- Posts
- 3,172
- Likes
- 7,325
jimmyd13
·I'm on the fence.
That photo has all the markers on the subdial lining up. The print looks much better (more even) here too. What I'm still not convinced by is the length of the 5 and 11 marks and the spots on the 11 and 10 markers. To be clear, I'm focusing totally on the subdial. I'm edging towards it being good and these issues caused by distortions in the glass.
All that said, I have gone back to the image of the uncased dial and my concerns vanish (with regard to the subdial). There are definitely scratches and distortions in the glass - look at the top of the dial (and the 12) in the last photo compared to earlier ones.
I'm still not entirely sure about the "Swiss Made" . That uncased image doesn't let me zoom in and keep the detail.
To summarise, I'm more than 70% towards the dial being original and the concerns expressed earlier by myself and others being down to the glass. I think the only way to be sure is to get it in hand.
That photo has all the markers on the subdial lining up. The print looks much better (more even) here too. What I'm still not convinced by is the length of the 5 and 11 marks and the spots on the 11 and 10 markers. To be clear, I'm focusing totally on the subdial. I'm edging towards it being good and these issues caused by distortions in the glass.
All that said, I have gone back to the image of the uncased dial and my concerns vanish (with regard to the subdial). There are definitely scratches and distortions in the glass - look at the top of the dial (and the 12) in the last photo compared to earlier ones.
I'm still not entirely sure about the "Swiss Made" . That uncased image doesn't let me zoom in and keep the detail.
To summarise, I'm more than 70% towards the dial being original and the concerns expressed earlier by myself and others being down to the glass. I think the only way to be sure is to get it in hand.
