such a dial, suggests that the minute markers are indeed 'covered' by the wider bezel of this gold case.

The markings, and their arrangement, are largely as one would expect. However, the lack of perlage is noteworthy and the font of the serial number and "Longines", does not match other examples. I would also expect to find faceted, rather than smooth, lugs on such a case.



I have to agree with @Syrte on this one and conclude that an original dial has been paired with an incorrect case that 'covers' the outer minute markers. The authenticity of the case is still unclear to me.

Another interesting note is that the "Longines" font, on the OP's example, looks to be of an older style than other executions of the same dial. I believe that this is because the early 1940s were a transitional period from a more compact font to a larger one. This discrepancy could also be a result of different dial manufactures.

 

Excellent arguments on all fronts, DirtyDozen. I have been officially schooled. Your evidence is solid.

 

@Modest_Proposal This watch is a bit of a conundrum and without your prompts I may have thrown in the towel.

I have also noticed that gold cases of this type (flat bezel) and era (mid 1930s to early 1940s) do not regularly exceed 32mm in diameter and usually possess flat, rather than convex, casebacks. The OP's example is exceptional in both respects.

 

Thanks gents, and DirtyDozen, for such a remarkably documented argument. (and it also shows once again the treasures to be found in Italian collections and forums.)
Happy holidays for those of you celebrating. S