I’m looking for a vintage gold watch but have uncovered a lot of redials and frankenwatches. This VC interests me but I haven’t seen any others of similar style with aged lume. That has me wondering about the authenticity of the dial. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

Probably not original, but a larger, high-quality image would be required in order to arrive at a confident conclusion.

I cannot remember having seen hands of that style on a V&C, and you are correct that the lume on the dial is also suspicious.

 

Thank you. The photos are from the seller.

View attachment upload_2022-1-1_13-12-23.jpeg

 

I’ve since found a photo of another VC from the 1950s, which makes me think the above may be original. However, I haven’t had any success copying it to post here.

 

Why not reach out for Tick Talk, Dean, the Vacheron Mod on WatchProsite.

 

The signature may be correct, but I remain uneasy about the originality of the dial and hands.

 

Searching for "P1008/bs" I found this watch at https://www.swisswatchexpo.com/watc...ow-gold-silver-dial-vintage-mens-watch-35935/

Barrel bridge marked P1008/bs and "Adjusted to temperatures"; case back with initial caps.



I found this at http://ninanet.net/watches/others12/Mediums/mvccr.html

Barrel bridge marked P1008/bs and "Adjusted to heat cold isochronism and five (5) positions"; case back with all caps.









In comparison, despite the different dial hardware, it seems @DTMwatch your watch is at best an unattractive redial.

Why the difference in engraving on the barrel bridge? The first one looks dull in comparison, which could be the lighting, or it could be a dull finish.

 

That's not a fair comparison, as there were different dial variations.

Also, signatures varied to some degree, depending on the date of manufacture.

 

Is this "gap" (12h marker)




VC - quality?

 

I think the lume has been added to the dial after the fact. You can even see indentations in the lume from the underlying metal markers. Loos quite sloppy. As Tony noted, this also suggests that the hands are not original.

As an aside, the case looks quite soft. Not really an example worth spending time on IMO.

 

I haven’t purchased the watch, due to my concerns about the dial. I’m going to stay away from this VC.

Having the benefit of this forum is tremendous. Thank you all for your assistance. Happy New Year, everyone.

 

So you're saying, both the dial with the perfectly executed dial signature, with a consummate triangle for an accent grave in the word Genève, and this hot mess, where the lopsided 'andpersand' is off-center between Vacheron & Constantin, and they forgot the accent in "Geneve," both these dials are legit?

 

lol! That is quite a tortured reading of what I wrote, to put it kindly.

I made it clear that I am skeptical of the dial, so never suggested that it was "legit".

As to the rest of your breathless claims, well, I'd say that you apparently do not have a great deal of experience with vintage V&C. The accent above the E was not always employed, nor were the signatures of uniform quality.

 

Correct, I do not have a great deal of experience with vintage VC, however, I've seen enough of the OP's watch to see that it's junk. I don't have enough experience with vintage VC to say it's likely counterfeit, so I won't. I do feel sorry for the poor shlub who ends up buying it.

 

We're discussing the dial signature only, and watch re-dials would never be considered "counterfeits", unless the express purpose was to defraud.

Your two specific observations that led you to your dubiously confident conclusion that the printing is not original were the lack of an accent, and the asymmetric spaces on either side of the ampersand. I have already mentioned that the first is flat-out wrong, as there are many examples of original V&C dials which lack them. The second is not as clear as you would have readers believe, either. Here are some examples of original dials which underscore the point(s).

In the future, it would benefit both you to put some time into researching a specific topic before arriving at such hard and fast conclusions.

 

Depends on who you ask; I'm sure each manufacturer has his own definition of what constitutes a counterfeit of his product.

Those are two attributes I called out. The accent isn't always present on original dials, and was a poor point of reference.

I'm all for it.

This one is maybe not the best example to underscore your point about the "Champlevé" signatures:




These two might be better examples instead:

 

I wasn't making a point specifically about champlevé dials, and the last one that you posted does not appear to be one. FYI the next to last was a watch that I owned, and I took that photo.

 

I assumed as much, as I found it in a post of yours.

 

I own quite a number of V&C wristwatches, from about 1915 to about 1965, wherein I assume (I am quite sure, actually) that none has a repainted dial or is a redial. Some have the accent on the "E" in "GENEVE", some not, about 50:50. I am quite sure that this detail (missing accent, which is optional on capital letters) is no evidence for anything.

Cheers, Bernhard