i am assuming that everything needs to be PERFECT? from the placement of the markers to the replication of number fonts, to precise crisp edges of the subdial circumferences, etc.? if so, then this watch, which i had been seriously considering, is a redial? if i look at the position of the hour markers at 5,7,8, they look a little to close to the minute marks. the lateral edges of the minute and second subdial look slightly rounded rather than sharp and crisp. what other things am i missing, or is that enough to tag this as a redial? isnt it possible this is how it was originally from omega , or absolutely just doesn't happen. these dials were handmade, painted, glued etc originally? it isn't possible for them to all be perfect, or is it?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Serviced-V...a=0&pg=2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

That’s an original dial. No question in my mind.

 

here is the confusing part for me, as im trying to learn this stuff, there is some variation allowed, but others not. if the above dial is original, than why is the dial below, with similar marker variations considered a redial? taken from a earlier thread:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/opi...ls-2-cases-from-current-ebay-listings.104697/

 

Sub dial numbering looks off.especially at the 3 O'clock one. Sub dials don't have the same "dish" form with the grooves in the centre. I think the S in seamster was a slightly different form (coat hanger?). This may be a later service dial..Others will know more.

 

That was already explained in that thread..

 

The font on this one is nothing like the one you originally posted. The font is completely different and of a poor quality, the minute markers are unevenly spaced, the sun dials are not properly centred and the print on the whole is much cruder.

 

Ehm... Because it looks like shit? Have a go at comparing the text with the first one. This is a really poor redial.

 

thanks to all. yes, i see the difference in text quality when i directly compare them . perhaps this was a poor choice as a sample to frame my question. im sure there are good redials that would cause one pause before calling it such. the intent of my original question was to try to establish in my own mind the "fudge factor" between original and redone. in other words, if reproducible perfection is impossible, how much leeway is acceptable for an original dial from the ideal (quality control from omega)? how much deviance is tolerated?i can now acknowledge, for example , that the hour markers can partially encroach upon the minute markers, and the dial can still be true. has anyone had the experience of purchasing a new omega that, if you didn't know it was authentic would suspect a redial/fake? perhaps this is more esoteric than practical , stemming from ignorance on my part. my career is such that i am constantly working to create the ideal outcome, but there are acceptable tolerances that , even if the finished product is not perfect , certainly acceptable. perhaps not at all important. appreciate this forum , the participants, and the collective information.

 

In the OP's photos, the hour markers are not aligned with the 5 second tick marks. One is off by a full second.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

Good eyes. What about this?

vs.


Quite a difference.

 

The overall quality difference between the two dials is night and day. Nobody can give you expertise, you need to earn it. Look at 1,000 more dials and it will be obvious to you.

 

my observations as well, but consensus is that the dial is original, so evidently within normal variances of "acceptable".

 

absolutely, no shortcuts, 10,000 hours and all. just trying to establish in my own mind baseline parameters and the acceptable deviations from the norm. "looks like shit" is a good place to start!