Very hard to tell ! The case, hands and crown are all correct, as is the dial layout. The text and minute track markers are identical to the examples in Basha's book. At first I thought the minute track might be a bit too thick and the "SWISS" too large, but again they match the ones in Basha. So if it is a redial then it is excellently done. The only other clue is that the dial looks so clean that it might be a JLC redial. But there does seem to be some patina & the bright lighting might be blanching it a bit. In othr words I can't spot any giveaway signs of a redial. Having said that, there's something about it I can't quite get comfortable with, but I don't know what. Maybe it's just the lighting making it look a bit unnatural to my eye
I agree with Spiki. If it's a redial, it's an excellent one. It does have that new paint smell, the minute track does look a shade thick, and I don't like the way the track seems to dip under the edge of the 0 at the 10 o'clock marker, but I'm not at all sure about this one.
Agree, going with competent redial on this one. Whole thing seems overinked to me. With respect to JLS vs. LeCoultre - should dial, case and movement be homogenous, or is it OK to mix and match on these?
I'll back this too. These dials never stayed this pristine. I've owned a couple of these in the last year+ including one I keep for a parts watch for my black dial 14ct model and they never age this well. Yes, I've even seen some weirdness with the Swiss made JLC models, particularly early Memovoxes.
With this particular model, movement should be marked "Jaeger-LeCoultre" and caseback marked "LeCoultre Co. Swiss". Steel cases were almost always marked this way. Gold-filled cases were generally made in the USA. I've even seen a few Wadsworth cases that were exported to Europe and had hallmark markings in French. Interesting, gatorcpa PS - To get back on subject, I'm thinking the OP's watch could be a service dial. I've seen more than a few JLC dials like that at Gisbert Joseph. http://shop.joseph-watches.com/joseph/en/FMPro?-db=gaj.fp5&-format=detail_xl.html&-lay=web&-sortfield=zufallszahl&status_inventory=66..99&Categoria_marca=Jaeger-LeCoultre&-max=14&-recid=43813&-find=
The case back and movement are indeed marked exactly as you describe. There is a number on the outside of the case back - 46707. The movement is numbered 782834. Can you date it from these numbers? Many thanks for all your advice, I was a bit suspicious of the dial simply because it looks so clean.
The number on the caseback may in fact be 146707, but the '1' is very faint. Right, so here's another steel case one - The seller says that this is a new re-dial - it looks as if they have got the chapter ring slightly too small on this one, as the hands now overlap it. What do you think? By the by, this is priced at £500 more than the first example. Also on the UK market is this 14k solid gold case example - The seller says that this is the original dial. Again, what would be your opinions? On this one, the second hand looks too short to me. These JLCs do seem to be a very attractive watch, but not as rare or perhaps as desirable as the sellers are keen to make out John
The last two are redials and not very good ones either. Unfortunately, it can be quite a slog trying to find one that isn't a redial. The model is desirable from a collecting point of view - although not as much as a few others - but I wouldn't go for those last two.
Sure can - that corresponds to late 1950, so the watch could have been completed in 1951 or 1952. Got a decent black dial one: Way overpaid, but it's original and it wears pretty nice with those wide surface area lugs:
The last one might not be a redial. I'd need to see a head-on picture. The middle one is a redial for sure. The "Automatic" font is totally different than the first one. I'm still sticking with the NOS dial on the first one. The seconds hand also looks NOS. I'm not sure the alpha hands are correct for this model, but they look nice anyway. This seems to be the JLC equivalent of the Watchco Seamaster 300's. Some original and some NOS replacement parts. I'd love to see if the movement is as clean as the dial. Take care, gatorcpa
Comparing these to the examples in Basha, the hands are correct. The second hand on the last one is incorrect. I'm sticking with a redial verdict on the last one. The C shouldn't join to the o like that, in LeCoultre.
Again, can't tell from the angle of the photo. The seconds hand is similar to Dennis's which is a legitimate variation. It is just broken off at the tip. JRS - If you can afford the one above, grab it while you can. That's one of the nicest Powermatics I've ever seen. I really do think it was done up by Gisbert Joseph. Can't prove it, just a feeling. gatorcpa
In the movement picture above, you can see some grey material in the recess where you would expect to find a rubber seal. The seller says that this is a lead seal - is this correct for the maker and period?
