that would imply they know how to tell the difference 馃槈
Mostly kidding of course but when it comes to the 60s, there was a lot of variation in prints and fonts and defects that slid through the cracks.
Well yes and no John. While I indeed had my doubts about a couple watch parts (dial and insert), I wasn't about to walk away from this sad sack resto-project considering it cost me about what a beat up quartz Tag Heuer is going for. I can buy a whole lotta stuff to make this thing once again worthy of wearing and still be in it for about a third of their going rate. 馃榿
GMTMASTER1675.com will tell you everything you need to know.
wouldn鈥檛 be correct for a gilt dial anyway
I think the OP noted that the case has a 3.3M serial, it's not from the gilt era. In my experience, the pantograph engravings can be pretty variable, so I would want to compare with a handful of cases from the correct period, to get a sense of the range of expectations.
Re:serial - okay thanks.
Re:imprecision - possibly, the picture the OP posted of the engraving is terrible. The E middle bars look the same length as the top/bottom, and shouldn鈥檛 be. If that鈥檚 just the picture, might be fine. But if the same length, that doesn鈥檛 change despite shaky pantographs, and would be wrong.
Here鈥檚 a comparison of the OPs engraving (bottom) and a correct Type C (top). Most obvious differences are in the 6s and Es.
Hi John sorry I forgot about this thread. I saw your mention of this watch yesterday on another thread and it reminded me to check back in on my own thread. I'll get back to ya in a few minutes below after I respond to a couple other "experts" re-the bizarre notion that the case is fake.
The movement is reasonably clean
i think any doubt about authenticity of the watch was dispelled in my earlier posts when I reported that the movement was reasonably clean, yet there are still some who must keep droning on about engravings. If I have opened the watch and seen the movement, I think all doubts could be dispelled. I didn't bother with interior or movement shots as this discussion was about the dial.
The watch has a refinished or fake dial, fake hands, incorrect bezel, so why is having an original movement among incorrect parts reassuring?Looking at the prior posts, I see little to no doubt being dispelled other than yours. I am happy to readdress the midcase authenticity if you post better pictures of the engravings.
Love the use of microaggressions such as "some who must keep droning on" and "'experts'" after asking for people's opinion on a watch and not liking what they say. Ad hominem comments don't help move the conversation about the watch forward.
There is absolutely nothing necessary to "move the conversation of the watch forward." Your initial assertions that you are still suspicious after I previously posted that I have seen the movement is ridiculous. I posted that the watch case is genuine. If you have doubts then they are your own only. Do you think I was lying? Don't you think an expert like our pal Achim (watchyouwant), who posted earlier in this thread would have spoken up if there was authenticity issues with the case? He has forgotten more about vintage Omegas and Rolexes than most of us will ever know.
Yes my photo skills are crappy but along with pictures you have my typed words as part of the description. However here are some additional pictures I took that day for you to obsess over. As I mentioned earlier, there was no initial need for interior shots as that wasn't the subject of this thread. Here it is in all it's grungy glory. Still have doubts? Enough of this already.