It's been said in other threads that dial feet on an original Longines dial should in principle be copper colored and that silver colored dial feet suggest a redial. That view was expounded in an article by one of the world's foremost experts on Longines, the author of the web site Longines Passion. Now what do we make of the following dial? This just came off a project watch, there was no question in my eyes the dial was original -- but now look at the whitish dial feet? What do you say about that?
A am not certain about the originality of that dial, either. However, with regard to the basic hypothesis, I am certain of this: when it comes to vintage watches, never say never!
Gee, can't believe this-- looking at close ups of the subdial it seems the numerals are not as finely executed as they could be, but it looked really convincing up until now...
The design of the subdial is also typically 1940s whereas the design of the hour markers is very 1930s. The execution of both the subdial and the signature is quite poor. I stand by my original assertion that this dial is not original.
I agree about the subdial but I find the signature totally fine. Also, although it doesn't really matter here, I'm not sure there's such a clear distinction between the 1930s and the 1940s in terms of subdial design, or overall dial design. Seems to me like 1930s dial designs lasted well into the 1940s when it comes to Longines, if only because as we've seen before they were using existing stocks over periods of several years. Anyhow, it's a bummer this finding compromises my project for this watch, but the silver lining is that the project was probably a bit wasteful....
I would have to disagree with this statement. While one does see 1930s design continue into the 1940s, one would not expect to find 1940s design on a 1930s dial. Of course, this dial is not likely from either decade but if it was intended to appear 1930s in design (presumably when the watch was originally made?), then the 1940s subdial gives it away. I also believe that if we delve deeper, this subdial combines details from two distinct subdial designs that should not coincide. Below are examples of the two that I am thinking of. The one in question uses the numerals (flat 3) from the first variant and the enclosed perimeter of the second. Regarding the signature, I am most put off by the "S" but the narrow "L" and subtle serifs are not befitting either. If the serial number is provided, I will attempt to show correct examples from the period, for comparison.
S., this is where Goldberger is very useful and a quick look through pages 90 to 118 show that 1930s dial designs were used all the way into the early 50s, what you call a 1940 subdial was widely used in the late 30s, what you call a 1930s subdial was used in 1943 (page 114...) and 1945-- not sure how your distinctions can stand in the face of such evidence. Now here's the kicker.... dials which are eminently 1930s art deco in their design, were put on watches whose official production date is 1951. And those have both types of subdials, enclosed subdial and non enclosed subdial.
None of the subdials that you show, in watches from the 1930s, are of the same design as the ones that I have shown. And nor are they the same design as your dial.
Assuming that these are totally legit, and not all watches in Goldberger are, they are exceptional pieces that are not necessarily useful when discussing trends.
Seems to me that to say one half of the dial is 1930s but the subdial is 1940s in style is a far fetched distinction... but I'm not going to argue beyond this. Edit - I should add I do see what you mean by the sundial being perhaps "composite" in style…. will have to keep an eye out to see how other subdials match up.
The perimeter of the printed subdial also looks too small compared to the sunken diameter. Usually, printed subdial perimeters come to the edge of the sunken part. That would have been the clearest giveaway for me. The font of the logo would have fooled me.