Hi ladies and Gents, Found an eBay listing and I would like to check on it’s authenticity. https://m.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage...960010?hash=item4d67ae54ca:g:CFEAAOSwmOJaDaZPPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network Wondering if you guys are able to help. Thanks
I think this is a redial with mismatched hands. Other than that, the rest of the watch looks good. It’s an early (ca. 1940), Cal. 30T2 movement. Good luck, gatorcpa
If it's a reprint it's a wonderful reprint, but I think it's an original dial. Even the hands are correct IMO but the minutes one lost the tip. Of course I can be wrong.
Initial thoughts were a redial based on a number of things: The font, I've never seen that 2 with a small 0 and the bowed 4. That 2 tends to go with a full sized 0 and a straight 4. However, three or four minutes on Google found an example with the dame combination sold in Switzerland at auction last year. The dial itself was different and the watch a year earlier than your example, but there it was. As for the other reasons to suspect a redial, a piece of a4 paper across the screen of my phone seems to show that everything lines up. I didn't think it all did at first glance. Even the crown is period correct. I vote it's a good 'un.
It is a re-dial for sure. Font does not match the period... minute track does not look right to me. Sub seconds track looks weird for a cal. 30 watch Movement, case and hands match though
The curvature of the point of the minutes hand is different from that of the hours hand. I think both hands are period correct, they simply don’t match each other. The printing of the subseconds dial doesn’t fill the area the way it should and looks slightly off-center. Dial is too clean for almost 80 years old, even without radium. It’s a nice job, but still a redial. Hope this helps, gatorcpa
The case is very clean both inside and out, so is the movement. That dial is a match condition-wise for everything else, with minor marks and discoloration in all the right places. There is no reason why a dial can't survive like this if properly looked after. All you have to do is put it away somewhere not too hot, not too cold, not too damp and leave it there for 80 years. My knowledge of this era is minimal so I am probably wrong but my instinct says original. If it is a redial it has been done by an absolute master.
This kind of dial is weird for a cal. 30, it matches much more a cal. 26,5. Plus, as said above, there are few issues. I would not be so sure only with that because the pic is not that good and several issues could be due to the glass and the angle of the photo. But to me this kind of dial, in particular the Omega script, belongs to the period of the cal. 26,5, not of the 30. I would be surprised to be proven wrong! But you can always learn new things.
Agreed. And the chances of that are? Also agreed. But it could have been done many years ago by someone who had original dies. gatorcpa
It happens, and not just with watches. I have an interest in British military kit from WW1 and have seen several khaki jackets and caps that were put away and look as if they were made yesterday. And they weren't - I can tell the real ones. Obviously it's only a small percentage but if a tenth of one per cent of a watch production run of, say, 5000 survives in this way, that's still five watches and they have got to be somewhere. In which case, how would it be distinguishable from an original?
I fully second @François Pépin I have already stated the same in my first reply: it is the font of Omega and the subdial which is wrong for a Cal. 30 of that time
When I said “original”, I didn’t necessarily mean original for this watch. I’ve had Hamilton dials redone by International Dial, who has many of the original Hamilton dies from the 1920’s and 1930’s. They look like new dials 1920’s style when they are done. Even the best redial can be easily seen by an expert (which I am not, just ask @hoipolloi). Even if the watch was hermetically sealed for 80 years, there would be some aging to it. IMO, this one is just too clean and too white to be original. gatorcpa
I'm not trying to say this IS an original dial, just pointing out reasons why IMO such a dial (not necessarily this one) could be original. I do not know the fonts of this period, @mac_omega obviously does and if he says this one is wrong for the watch I'm not going to disagree.