That dial had its own thread! The seller eventually admitted that it was a redial (in the WUS FS ad and the ebay listing, but not in the OF thread).
That one is most notable for the upside-down markers at 20, 25, 35, and 40.

 

I just thought the second one in the first group was just another modern service dial for the Speedmaster Mark III, turns out there is another Mark II out there that looks almost the same. It has very good text printing with the modern S, but different, kinda reverse from the usual subdial designs: flat sunken subdials at 6 and slope edge at 9. Worthy to add to your first group?

 

I just had an impression that the sorting was based primarily by the hour index styles, but then there were the labeling and case references also added to the mix. If it goes purely by hour index styles, labeling would just be a sub-index. Type E would then be rolled up to A; type D, H and J would be combined together. The prototype dial should be just an appendix. This would reduce the number of types by 4 from 11 and would be a bit better to to manage and remember.

 

I have seen that one, and I have it in a group of what I call "odd Marks". I'm away from my laptop for the next few days but I'll post those soon. In short, I don't think this dial is a legitimate one.

 

Believe me I've been through many iterations and struggled with many specific classifications vs. fewer broader ones. The system I settled on is mainly based on hour indexes but also tries to line up with case reference. A, B, and C line up with 001 and 007, D and E with 002, F with 004, G with 005, H with 009, I with 010, and J with the 125. I intentionally left the prototype until last as sort of it's own thing. In the end, it's all arbitrary.

Oh and also the types generally stick to a single product family(Speedmaster or Seamaster) and only type F has both.

 

I think it's cleaner to classify by a consistent characteristic instead of a mix of different ones. If prefer you can go by the case reference or labeling then make the hour index a sub-type, or vise versa. Right now you have same hour index style split up into different types and, at the same time, same case reference also split up into different types. Just some thoughts, but it's your fruit of labour after all.

 

Here are the "Odd Marks" I've observed (some were posted up above, those are possible "errors" while the rest are most likely redials attempting to create something rare.



Chuck Maddox's so-called Mark III ( c) variant. This is a poor photo but it seems to be a unique dial rather than a standard Mark 3 dial inserted in the 176.005 case. Probably started its life as a G1.


This one appears to be a I2 dial converted into a Speedmaster Mark IV.




A self-winding Mark II without a tachymetre.




This appears to be dial D3 (Mark 3 pro) with a closed date window and an extra-bright re-lume job. Diver bezel, speedy hands, (except the chrono second hand).




This one was advertised as "tropical" but it looks more like yellow spray paint on a blue E1 (non-pro Mark 3) to me. I haven't seen any other Mark IIIs age like this. Note the black enamel on the hour markers has been removed and the hands have been thickly repainted.




As discussed above, a potential error, or someone simply added the Mark III text.




As discussed above, a potential error, or someone changed the III to a II





As discussed above, a potential error, or someone simply added the Mark III text.

 

I hear ya but there's not a single characteristic that pleases me for that purpose. Hour marker does the best but then lumping the Speedy Mark III dials with the 001/007 dials felt like way too broad a category to me. Then by that logic I could consolidate the black Mark IIIs into a single category with the Mark IVs and 125s, and that didn't feel right either.

 

If not refinished or reprinted then likely a legitimate unique test dial.

I don't see how the dial was converted. The printing, the finish, the font script all perfect. The lume plots were applied, as well as look, consistently with old tritium lume. It just has the modern S, that along with T's indicating the year 90-95, later than the grey and blue 24 hour dials. In fact, I don't see any error with this dial, better than all of the 8 dials in your previous post. It's the best of the unusual bunch. If it shows up on other 009 watches then it would be later service dial. If this is the only one, it must be a test dial, a proper and legitimate one, for service replacement.

Hope I'm not too biased with this one as I was quite excited seeing it. I once switched my Seamaster silver-black dial with blue hands into the 009 case and it made a brilliant combination, the contrast was just so striking in real life!

This dial is not right for any watch, but you have not said and I'm not seeing any reason this could not be one of the "error" dial in the previous group, like that Watchado dial.

Just a retouched Mark III dial.

Impossible to spray paint and keep all the fine printing intact. The disappearance of the black enamel is rather consistent with an over-aged/heavily-deteriorated/faded surface of the dial.

Mark III added after for sure.

These two are likely template error during manufacturing.

 

I agree it is well done and attractive, but to my eye the font on "PROFESSIONAL" looks wrong. It seems too tall and maybe even not the right font. I could be wrong there. I have only seen this variant once, and I'm a skeptic by nature. I fully admit to being biased in this regard: I don't entertain the possibility of watches or dials being prototypes unless I see compelling proof from an authoritative source. To me, even if perfect I need to either see multiple distinct examples or evidence/provenance.

I think this one has a few tells. The font on OMEGA looks wrong - the serifs seem exaggerated to me. No serifs on the II, odd font on MARK. too much spacing on the word AUTOMATIC, closed date window. Then there's the unique aperture at 9, which has no day/night colors and the hashes at 12, 3, 6, 9 are too thick, and no "T's" outside SWISS MADE (though Omega wasn't consistent in that regard). So my opinion is it cannot be an error dial, the configuration is unique enough that it was either a separate legit variant or a redial. The reasons I lean redial are my natural skepticism (like the silver Mark IV it's the only one I've seen) and the poor quality of the rest of the parts (hands look wrong, bezel was painted over, 24 hour disc is suitable for a silver dialed 1040, relume).

 

Well I'll be damned. Look what just popped up on eBay:

Looks like an update is forthcoming to the encyclopedia. This will be dial I4, looks to be legit and presumably quite uncommon. Shame the case is garbage, else I'd be tempted for the dial alone.

 

?

that's a pretty cool dial

 

Yeah, who am I fooling? I'm tempted despite the case, the chrono creep, the steep price (higher than my 3 other, better 176.010s), and the fact that I have three of these.

I'm closing on a house tomorrow so signing that check will *hopefully* cure my temptation for this or any other watch for a while.

 

This thread is killer, thanks for all the info and time spent to educate us all

 

If the price is right a 4th and the rarest dial shouldn't be out of question for you.

I think a fifth version will appear (again) sooner or later. I remember having seen an non-flawed copy a few months before the one below appeared (with the same colour tone and black sub-dial). I didn't save a picture and it seemed to have gone from the internet when this one appeared. Based on what can be seen on the dial along with the non-standard bezel, I lean toward the possibility this was a rejected or a flawed test dial, rather than a non-legit or redial.

 

I'm not sure if this dial (a prototype) has appeared on the thread, but just in case:



http://m.ebay.com/itm/131862158336?_mwBanner=1Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

This thread is awesome.
Here is an early 176.002.

 

Bad redial. May very well have been a test dial, but still a bad redial.

 

Not that the rest is particularly great, but look at the position of 25 and 35 relative to the subdial, and compare that to other 1040 dials.