“Original dial before restoration” - eBay 40’s 321 Omega

airansun · Oct 15, 2020

I thought this might be a useful basis of debating the “merits” of redials and the damage they do, despite the best of intentions.

I know this has come up before in relation to 30’s and 40’s watches (whose dials are particularly vulnerable to deterioration) and I thought that this might be an interesting example in furtherance of that discussion.

The eBay seller is upfront about the dial, as these photos of his show. For a 40’s 321 with coffin pushers, it’s in decent shape, other than that dial. I would have much preferred the unaltered dial.

This redial is actually better than many. But you can still see the problem in the shape of the subdial bowls.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/392980115011

I suspect that there are some of you who believe that this redial is an improvement over the original damaged dial, and I invite your comments and disagreements. To me, the original dial is far more acceptable. And, oh yeah, it is overpriced.

Dan S · Oct 15, 2020

I'm with you, the original dial is pretty far gone, but the re-dial is absolutely offensive. The Omega logo looks like a cartoon. And the idiot put "00" in the Tachy scale at the top instead of "60". I wonder which "factory" did the restoration.

JwRosenthal · Oct 15, 2020

If it had been a 1:1 redial I could have been persuaded that if you are comfortable with a redial, then go for it. But the tracks are all off (actually bleeds over the 6 subdial), the fonts are wrong- it's a hot mess.
That said, the seller is honest and if someone likes it knowing that it is a redial- more power to them.

jaegodylan · Oct 15, 2020

I personally think the beauty is in the history and really appreciate the original dial. Can’t imagine what would inspire someone to have done that to it.

pdxleaf · Oct 15, 2020

Thanks for posting this. Experienced people often say that it is easy to spot a redial once you have seen enough. I'm the guy that can't normally spot a redial and it makes me nervous. However, this side by side is glaringly obvious. So thanks for that.

As for your original question, using the car analogy, "it's only original once." I much prefer some dings and scratches with an original paint job to a respray.

My thinking for when to redial is to work back from the worst case. No dial? Redial. 50% of the paint gone? Redial. Rust holes? Redial. But most are not that clear.

Splotchy dials is pretty normal in a vintage. Acceptable? As they get older, it becomes more acceptable. So it does seem that if we consider ourselves caretakers to the next generation, then we would not do a redial. But how rare is it or historically significant, is that worth considering? People have less of a problem with a Hamilton redial for example.

Is it different if the original dial comes with the watch?

Is a factory made OEM dial that replaces a damaged dial okay? That seems different and okay, although it will affect the desire to collect it.

Using your example above, i agree that the original is much better. But there might still be some cases where a redial would be better.

As you said, this is all in the interests of a discussion...

felsby · Oct 17, 2020

64Wing · Oct 17, 2020

airansun
I thought this might be a useful basis of debating the “merits” of redials and the damage they do, despite the best of intentions.

I know this has come up before in relation to 30’s and 40’s watches (whose dials are particularly vulnerable to deterioration) and I thought that this might be an interesting example in furtherance of that discussion.

The eBay seller is upfront about the dial, as these photos of his show. For a 40’s 321 with coffin pushers, it’s in decent shape, other than that dial. I would have much preferred the unaltered dial.

This redial is actually better than many. But you can still see the problem in the shape of the subdial bowls.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/392980115011

I suspect that there are some of you who believe that this redial is an improvement over the original damaged dial, and I invite your comments and disagreements. To me, the original dial is far more acceptable. And, oh yeah, it is overpriced.

I'd have left it alone. It's aged appearance was charming to me. But some folks like a redial so...to each their own

Spruce · Oct 18, 2020

I think it looks better refinished/restored.

I’d wear it - I like to know the time but I collect old watches to wear and - shallow person that I am - I like them to be nice looking.

On the pleasure principle, it’s my pleasure I’m concerned about and (providing I don’t offend anyone by doing so) I choose the watch for that reason.

I also like to dress crisp and have a nice ride.
If my shoes are dirty or need repairing - I deal with it.
If my ride has a ding - I get it fixed.
If it’s dirty - I get it washed.
I could go on .....

Mrs S gets her hair coloured. She wears makeup. If things get worn (and one day it could be me 😉) she’ll get it fixed or get another one.
At our age, most of her friends do the same.

All my daughters wear makeup and have highlights in their hair.

Whilst I do have some watches with patina, I take the view that it’s my self-indulgent affectation.

So, would I buy it, probably not but if I did, I’d prefer the restored version.

felsby · Oct 18, 2020

Spruce
I think it looks better refinished/restored.

I also own a redial that I love. But those are scarce, and to me, this refinish does not improve the watch. I guess that's the nature of patina and of redials - there is a large variation in personal taste.
I also polish the car and mrs. f iron my shirts. Her hair has turned grey; she looks gorgeous all the same 😁

“Original dial before restoration” - eBay 40’s 321 Omega

airansun

Dan S

JwRosenthal

jaegodylan

pdxleaf

felsby

64Wing

Spruce

felsby

Similar threads

Dial reference for 40’s 50’s & 60’s 321 Omega family - Updated x2

My very tired Flightmaster Cal 910 (before restoration)