Hi All,

Also to thank you for the enormous amount of knowledge there is to be found on this Forum (and esp. Desmond for his willingness to guide...), hereby some pics of the watch I bought and which will arrive shortly.
There does not seem to be very many threads on the 352, so this might start some new trend!
Hope you enjoy and feel free to comment if needed!!

Best
Willem

 

That is a beauty too

 

And some pics of the back and inside...
Have been looking for this quality for the last 5 years

 

Congrats on the nice watch! There have been discussions about the cal. 352, but it is quite an uncommon movement to begin with, now after more than 60 years, it's quite rare to find a piece in good condition like this. Enjoy in good health!

 

But dial looks refinished to me.

 

I had same the same doubt in the beginning: send very high res pics to Desmond, who 1:1 stated it as original. I went by his opinion, him having seen and judged a vast amount of dials.
What is is exactly that you think it is re-done?

 

i would have state the same but looking at the other dial on this thread, it appears that the 'non-flat' A are common on this dial. I would have think about a flat A. Anyway, very nice watch and very nice dial ! enjoy

 

Ah: the pictures give the impression that the 'A' is non-flat. However, there seems to be a distortion because of the Guilloche dial. The high res pics show more clearly a flat 'A' than a Chevron one. And even if it were a chevron 'A', 'the people who must know' (on this forum) tell me that that would even not be uncommon.
Oops, this sounds a bit like, either way, I am right...

I would have thought that most of the comments would concern the failing MOY-test....

 

Thanks Gatorcpa! Also for the advertisement: I am looking into 'stuff' like that to further 'incapsulate' my new watch in time...

 

I too have a soft spot for these and have been lucky enough over the years to find a pair

 

I can only remark
Jeez, they are nice!!
I have been looking for an old Constellation for quite a few years (hence my knowledge of Desmond's blog which is fantastic btw), but made a 'curve' 1,5 year ago: wanted to focus more and more on the 'real original' (and therefore pre-Connie) era.
There you ('I') go....

 

There're radium burned marks from the hands on the dial, the lume plots look unmodified and original, and the Seamaster font looks perfect. The other writings and chapter ring may look a bit off because of the textures on the dial, and they really are a bit different compared to those on a smooth dial.

Nice original dial with a nice movement in a nice, sharp solid gold case, a rare piece in total!

 

Do you have any pictures as I have never seen heavy original printing like that before?

 

1_ Pointed A in AUTOMATIC.
2_Floppy T in AUTOMATIC.
3_Too heavy printing.
and the worst is
4_Mixed up long and short of minute markers.

regards.

 

The texture does add more surface area than a smooth one. Same print type will therefore have more surface area as well. This plus the angle effects and small pictures cause all the differences in observation as you described. I'm pretty confident that with higher magnification, the worst issue above is nothing like that at all.

Here's an example of the different looks of an S on a texture dial. In the first picture, the S looks crooked and with a wrong top curve, plus the end piece flaked off a bit making it look like a totally wrong S.






The radium lumes and burned marks are solid evidence on the originality of the OP's dial.

Cheers.
T