So here we have my little 14k solid gold Medicus. It's a very early model, 8.3 million on the 23.4 SC calibre. Obviously one or both of the hands are wrong. The minute hand is an "Alpha" and the hour hand is a "Plume". But what about the dial? The patina is is even and could be any originally light colour that has aged. The print is really sharp looking at the 1/5 seconds index through a loupe and is a little more saturated than I would expect for a watch of this age etc. The Arabic numerals are not painted but applied and when I rotate the watch there are glints of light. Underneath I suspect they are gilt. So do you think this is an historic redial of what was originally a light cream dial with gilt number? And if you conclude it's a redial would you redial it again back to what you think it originally was?

 

+1 original

 

I haven't seen any of these earlier 1930's up close. How are these painted? If you look at for example the '55,' the '5,' and the '15' you can see inconsistencies in the '5.'

 

That's interesting! It's most obvious on the 55 where the 5s are next to each other. I've got two other medicus watches that are numbered on the outer track and the printed 5s are more consistent. Here's one (with missing seconds hand).

 

Thanks!

 

Very nice watch!
Looks similar to mine and I always thought it was original.
The numerals intrigue me.
Please excuse the glare.

 

Of course I would prefer mine not to be a redial but I still feel, on balance, that it is and that the dial was originally more like yours. See also the example of my watch that appears on page 127 of Omega, A Journey Through Time. But then I would probably argue that the
seconds hand in this watch was wrong, partly because it has no counter balance and partly because it is too short! With Omega, never say never!

 

I agree with you 100%!
That second hand is out of place and AJTT has many aberrations.

 

To me the one in AJJT is a re-dial, see the odd logo - it looks more like from the 70ies than the 30ies...

 

Hadn't considered that. You may well be right!

 

And this one