How does this late 1950s piece look to you? Caliber 89, 17 Jewels, solid yellow gold. Would you pay $2k for this? Looks in decent condition. Waiting to get a pic of the inside. Thanks in advance!
I would need to see better photos, but am not convinced that the dial is original. Assuming that it is, though, I would need to see the movement in order to judge the price.
Exactly. It could be hidden, but there’s a fair amount of real estate showing, so it should be seen. Even just the top... I’m thinking redial. Even if it’s not redone, in that condition I think 2K is a little high.
Not sure about the SWISS, but the logo looks pretty good to me. Higher res photos would help, and I'd be curious to hear @gatorcpa's opinion. I think there may be water condensation inside the crystal by 12 o'clock.
Thank you all for your evaluation and points to look out for. Called the seller directly (number was listed - woo hoo!). He won't be able to get me better photos until Monday. He confirmed that there is NO "SWISS" at the 6 o'clock and it was serviced 3 months ago. Dan, he confirmed there is NO water/condensation inside crystal by the 12 o'clock. He had the watch in front of him and said watch is perfect, air tight, no water. Could be the reflection. We shall see on Monday. Thanks everyone! Really appreciate it!
Imho even more. Printing too thick and the "o" in "Co" is too high. It could be the angle, but IWC is also not completely horizontal. And usually, Shark Fins have other hands: Pic from curent auction: https://auctions.watchesofknightsbr...-details/872a8b66-a456-4567-ba33-a9f4016e38fb
Compare the style of the logo against those listed in the table in the linked thread. Also, “Swiss” was not always used. https://omegaforums.net/threads/at-...t-in-high-end-iwc-content.78926/#post-1006061
Wow! This is amazing. The more I look at it, I think the dial is not authentic. It doesn't match any of the logos of what you posted (thank you!): - There are two lines/marks in under the "o" in "Co" - Like what Oku mentioned, the "o" in "Co" is too high - The relationship between the "W" and "t" don't match up. - The top of the "t" in "Watch" seem to be too tall...maybe from the 40s but this watch is listed as in the 50s - The space between "W" and "a" in "Watch" seems a bit wide - The "a" in "watch" is too thick?
Not sure if it helps but this dial is more or less from the same time (1955-60 I think) and I'm pretty sure my great aunt didn't have it changed. You can see the Swiss at 6. Also my pyjama Edit: the second batch of photos you posted seem to show a 1 35x xxx serial the one I posted is a 1 33x xxx so they should be from the same 55-60 period so fonts and Swiss should be there right? According to the previous post showing all the logos. You can see part of the serial zooming on the movement photo, it reflects on the right side.
With movement number 1 35x, it looks like the OPs watch is from 1954 based on the below table (don't have source, found on internet some time ago). While the OPs hands don't appear to aesthetically match the watch, as also pointed out by @Oku , I have a circa 1947 IWC c89 (movement 1.16X) with almost the same hands. I would have thought thin hands such as these are more consistent with 1960s style but I'm almost certain mine weren't changed. The Vintage Calibre table of logos says all dials have "Swiss" from 1954 but our OP's from that year doesn't. Perhaps it was from just before the changeover point. On the other hand, my 1947 has "Swiss" while Vintage Calibre says it shouldn't. There seems to be almost infinite combinations of IWC dials, hands & cases out there from the '40-60s. All this is separate to the question about whether the OPs watch is a re-dial.