I have one genuine from my LLD but now, I wish a golden one.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Is that a black dial or blue? I can't really tell from the angle.

 

Longines Automatic Cal. 22AS - 37,5mm Steelcase

 

Beautiful dial patina!

 

I only got This Legend...

 

Longines 27M in a 18kt rose gold case.

 

Well sometimes, and especially in the field of vintage watches (or any antiques for that matter) you should realize that your opinion is just an opinion - others exist, and either, or both, may be correct - you have no absolute proof. I wasn't going to resurrect this, but seeing the hodinkee article from the other day made me think it was worth sharing.
http://www.hodinkee.com/articles/longines-13zn-history
It's pretty easy to get discouraged by the opinions of others in this field, and to be honest that's the way I felt when you blatantly called my watch out above. After a lot of digging, and discussion with other very well qualified people in this field, including Longines historians (who you have also called out as being unknowledgeable) I became satisfied that I possessed what was described as a transitional monopusher - a very early (mine is confirmed as 1938) 13ZN with a monopusher non-flyback movement, which was just as likely to have left Longines with an enamel dial, as with the more commonly seen 'modern style' metal dial. Obviously such a dial would have strongly resembled a 13.33 dial, or even been identical / a 'left over', and could very easily therefore feature the cursive font. This is alluded to in the hodinkee article too. As I said, I wasn't even going to re-visit this, but then again, if it highlights that just because someone has a certain opinion about a watch, it doesn't necessarily mean its the gospel truth, then I think may be that's not a bad thing. I have already seen that the hodinkee author has been accused of having just 'googled' his research (frankly I think that is just as implausible as saying Longines know nothing about their watches ), but there you have it.... so I think you are 'not really correct' IMO - just my opinion....

 

Firstly, @minutenrohr ended his post with IMO (in my opinion) thereby acknowledging what it is.

Secondly, the field of vintage watches is not one of absolutes but of opinions. If the opinions of others are discouraging, then you have likely taken them the wrong way. We are here to discuss watches and deepen our knowledge, not to deter people.

Thirdly, since opinions are nearly all we have, stating them should not be a crime. And stating that a steel Longines 13ZN from 1938, with a cursive font enamel dial, may not be original, is in no way outlandish. Even late 13.33 dials can be seen with the more modern serif font.

According to this 1936 advert, chronographs (a Valjoux 15 and two 13.33's?) could have cursive font enamel dials at that time.

But in this 1937 advert, the cursive font has disappeared.

Lastly, an advert from 1938.

Due to reduced water resistance as a result of having pusher(s), many 13ZN dials have deteriorated over time. It is not a surprise then, for an incorrect enamel dial to end up in a 13ZN watch as values increase. Furthermore, the odd subdial hands of your piece suggest that the watch has been altered in at least one way.

This is certainly a topic worthy of discussion.

P.S. All catalog images were taken from: http://www.longinespassion.it/Longines_Passion/Benvenuto.html

 

Yes those catalogues have already been shown in the other links, and useful/beautiful as they are, do nothing to further either side of this discussion.
To imply that I am being over-sensitive because you are just giving your 'opinion' misses the point... The statements that I take issue with, In both factual content and tone are :

"unfortunately Longines is NOT the right instance to juge, if a 13zn-watch is correct or not"

"I really don´t know. but if 13zn-watches with with enamel-dials were plausible, they should be not so cheap"

"i will not state, that they are impossible, but i never saw an authentic one in 30 years collecting 13zn"

(By the way, they were produced for two years according to Longines, so a bloody rare ... They also are fragile -mine has a crack in it- and accordingly were also often subject to having the dials REPLACED with metal dials)

"A 13ZN with an enamel dial, incorrect subdial (and minute/hour?) hands, polished lugs/case, is suspicious"

I can't take issue with that - yes these faults are present, but you are saying its 'suspicious' and 'incorrect' - these are disparaging remarks, but they could just as likely be true, as the opinions I have gathered.

All I'm saying is ( especially to any readers just getting into what can be a daunting hobby given the sometimes uncertainties and sums of money involved ) - just because someone writes something on the Internet, doesn't mean it's the absolute law, that's all....

Yes I agree stating opinions is not a crime - but yours were posted without solicitation ... I am glad to have the debate, but you should know that unless someone asks ' I got this watch, do you think it's 100% legit?', to publicly call it out on a forum as a fake or Franken is impolite at best ... These things are best initiated by PM.

You seem to think the people at Longines are idiots. I think they are helpful and knowledgable, and likely have also seen a lot of watches in their time. Just different opinions...

 

No one is claiming that their statements are the "absolute law".

