Is this CK2320-3 real or fake?

ufoRAILGUN · Jan 8, 2020

So I'm very new to vintage watches and I spotted this amazing looking salmon dial omega, but the dial seems fake or a re-dial.

It seems like a CK2320 from the 1940s. The movement and hands seem to check out, but from my research I haven't seen a single one with a sector dial with these numberings, only sector dials with roman numerals.

Could anyone tell me if this looks fake or not? And what do you guys think it's worth?

Joe K. · Jan 8, 2020

Watch is not a fake but look at the quality of execution of the dial..... 🤮
Its a poorly done redial

mac_omega · Jan 9, 2020

Joe K.
quality of execution of the dial.....

What leads you to this conclusion? I think the execution of this dial is done very well and I would like to know the restorer. we have seen far worse re-dials...

Joe K. · Jan 9, 2020

I look at the "12" and see how the bottom of the "2" is not straight and touches the track. There are inconsistencies in distances between numerals in the outer minute track. See for example how the 1s in 10 and 15 touch the other numeral. Also, look at the 5 in 50 - they touch. Compare this with the 20, 30, 40 and 60 - no touching.

Then there is the issue that the overall condition of the watch case and movement suggests considerable wear, yet the dial condition appears to be inconsistent with this.

These factors lead me to conclude it is a redial.

I guess the quality of the redial is subjective, but IMO this is not good quality. The fact that we have seen far worse redials has no bearing on this.

mac_omega
What leads you to this conclusion? I think the execution of this dial is done very well and I would like to know the restorer. we have seen far worse re-dials...

Edward53 · Jan 9, 2020

The movement looks battered and there is evidence of rust. The case show signs of age which polishing has failed to remove. The dial appears to be in perfect, brand new condition. Grounds for suspicion, to put it mildly.

mac_omega · Jan 9, 2020

Joe K.
I look at the "12" and see how the bottom of the "2" is not straight and touches the track. There are inconsistencies in distances between numerals in the outer minute track. See for example how the 1s in 10 and 15 touch the other numeral. Also, look at the 5 in 50 - they touch. Compare this with the 20, 30, 40 and 60 - no touching.

Then there is the issue that the overall condition of the watch case and movement suggests considerable wear, yet the dial condition appears to be inconsistent with this.

These factors lead me to conclude it is a redial.

I guess the quality of the redial is subjective, but IMO this is not good quality. The fact that we have seen far worse redials has no bearing on this.

I never doubted it was a re-dial But to call it a 🤮re-dial as you did is harsh IMO. I think it is a good quality re-dial - but to each his own...

Joe K. · Jan 9, 2020

Yes, I agree the use of that emoji might have been a bit too harsh. However, to my eyes, the inconsistencies in the dial are major detractors.

mac_omega
I never doubted it was a re-dial But to call it a 🤮re-dial as you did is harsh IMO. I think it is a good quality re-dial - but to each his own...

Maskelyne · Jan 9, 2020

Absolutely one of the better re-dials I have seen. Only thing is the "12" slightly misaligned.

Is this CK2320-3 real or fake?

ufoRAILGUN

Joe K.

mac_omega

Joe K.

Edward53

mac_omega

Joe K.

Maskelyne

Similar threads

Omega Seamaster 300 Ref 25318000 Real or Fake?

Omega Seamaster 166.032 Day-Date: Real or Fake Dial?

Omega Seamaster 300 Bracelet STZ010108: Real or Fake?

Omega Seamaster De Ville Sector Dial: Real or Fake?

Omega Seamaster 166.0216 Real or Fake? Redial Check

Vintage Omega Seamaster Military: Real or Fake?