Hi

I'm reading the Omega Forums for quite a long time and just registered to post a picture of a Longines Chronograph...



What's your opinion on this one? It's advertised by a reputable vintage watch dealer as being reference 8615-1. According to Longines, it isn't: "La référence 8615 ne correspond pas au type de montre présentée sur votre photo." (Translation: The reference 8615 does not correspond to the type of watch shown in your picture.)

For further details, Longines needs the serial number, which the seller is not willing to give. According to them, they bought the watch (with a Longines service certificate) from a customer.

For my it's fairly clear: This is a fake.

Best regards

 

1960s style watch with 1930 style logo? Is the watch styled after 1960s Type 21? Bezel from a Longines diver? Valjoux movement? First one of these I have ever seen. Curious watch. It does resemble a Avigation Big Eye. You should carefully evaluate it.

 

According to the seller: "[...] This is a Longines reference 8615/1 chronograph diver from 1971 in a 40mm stainless steel case. It is equipped with the caliber 332/ Valjoux 726 manual movement. [...]"

 

I wouldn't dismiss so early without checking more.

 

The reference doesn't seem to match. Where to look further...?

 

LONGINES already said reference is wrong. You should send serial number to LONGINES with the photo. I doubt I have ever met an expert capable of saying a watch never existed. At best, experts can tell you stylistically it is inconsistant with known information. Only LONGINES can validate at this point.

 

Yes, your watch is definitely not the 1972 Conquest Munich Olympic one button chronograph. The reference is incorrect for your watch. I wouldn't buy from a dealer that doesn't bother to check the reference is correct or not. But, you should check with Longines since they should be able to easily identify it.

 

If I only had the serial number... (see post #1)

...perhaps someone is able to get it: https://www.instagram.com/p/BXkzgPsA4gJ/.

 

Dial is fake. Hands are too short i.e. wrong. Would run far away from this one.

By the way, same signature on the "historic" "avigation" example.

 

Good point on the hands...!

 

Very poor redial for context.

 

Didn't see that one...

...should open another thread for JLC. Also "for context"...

 

This never did though I do wonder what ref. 4064 looks like: https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-LO...570703?hash=item284635014f:g:QwQAAOSwySlZ~WXbPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

Not much point in including obvious fakes. Conversations with Dowling, Knirim, Goldberger, Hess, Marchello, they never claim to know everything.

At some point in time, existance of Polish Army 17.25. 13e RDP 1980. Argentinian Ci. and the likes no one knew their existance. Similarly debate goes on for MN 5513.

This is actually kinda fun to name as many jury’s still out watches. I think I can keep going on watches FAP Longines, Blancpain Polish Navy, US Navy Seiko, Vulcan Seiko.

Up until not long ago, I remember 6098 1952 Oyster Perpetual found in Beyer Museum was a fresh discovery even with letter lable from Hillery attached.

 

Only obvious if you know. No one can know everything but some things are obvious, as you so plainly stated.

 

I’m just trying to make a simple recommendation. Longines in this case knows best.

 

From whom was this watch bought from? File a complaint and prosecute him in trial for crookery and forgery.

 

Fortunately I did not buy it. The seller is the renowned "Beyer Chronometrie" in Zürich. They told me that this watch is reference 8615-1. After I told them that this is not the case I then contacted Longines and Longines tried to contact Beyer... Even Longines did not get an answer form them!

 

Which means that even the "so called" professionals are ready to scam a potential customer what a shame.

 

If Longines say that ref is not the watch on the picture it means some parts don’t belong, and at best it’s a franken.
You did well to refrain, and it’s disturbing that a major dealer is ignoring the concerns.
Although I agree with @Seiji it is interesting to elucidate and discover mysterious watches, I know I personally would hesitate to overextend my welcome with Longines historians about this one.
I have enough questions to ask about watches that could be correct.