Hello All, I have developed an interest in the MN Longines and begun to analyze its evolution. After studying numerous MNs I have observed three distinct dial designs that seem correct. Based on these dial designs, I have created three series. I have not encountered any examples that suggest chronological overlap of these series. Every first series and second series that I have encountered bears the case reference 23603 while the third series encompasses at least two case references: 23758 and 23765. The latest examples of the third series have an “A” stamped on the caseback. Regardless of the series or case reference, Longines’ internal reference for all MNs is 5774. I estimate that the 5774 was produced between 1947 and 1949. If you own an MN Longines, I would be interested in adding it to my database. Edit - More information found here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/longines-mn-research.105190/
Regarding MN 2087, I would not be so quick to deem the handset incorrect, including the seep seconds. The dial is off, maybe a period restoration or something from a different watch.
I do not mean to sound contentious but it was not a quick determination. The hands are outliers in a diverse sample of 50 MN Longines. Furthermore, the style of both the hour/minute hands and second hand is anomalous among hundreds of similar (sei tacche) Longines from the period. The dial is also stylistically unusual and the silver foot serves as a further clue that points towards a refinish. Lastly, the crown is incorrect, the case heavily polished, and the movement marred.
I'm not trying to be contentious either but when you're looking at a less than a 1% sample size of the total production of around 5,000 watches, it isn't unreasonable to keep an open mind. A run of say 200 pcs can easily slip through research that is looking at such a small number of examples. I have in my possession, a watch with the exact same handset. Not similar, but identical. It also has what appears to be a legit dial variant. Reminds me of my COSD "Egyptian dial" that everyone poo-pooed, only to discover 2 more examples years later. For over 10 years, it was an example of one.
I agree. But until we see a number of watches like the one that you allude to, we have little evidence to support the claim of originality.
I tend to keep an open mind when I see something I haven't seen before, that doesn't seem to be put together or altered -- for a watch I have in hand. But yes, until you see more than one, there is always doubt. For the handset, I thought it was actually a good sign that they were identical to MN2087 as my first reaction was that they were "odd".
@Zaf Basha the amazing Longines archive may hold the answer. Especially since the serial number is available for MN2087. who knows, those thin baton hands might have a special designation as opposed to the regular sei tacche hands?
All they have that it was delivered to Longines France ref 5774, March 1949. The dial is "white" which it is. The movement condition is super clean, so I'm at a loss to explain the variation. It's not consistent with that watch that has had water damage and required a replacement dial. My gut feeling is that it is correct. Just "waiting to be discovered". Also, keep in mind French MN watches were serviced AT LOT, and given this was only rated to 35 meters, it's not surprising most of the dials were trashed and required a replacement at some point.
You guys will also have to wait for what the "A" on the case back means. It could theoretically appear on any variation of the watch and not specific to a "series" of the watch. It will be in the book.
Not identical, to my eyes. Notice how the non-luminous tip of the hour hand is longer on your example.
Agreed. The hour hand on the example to the right, does not appear to be a match to the minute hand actually. Also the sweep is too long for the dial (which we can agree it not original). Anyway, I have this one out there, maybe one day a similar one will appear.