Looking for advice on Ingenieur dial & case

How does he know it's a NOS replacement? I have some doubts about this. These iwc dials are often refinished and sometimes it's very hard to see this. The white color of the dial, the lume that's so crisp on the dial and the hands, hmmm... At the other hand, like @Dan S said, the script looks quite good.

Not a genuine NOS dial, in my view. It appears to be a redial, and not a very good one. Among other things, the INGENIEUR signature is thick and crude, and the dial finish is incorrect.

The case has been polished, but we would need different angles to judge the extent and quality of the polish.

Use this original dial as a reference:

From my conversations with the TS and a better view of the sellers pics and the IWC service letter i would say it is an official IWC service dial. IWC wouldnt risk reputation for a dodgy one off repaint, and have a whole cabinet full of service dials. From my picture here of the first series 666 you can see the font is similair - although different- but definitely `fatter` print than later versions. A later production date of the service dial would explain the different lume dots, more white/green and if it was never exposed to light it would look like the service dial from the seller.
All of no importance as the TS wants originality so this is not a watch for him. But if you want a brand new serviced watch with documentation, this may be it ! Good hunting !

Thanks for your opinion, but I remain skeptical.

It is, of course, true that IWC has outsourced the manufacturing of the Ingenieur dials over several decades, and that there are some differences between them depending on when, and where they were produced. I would also agree that some later dials featured thicker fonts. The problem, though, is that the thickness of the font is not the only issue with the subject dial. The lowest point of the top half of the lightning logo nearly touches the "N" in INGENIEUR. That is not a characteristic that I can recall having seen previously, though perhaps there was a run of "official" dials produced with it. If so, it would be disappointing that they would have passed IWC's quality control, and for what should be obvious reasons.

For context, here is a later, thicker example, which is correct. Note the differences:



Secondly, the finish on the dial face is inconsistent with any ref. 666 original dial that I have ever seen, and I've seen many. I bought my first 666 ~25 years ago, and have probably owned around 10. I cannot recall a single original or service dial having had any sort of texture similar to the subject watch. Silver sunburst finish? Yes. Flat finishes? Yes. But not this (apparent) type.

So, while I cannot rule out the possibility that there was a relatively recent run of service dials produced to a low standard, and which are disappointingly dissonant with the original, I'm not convinced that this is a genuine IWC service dial, no matter what the seller may claim.

Finally, in discussions such as these, the most compelling way for those who support the claim that the dial is genuine to bolster their position is to find other examples online and share them. Can anyone find a dial closely resembling the OP's dial? There are many 666 images floating around.

Dear Tony,
It is not my opinion but i merely state the facts from the seller with iwc service letter and extract signed by David Seyffer. That means all other views are mere opinions and not even sound ones. Your claim is ; not having seen one before ` and that doesnt hold much substance.

The IWC letters are the facts, and the burden of proof to state otherwise lies with the opposition ! Not all owners post pictures on the web, far less than 50% i would say and none from those early years as internet was not arround then. Lots of pictures of fakes floating around as well so that argument is not valid for me. There was even a special `ghost` dial made for a customer recently discovered, never seen before !! We just dont know. Frizzleweb shows dozens of variations, with different producers and fonts through the years etc etc. Why judge so quickly on the few pictures posted here ??

The seller has documentation to support it is a service dial and if you dont have proof of the opposite, let it go. The dial texture is strange but could be as simple as light distortion in photography, a greasy crystal, or a grained dial who knows. No one here `has seen it all` let alone a new watch from that first year and if David Seyffer signed of on the extract plus the serviceletter it is good enough for me. What is important here is the TS request and it is now clear we agree it is a not an original but service dial and he wants an original watch.

Here are some more font examples but i dont think this is a definitive list 😀

And some had Swiss Made on the dial in 1958/9 to make it more confusing.....

Ghost dial , credit Monochrome

Those iwc dials are very hard to judge. There seems to be more inconsistenties then most of the omega dials.

Ron -

First of all, a service letter from IWC does not guarantee that the dial in a seller's watch is necessarily the same dial that was used as a replacement. Secondly, the set of signatures that you provided is irrelevant, as I did not question the upper signature.

I asked if anyone could provide a single example of a similar dial, and thus far neither you, or anyone else has. It's far too early to say that there aren't any other examples online, but if there aren't, it would obviously not be supportive of the claim that it is genuine. What was the date of service on the letter?


Anyone who has researched and collected Ingenieurs over a long period of time can tell you that there are no "early" examples that closely resemble the subject dial. And if it is a service dial, it was obviously created relatively recently. So early examples are relevant only for context, highlighting how far from the original standard the OP's example is.


Where on earth did you get the idea that I was judging based on the "few pictures posted here"? Did you miss the part where I noted that I bought my first 666 25 years ago? The ghost dial is correct, with regard to the printing, and is an original dial, so it is not relevant.


I agree that better photos would be helpful, but this is obviously not a crystal issue. The OP used the phrase "sparkle" dial. Did the seller refute that characterization? How does he characterize it? If it is, in fact, such a dial, it would be inconsistent with every 666 dial that I have ever seen, both in person, or online. Which begs the question, why would IWC choose such a departure from the original, when providing contemporary service dials?


The first part is a straw man, as no one has made any such claim, and you have made it very clear that the service letter is good enough for you.

Finally, assuming that the service was relatively recent (again, a date would be helpful), why would the dial be missing the lume plot below the 6?