So...where were those dials manufactured? Singer? Omega?
No answer yet. But I doubt I will get the answer here.
People are not frustrated because I would be not willing to understand, but because I want to go beyond the "it doesn't look like the standard" so it's fake. And when this frustration is expressed with insults and despise, fυck them.
What kind of a forum is this. Is it authorized to disagree down here?
It took six pages to see the back of a seamaster dial here and that is the only thing I learned down here, what kind of exchange is this?
And I do disagree with you...The dial is NOT the most important part fo the watch. As a watch with a 1964 bezel, a triangle dial and a 1965 movement would be rubbish since it would be awfully franken. On the other hand, you may take a dial manufactured in 1964 and put it on 1966 or 1967 or 1969, you won't see the difference. And if such a watch is OK for you, then I disagree.
I have seen many "original" Seamaster with so called "correct dial" and rubbish bezel...uninteresting. Most of the time, this is the bezel which is so awfully fake. And as I have seen, many trader don't really care about the correctness of them.
The subject is not close to me, but it is closed here alright because I've seen the kind of exchanges one can have with a band of morons acting as a group.
What a disgraceful exchange.
