LONG POST ALERT!
While I was sleeping, the world seems to have been typing at Omega Forum furiously! I am glad for the comments and am responding to individual comments.
“I think it was your choice of word in the title of this post that set everyone off.
Watches are mass produced items, made in factories. The use of the word “unique” is almost an oxymoron. Watch companies are never going to shell out the expense of creating a dial style for a single production example. Not even a prototype is “unique”, by the dictionary definition of that word, because multiple copies are made for testing and marketing purposes.
My opinion is that it is
possible that the dial has its original finish, or what is left of it.”
@gatorcpa, ‘unique’ was used in colloquial sense of term. Cambridge dictionary defines unique as 1
. being the only existing one of its type or, more generally, unusual, or special in some way. It was thus used in the sense that its unusual or special in some way. Thus if non-contexual interpretation was taken, burden of that isn’t on me.
Many versions of 2438 but hardly 2 pieces of 2438-5 (while many sub-versions of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are available) were found meaning thereby that production number of this 2438-5 would have been less. Probabilistically, all sub-versions have equal chances of being found on internet, unless production numbers of one version are remarkably low.
“First, do you think that expertise, no matter how impressive, in one brand of vintage watches, is evidence of similar expertise in many others? If so, you are mistaken.”
@Tony C. this is not about expertise in one brand not being evidence of expertise in another branch. Ofcourse not. A superspecialist Neurosurgeon is not a super specialist Oncologist. But both superspecialists know the basic generalities of MBBS. The question here is whether dial is refinished or original, which is good enough for any General MBBS/Horologist of Hess’s expertise. The details of that watch may be seen here:
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/ite...ginal-dial-bumper-watch-reference-number-2674
“Do you think that those dials are original? Neither one is described as being either original,
or refinished. Now, what does that mean to you?”
@Tony C. Yes, there are instances of ‘leading to believe’ by omission, but lying by misrepresentation would be grave. However, the watch linked by me is clearly described as ‘Original Dial’ and whoever did it, did on Hess’s behalf; liability is of Hess. But your examples donot have the “Original Dial”. So what is not said cannot be assumed to have been said.
“Why ask for opinions if you are going to ignore
all of them and buy it anyway? It looks junk, I for one think it is a historic redial but even if not it is too far gone to be anything of great interest.”
@padders one seeks wisdom from all sides and decides on one’s own on the basis of such diverse opinions and wisdom. Makes for considered decision making. I always say that if two people always agree on something, one of them is not needed! Its junk and ugly is different issue, is it original or refinished redial is the issue. And you seem to be noncommittal.
As for junk, yes. What some might call patina of time, I would call the wrinkles of age. What the poet Longfellow says in “Dust thou art, to dust returnest”
“Cross-referencing dials is a powerful tool. Not being able to find another example sold from a major company in an era of mass-production is a problem. You need to accept this. The dial is going to face greater scrutiny and the standard of positive evidence is higher because the statistics are against you.”
@Modest_Proposal statistics aren’t against me when you consider that 1. Only 2 examples I could find on net for 2438-5 (pointing to very low production numbers), with same feuille hands, similar dial was found on another bumper, same cal 28.10 was used in another 2438-5 as also on this model. Greater scrutiny yes, hence more pictures are given attached.
“The sub-seconds example is a nice find by you - but the photo is terrible. No detail at all. My gut reaction, if I saw that out of context, would be that it is a redial, too.”
@Modest_Proposal have given the link to see those pics.
“You call your watch a "Black Swan" ? Please do not insult these Beauties with your watch.”
@watchyouwant I didn’t call the watch a Black Swan but the event of finding this as a Black Swan Event. Though I am sure you already know it, however looking up ‘Black Swan Event’ may not hurt, just in case.
In haste to open the watch, I did some terrible damage (yes, even though most wont believe any more damage was possible!!!). Attached are pictures of the dial and movement. Dial seems to be silver with Z 222 on back. Front is also attached as are some pics of movement.
Now forum may opine if the dial is a refinish or not.
