Looks very clean but the hands and the markers are aged more than the dial ... so am i correct that this is redial? dial and lettering looks clean though
Looks ok to me. The finish on these dials ages really well. The scripts look correct, with the serifs being present as well as the tell tale of the slightly more open tail on the middle 'e' and slightly more closed tail on the final 'e' in "Geneve". The T marks also look correct, as well as the border around the date window and the fine detail of the feet on the Omega logo. The script on these dials is so small that it would take exceptionally fine work to reproduce this level of detail in a redial. I have my 1969 Dynamic on today & will post it in WRUW so you can compare.
Beside what Spikispikester already mentioned, the 'racing' pattern around the marker is very neat, IMO they are difficult to reproduce unless you have the right tools. The lume dots are also in perfect shape. I vote for original dial. It might be newer replacement dial, but original.
Looks all original to me. There is some aging on the Tritium dots and hands. This is to be expected in a 40 year old watch. Omega used these hands on a number of different models, including the Dynamic as well as the chronostop and some Seamasters. If the movement is in as nice of a condition as the dial and hands, it should be a winner, gatorcpa
I don't see any rust - and as Gator says the aging of the hands is consistent with the age of the watch. My view is that the dial shows no indication of being a different age to the hands. It looks like an example worth pursuing. If it helps you, I have two of the same age which have dials in this sort of condition.
Bid a gazillion bucks. It's referred to as the nuclear option, or simply "going Ashley." Better hope no one else has the same idea (and no shill bidders) or it gets costly.
I accidentally bid $50,000 on a watch I wanted to pay $5,000 for, lucky eBay stopped it at $4,500 and I won the watch, but it could have ended rather unpleasantly.
