Omega 2492-2 Bumper 1954. Question to you, my learned colleagues, in your opinion is this dial original?
,

 

Just practicing my dial analysis(I posted last night asking on a similar dial)

The "Officially Certified" font looks a little squished to stay in alignment with the wording above it. And Seamaster looks a little extra thick to me.
I've also not seen indicies those before but take that with a grain of salt.

--Jake

 

I'm very sceptical to that dial.



Very, very sceptical

 

Hands too. Does not look Omega at all

 

Even if the experts say it's not original I like it! I found a couple examples after a Google search with the same hands but of course this doesn't necessarily mean they're correct. The dial looks very nice to me and if someone repainted it they did a great job IMO.

 

I think the hands (hour and minute) are original. Obviously the second hand is not. The guilloche dials as I recall are hard to determine if they are original or not. If this one is a redial it seems to be a good one. The cross-hairs follow the pattern lines very well.

 

If that dial has been painted by hand, the artist is truly an artist. I'm no expert, but I would bet it's original.

 

I think there's something wrong...

The "Swiss Made" should IMO only be that far apart if they were on each side of a larger marker, such as this:



Also, the absence of a printed minute track is irregular.

My guess: The dial has been cleaned and "swiss made" and track was erased. The dial is far too clean.

 

I just found some more reference pics and I am now thinking this is redial.
http://www.watchprosite.com/page-wf.forumpost/fi-677/ti-516451/pi-3124746/

Notice how the Omega stacks up over the automatic, chronometre , etc in a perfect triangle.
OMEGA
AUTOMATIC
CHRONOMETRE
OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED
Now look at the dial in question. Also the "S" on Seamaster is questionable.

 

Just a general question about how redials are even executed – because there is no way this is done by hand, just free-form...erhm...right? I always assumed they worked from stencils.

 

Cal 354
http://www.ebay.com/itm/192073098222?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:ITPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

Besides the size of the hands, I don't think there ever was any luminous material on the dial, so they are completely wrong.

 

How could one stencil lettering that precisely without any bleeding or other imperfections? I imagine the originals are done with a very different process. That print is incredibly clean. Are there examples of other refinished dials that have such precision? I honestly don't know. This could be a great learning experience.

 

Is it fair to compare two dials that are clearly not at all the same? Omega could have had much different styles from one design to the next, right?

 

Somehow I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote the one with the link to the other watch for comparison. Sorry.