Forums Latest Members
  1. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 16, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Couldn't resist putting in a bid and I ended up getting it. This always happens when I'm trying to save for something else...:p

    $T2eC16hHJF8E9nnC9dFyBQI-rCt-hQ~~60f_57.jpg

    [​IMG]
     
  2. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    26,949
    Likes
    32,636
    I know what you mean, I'm about to become a Speedmaster owner when I was saving for a new apartment to live in :p
     
  3. adam78 Adam @ ΩF Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    3,847
    Likes
    27,304
    I favor original, Kyle. Nice one! Perhaps Dennis will pipe in.

    What's the case size?

    Reminds me of this 35mm of mine:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  4. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    It should be a little smaller than the Seamasters, I think it measures about 32/33mm. That's a really nice one, do you still have it?
     
  5. adam78 Adam @ ΩF Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    3,847
    Likes
    27,304
    Yes, one of two triple dates I own (the other is a 14K cal. 72C Benrus Sky Chief).
     
  6. ulackfocus Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    Kyle, I'm not sure if it's original or not. The spot to study is the tips of the C. Yours is plain while the originals usually have a little barb on at least the top tip. Adam's watch has it on both ends.
     
  7. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    12,194
    Likes
    15,696
    There are several different iterations of the JLC logo. Not sure if all had barbs on the "C" or not. Here's one of mine with very small barbs. Sorry that I lack focus! :)

    [​IMG]

    However, that particular watch seems to be a little too "busy" at the bottom above the 6. I would need to examine up close and personal to determine if dial was original.

    Take care,
    gatorcpa

    [​IMG]

    Edit - After putting the two pics next to each other, there are some things that concern me about that dial.

    1. The line under the logo has sharp angles under the J and second R, that the other dials shown here don't have.
    2. The "U" seems to be a tiny bit off-line.
    3. The middle serif of the E's are not eccentric like in the other dials.

    I'd pass on this one.
     
  8. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Hmm...just took a look at the minute track and at some points it seems uneven. It could be the crystal that is distorting them, but Ill take some better pictures when I get it.
     
  9. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    12,194
    Likes
    15,696
    If the listing says "original dial", and you paid premium money, I'd consider asking for a refund. If you got it at a good price, no one is going to know the difference.

    Except us, of course. :p

    Enjoy,
    gatorcpa
     
  10. ulackfocus Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    Are you kidding? It's Kyle - of COURSE he got a great price!
     
  11. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Unfortunately there are no returns, and the seller didn't say it was original. I think I got it for a fair price though. Even if it is a redial, I might keep this one!
     
  12. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    I don't know about this time...:p
     
  13. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    12,194
    Likes
    15,696
    D -

    Can you post a pic of one of your JLC factory redos here? I wonder how they stack-up against the logo on Kyle's watch. It's that good.

    Take care,
    gatorcpa
     
  14. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    We're sorry the Dennis is busy at the moment :D

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  15. ulackfocus Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    You got it. Let's start with the '66 Memovox, which was confirmed original by Le Sentier.

    [​IMG]

    The barb is very crisp at the top of the C.

    Here's the '65 caliber 800C.

    [​IMG]

    A little less crisp, but there nonetheless.

    Now here's the '46 caliber 428 - a very close relative to Kyle's watch - that just came back from restoration.

    [​IMG]

    I don't see the barbs. Weird, huh?
     
  16. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 17, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    What about this one?

    IMG_1678C.jpg IMG_1678.JPG
     
  17. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Aug 18, 2012

    Posts
    12,194
    Likes
    15,696
    I blew-up your picture a little bit:

    IMG_1678C.jpg

    Still no sharp angle to the underline, the bars on the E's are closer to the top and the U is on line with the other letters.
    gatorcpa
     
  18. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 20, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Well...the markers are actually yellow gold. I thought it might be a bumper but it actually has a manual movement. Printing and minute track aren't that crisp under a loupe, so I'm thinking it's an older redial?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Some other iffy areas:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Also wondering, what year is it from?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  19. ulackfocus Aug 20, 2012

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    That looks like my caliber 428.

    [​IMG]


    Is the serial number 417747? I'll look it up for you in my book but it's really close to the serial of mine as you can see. That puts it around 1946.
     
  20. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Aug 20, 2012

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Yep. Does your watch take a 17mm strap?