I’m usually a stickler for perfection when evaluating a newer watch, but what about older watches (1940s and 1950s)? I would presume more of the assembly would be hand done compared to automated in today’s watches.

In particular, should I view misaligned indices like those shown in the photo below as par for the course, or as a poorly done refurbishment?

 

Yes.

 

I see issues with this dial that give me concern, too.
AML way off center to the left, and applied 12 also similarly skewed
All three Subdial prints are skewed up, off center toward 2 o'clock
Most applied hour indices are not placed evenly with the print, too.

Not sure how the dials were made in this era with regard to automation. However I have to imagine that the quality of workmanship applied to an original factory dial -hand made or otherwise- would be better than this repopped example

 

Generally, dials with raised markers/numerals are either embossed (stamped from behind) with a die, or the markers/numerals have tiny feet on the reverse that fit into holes drilled into the dial. And while the applied markers are applied by hand and the protruding feet are burnished on the reverse of the dial to keep them on, the holes themselves are usually drilled from a jig, with the placement being precise from dial to dial, and placed precisely relative the center hole, sub-register holes, and the dial feet on the reverse. Even when the markers are removed during refinishing, they go right back into the same holes that were originally drilled by the dial marker. These holes don't move, so you don't have the option of moving the markers and numerals out of position.

So when I see a dial where the printing doesn't quite match up with the markers, then to me it is a likely a redial. You can't move the applied markers, but it is easy to place the print in the wrong position relative to the markers.

To me, this is a likely a refinished dial with the print being ever so slightly misaligned/rotated to the right and a little high.

Notice how close the 35 and 40 are to their corresponding markers compared to the 5 and 10 on the opposite side. The print should have been printed slightly to the left and down a little.

I've visited a dial refinishing shop and tried my hand at printing some dials. Sometimes It is hard to get everything perfectly lined up when the dial contains lots of small complicated elements.

 

Excellent description and write up. Much appreciated!

 

In the presented chronograph the reprint is obvious because the whole print is shifted to the upper right.

But a slight mis-alignment of markers and minute track for example on vintage watches of that era is quite common and not a red flag at all. I think there is no general rule on early dials.

See this example:



This is a 100% original and very well preserved chronometer dial with embossed markers (not removeable).

These dials in particular are prone to misalignment due to the fact that the markers can´t be removed for the print - IMO its very hard to produce this kind of dial with perfect alignment.

edited PS:
and see the bleeding of the minute track into the sub-second on the left...
The quality control was very generous during war time or it did not exist either - we must not forget these have not been collectibles at that time but everyday´s work tools. So it seems that nobody bothered about these tiny details as collectors do nowadays.

And for the critics to come up: I re-confirm this is a near NOS original dial

 

Perfect explanation, thank you.

My question is: wouldn't that difficulty of perfect alignment be, in some extent and up to a certain period, be valid also for the original printing? After all, the tecnologies available for today refinishing shops are vastly superior to those in the original factories a few decades ago.

 

It also happens on modern dials, so I agree that alone is not necessarily a red flag.

Cheers, Al