Below is an image of lot 225 from Phillips' upcoming Geneva sale. The estimate for this watch is CHF 30,000 - 60,000. And naturally, the dial is being presented as original. I do not believe that the dial is original. Last year, @LouS began a thread on another questionable 13ZN that was sold by Phillips. I would be very curious to know who vets these Longines. @LouS' thread: https://omegaforums.net/threads/longines-13zn-auctions-originality-authority.40453/ Lot 225: https://www.phillips.com/detail/LONGINES/CH080117/225
Because most 13zn on the market now look like s...t. This is bloody pristine. If it's a redial it's a masterpiece.
The "30" on the minute tracker looks off. Numerals basically touching and the 3's look different. I'm not versed in these so I'd happily be corrected.
On these dials, is it usual to have the "BASE" writing printed so close to the "12" that the "B" overlaps the "2" ?
Let us categorize this dial. One defining trait is the small sub-dials. Another is the central, tachymeter scale. It should be noted that these traits can be found in sandwich dials but this is not a sandwich dial. It should also be noted that these traits can be found in dials where only three numbers appear in each sub-dial as opposed to six numbers in each sub-dial. Below are two examples of dials that share the traits of the dial above. Notice, for example, how the tachymeter scales do not overlap with the "12" hour markers.
I'd proudly sport that two tone on my wrist! Either frankly. Looking at these one wonders about the subject watch. Interesting to see the subject watch will be featured in an up coming reference book!
As you will notice, both watches above have seconds hands with circular counterweights. I believe that the seconds hand on Phillips' 13ZN is not original and should also have a circular counterweight.
I beg to differ, "pristine" is not synonymous with redial. Although it is true that most of the 13ZNs we see have at least a few specs of patina, there are many outstanding and pristine original 1940s dials in many collections. What's much more questionable to me, and more of a give away, is the somewhat blunted edge of the subdials, and the creamy white appearance of a dial which should have a silvery sheen-- not look like it's enamel. And the 5 and the 6 almost biting into the blue snail index is also quite shocking.
Looks to be a redial. The subdial edges are soft. The left subdial hand is probably replaced. Syrte already mentioned the 5 being overlapped. But there are others.
Issues of quality and authenticity at auctioneers (I'm speaking in general terms here, not about watches specifically) tend to boil down to just one or two specialists in a given department. Most of the staff will be more focussed on admin, presentation, and cultivating sellers and clients. Only a few will have the knowledge to really examine the lots assess them properly. If an auctioneer tries to expand too fast without new hires, loses even a single key expert, or cuts back on staff due to a market downturn, then their ability to vet their lots can decline sharply.
Tried to e-mail them to get some more infos about this particular piece on Monday, but I still do have no answer. Maybe they're very busy, maybe they know it isn't 100% legit and don't answer some of the specific questions regarding originality of the dial + hands... What do you think? Best, Yuriae/Marc
The problem is that this is appears from all observations as a redial and the description is BS. (However I am also so used to "never say never" of late with UG that I fully expect someone to come out of the shadows and declare this legit.)
...that´s it. And no one who is interested in vintage watches for a longer time can claim that he thought for just one second, that this dial could be "original". rgds - h.u.
Incredibly interesting thread and I agree that this piece does look like a redial. I do not believe that Phillips brought this to the NYC highlights, as I was hoping to confirm suspicions with a loupe-in-hand but it all just appears to be off. The soft sub-dials, the odd base and 12 overlap, the shorter hand, all point to replaced parts. If Phillips isn't aware they should make the market aware, or someone should show some proof that the dial is legit. My issue too falls in that this piece will be represented in Pucci Papaleo upcoming Chrono book. I can understand this dial perhaps missing a few eyes but to get past the entire Phillips staff (Aurel, Paul, etc etc) and Papaleo & Co and no-one make mention of a redial seems very odd. In-short, this dial just doesn't look like anything else from the time, from the logo, to the subdial, to the scale, it's just not 'right'. My .02