It appears that the dial has been refinished, You can compare and contrast the lettering with Dan's original example.
Also, it is not likely to be a genuine Chronometre, as if it were, Longines would have, or certainly should have noted it in its reply. A photo of the movement would be helpful in making a more confident assessment.
The value of the watch would be impacted up or down depending on whether it is a genuine chronometre, but given the dial refinishing, I'm sorry to say that its value has been degraded fairly significantly. The quality of the gold (i.e., 9k, 14k, or 18k) will also have a real impact on the value of the watch.
Thanks once again fo you're quick response . What does refinished mean ? In 2017 I contacted a collector in Norway I found called Havi (www.Longines30L) . He also queried the English spelling of Chronometer but said it it may have been that the Longines London retailer Baume and Co. could have had it certified in the UK to avoid excess import charges. Could this have reflection on the date anomaly?
In the communication from Longines in 2015 they refer to it as an 18ct yellow gold Flagship Chronometer Wristwatch-REQ038207 . from series REQ038207-REQ03824 . The serial number 10'339'760 would fit with a year of 1958 compared to Dan's number also for 1958 . This does not seem to be as straight forward as I thought . As you say by todays standards the monetary value is probably not worth the insurance premium but an interesting watch . I intend to contact Longines again and see if there was this practice of getting imported watches certified though of course it would mean changing the face ,which does seem tenuous , many thanks once again for your knowledgeable information , we still have Grandads gold watch and that's great !
In the communication from Longines in 2015 they refer to it as an 18ct yellow gold Flagship Chronometer Wristwatch-REQ038207 .
He also queried the English spelling of Chronometer but said it it may have been that the Longines London retailer Baume and Co. could have had it certified in the UK to avoid excess import charges.
The dial has been wiped clean and completely repainted, presumably because it had been damaged in the past. The dial is not as it came from the factory, it was repainted by someone independently, and the luminous paint was also removed from the hands.
I don't see any date anomaly.
If you have further information from the email chain, please include it. For example, I don't see anything about "series REQ038207-REQ03824." It saves time if you can provide comprehensive information, instead of parceling it out bit by bit.
Based on what you posted, Longines did not refer to it as a chronometer. The word chronometer is only in the subject line of the email, and their email is a response to a previous email (sent to them) that used the word chronometer in the subject line. As you know, when you reply to an email, the email client simply copies the old subject line with "Re:" in front. Longines did not confirm that it is a chronometer, and did not use that word in the actual extract. Longines does have that information, and you can pay for them to do more research to determine if it is indeed a chronometer. If so, they can provide an updated Extract from the Archives.
If you can show a clear photo of the movement, we would be able to give you a definitive answer. A different balance was used for the chronometer version.
A few years ago, @Rumar89 started a thread that seemed to suggest that a Breguet overcoil hairspring was neither necessary or sufficient to confirm that a particular 30L was a chronometer. It would certainly be interesting to see the movement, as this watch could serve as another data point given that Longines' archive seems to indicate that it is a chronometer.
A few years ago, @Rumar89 started a thread that seemed to suggest that a Breguet overcoil hairspring was neither necessary or sufficient to confirm that a particular 30L was a chronometer.
On a personal note, I don't quite buy that flat spirals where as accurate as overcoils. Longines were still using the later ones in their observatory chronometers up until the end of competitions in the end of the 1960s, so they were still much in favor for tight regulation. But flat spirals were accurate enough for the much larger tolerances of the Bureaux Officiels, and above all were cheaper to produce. It's interesting to note that most of the major manufacturers got rid of the overcoil around the mid to late 1950s, like Omega, Zenith, Eterna, JLC, etc. and this is all linked with a decrease of finish quality in their higher end range : their movements got less bevels, less polish, less elegant bridges and various decorating touches. It seems obvious to me they were all cutting costs down.
I see, so the movement might not be definitive. Although, according to that thread, the special balance would still have been in use at the time the OP watch was delivered.
That is a useful reference thread. I tend to side with this opinion provided by @707mm2 :
I vaguely recall asking @Archer about the benefit of a Breguet overcoil hairspring over a flat hairspring. From memory, my impression was that the theoretical benefit is small in comparison to the adjustments made by watchmakers. In other words, a well-adjusted movement with a flat hairspring could outperform a minimally-adjusted movement with a Breguet overcoil hairspring. So, the switch to a flat hairspring for 30L chronometers may have cut costs by standardizing production, but had little impact on performance. It would be fascinating to corroborate this.
