If they were the same price, which one would you buy?

 

And to make it more interesting, here are 2 choices, let's say they are both $500

A


B

 

In all honesty the one that was most attractive to me. I have at least one example of that could fit into either category.
I guess though you're asking if all other things were pretty much equal including aesthetics then I would always go for the genuine untouched damage/patina

 

I would say it depends on the extent of the damage / "patina" as there comes a point where it is no longer attractive to me.
But if I had to choose, I would go for the original over the re-dial

 

Neither, I'd save my money for a better watch.

 

This is the smart thing to do. I think the question becomes interesting for those who really find a certain patina attractive (and that’s such an individual taste thing), but a better condition example will always be more attractive than either.

 

I would go C


C Original dial for $800

For future reference and anyone newer here.
The original dial, always the original dial. And as above spend the extra for a nice example as buying a $500 redial or damaged dial is always work selling it when you really want a nice original dial.

 

This is my current choice too, but instead of paying, lets say $800-$1000 for a better watch, I guess you could also buy the re-dial, sell the bracelet for $200-250, enjoy the watch for ~$300

The thing with re-dials tho, like most of them, they usually have these fake crowns and fake hands too, ugh - so the sane thing is definitely to aim for more expensive watches or enjoy the patina, some people really hate dial damage tho, in our family, my brother and I like it, but my father treats it as thrash - and it's not a good feeling wearing something that some people see as thrash

 

What's the point of compromising to save a few hundred dollars on a common watch like this?

 

A for me. I am one of the guys enjoying a nice patina. My Seamaster bumper has this patina and stains on the dial, and if I compare it to the dial as it should look when new, I even prefer the patina version.
Off course, as stated above, its al a matter of perspective and also the state of patina/degradation. I have a C shape Connie just bought before christmas which has the OM linnen dial in as good as perfect condition. That kind off dial with patina dies not look attractive to me... So I think it also depends on the watch.

 

Out of these 2, I would choose A.

 

For the two specific watches under consideration: A without a doubt

But if B was half the price of A, I'd have to actually think about it

 

If I was buying a gift for my brother (hypothetically, because I’m not really that nice), and my brother was a fan of watching Madmen and always wanted one of those watches (again hypothetically, because if you can’t shoot something with it or drive it through thick brush, he isn’t interested in spending time with it) and since he doesn’t give two hoots about collectibility or originality, he just likes the watch, I’d buy him the redial - of course, since he’s my brother, I’d keep the bracelet and put it on a $30 Hirsch first.

I am really proud of how long that “sentence” is

 

As many have said, neither A nor B, but put some extra cash in and get an original dial in better condition.

You'll almost always regret compromising whether it's originality or condition.

 

The smooth and evenly spaced speckling of the dial of A is much like that of my Croton .

It not only adds character it looks as if it was meant to look like that, like polished stone.