Hello guys and gals,

My understanding was that the 2620 came with dauphine hands. However, this example looks like the hands match the markers and the subdial seconds hand. Do you think the hour and minute hands are original? movement is 12 mil serial (1951?).

 

I feel like I've seen this style of hands but hopefully some of the experts weigh in.

 

...not sure but I think both hand styles should be ok for a 2620 - if the length and the gold tone fits (especially concerning these rarer jumbos with longer hands). E.g. ref. 2503 shows both handstyles as well. And, the hands on your watch are - in my opinion - nicer than dauphine hands.


rgds - h.u.

 

Yes looks similar. My guess is that they are original, but this is the only one I've seen like this. Looks like someone has bought it since I posted the watch. Congratulations to the new owner!

 

I prefer the Dauphine, but the leaf hands are handsome too.

 

Now these hands I've seen before on Jumbos. What do you guys think?

 

I think that all three hand types might be correct. Everything else on your original watch looks correct IMO

 

Because both watches have repainted dials, I cannot tell if the hands are correct or not!
But both styles are ok, I think.

 

Yea I really like the second style more, and have seen them before on this period jumbo.

The dials I thought were original and are claimed as original. What gives them away as redials?

 

I'd be surprised if the first watch had a redone dial. The second ticks and Swiss Made text are great. There just seems to be a little wear to the Omega text vs. some distortion due to the textured dial.

 

Ability to tell a redial vs an original is something you collected over years of collecting and observation thousands and thousands watches. Cannot help you there.

 

I actually agree with you. Doesn't look like a redial to me at all. I've only seen such sharp markings on waffle dials when they are original. Repainted dials usually have some flaws.

Unless there's a clear reason to consider these dials as redone, I would consider them original (on both pieces).

 

Very true, no doubt.

Is there anything specifically you are looking at that gives it away, or is it just a general gestalt for you? Would be nice to learn from this example as you've seen thousands and thousands of watches and I have not.

 

Looking at the 4,5 and 6 o'clock hour markers, what do you think?
And the Swiss Made, is it parallel with the markers?

 

Fully agree with @hoipolloi, would expect also a cross hair and not 5 second markers in the subdial on an original print on a waffle dial

 

Thanks for all the expertise in this thread! I think I still disagree on the crosshair dial - the swiss made looks fine to me and the 4, 5, and 6 o'clock hour markers appear to be related to the angle the photo and crystal distortion.

How about these two watches from totally different origins (different continents). References are different (2505 11mil and 2620 12mil) and waffle patterns are different, but dial layout and print is exactly the same. Have they been redialed in exactly the same way but from totally different origins?

 

Refinished by the same guy, I guess.

 

I think those closeups says it all

 

I agree, both look original to me as well. Text that sharp and crisp on waffle dials are unlikely to be refinished.

Furthermore it seems highly unlikely to find two dials refinished with exactly the same spacing and exactly the same font from two very different places.

 

Sorry Som, you misinterpreted me. I meant that the print looked far to new to be original