If someone is willing to post photos of their watch on a public forum, I believe that they should not ignore the possibility of scrutiny. If you think that my approach was "impolite at best" then I apologize. But my intent was not to disparage or offend; it was merely to begin the discussion about a watch that most people on here simply accepted as authentic.

A large part of Longines’ appeal is aesthetics: the beauty of the movements, cases, and dials. There is often a concordance, in terms of design, amongst these elements.

One cannot entirely escape subjectivity. However, after studying the stylistic progression of Longines dial designs between the late 1920’s and the mid 1940’s, trends begin to emerge.

The dial of the watch in question does not appear to match the case stylistically. The same dial can be found in the very first chronograph wristwatches that Longines produced, some 25 years, and 2.5 million watches, earlier.

Many Longines with the 13ZN have been damaged by moisture due to the reduced water resistance of the pusher(s). Enamel dials, though prone to cracking, do not deteriorate nearly as quickly as painted dials. As 13ZN values increase (thanks Hodinkee ), so too does the incentive to create intact examples.

Your watch has at least one incorrect hand and a polished case. This is evidence of tampering. To what extent has your piece been altered? I do not know. But a good look at the back of the dial, and the movement, would be interesting if inconclusive.

 

Traveler,

1. The Longines staff on the historical department answer questions for a salary. The Longines experts on this site do it for the sake of passion. Which do you think are more likely to be accurate?

2. If you post a watch on this forum, you are subjecting it to the scrutiny of its members. Are you telling me that if you were wearing a fake watch (not that the Longines is fake) and didn't know it - you wouldn't want an informed member to tell you so? You'd consider it rude? The point of this forum to to help share and educate. If you are sore because somebody appraised your watch - told you information about the possible origins of the dial and hands and case and movement - I can only think you're riding on fragile wishful thinking. Ideas should stand up to debate or be discarded. He presented his view and you yours. It's important to note that opinions are not all equal. It's true that we can only postulate on the originality on a given watch - but years of experience gives one pattern recognition and depth. They know how to look for - not just what to look for. This does not mean his opinion is the law and your is worthless - but the world is not black and white. It's simply the case that the opinion of a seasoned collector is more valuable than one who is not a seasoned collector.

3. It's theoretically possible that your watch is original and was given a decades old new stock dial. Does that mean it's likely? That's a different question entirely. The answer is that it's unlikely. Collectors like to look at a watch as a whole to estimate the likelihood of originality. It's one of the few trump cards we have. The fact is, the hands are all (with the exception of the chronograph minute hand) probably replacements. One of the second hands is too short and the hour and minute hands also look too short. This coupled with the fact that the dial and the case most certainly were produced decades apart presents a dubious picture.

It's important to emphasis: It's possible this is a freak watch - but we must be honest with ourselves about the chances of this being so and if the chances are slim, we must accept that and not hinge on the hopeful thoughts of positivity.

Here is a video, including movement - for those interested.

 

Appreciate the input, all valid points, and much more reasonably argued. This is hopefully my last comment on the matter though - my problem is more with statements such as the mantra that you have repeated - Longines gives false information, because they are paid to do so - (wtf?), and that '13ZN mono pushers with enamel dials are all implausible/fake etc.'.... That was the debating position of the 'expert members' at the start of this diversion - I'm simply telling you Longines thinks they made them, and several other experts (whose privacy I will respect) also think they did. I don't know why that should be so contentious. I was moved to comment after reading the Hodinkee article that also mentioned their legitimate existence. Of course, the 'experts' have already dismissed his reasearch as formed primarily of Google searches, which is also frankly a ridiculous line to take ( IMO ). Please someone post another Longines, so we can move on ?....

 

A bit off-topic, I know - but one answer to this could be, that while there is no economic incentive for the Longines staff to (knowingly) give false information (as he isn't paid for giving the thumbs up for a given item, just for providing the service), there could well be a pretty good incentive for a collector of said watches to present a certain view...

Now, I have NO knowledge about the watch in question (but enjoying the debate ), I just wanted to point out that argument no. 1 is perhaps really not that good an argument, at least not for your case

Carry on

 

Thanks for the response, Traveler.

I did not imply that the Longines staff knowingly gave you false information. I am saying that when it comes to vintage watches, as with anything else, the person who can give you the most accurate answer is the person who has studied the subject the longest and most thoroughly.

The collectors on forums like this are driven to understand the fine nuances of the watches they collect, which a paid employee will very likely not be motivated to do. They can say it's possible, just like we are. It's a matter of the probability, based on all of the evidence.

ConElPueblo,

If you are implying that OF members are so unethical as to knowingly falsify evidence and opinions just to manipulate the market, let me know.

I for one have always found our members to be selfless and considerate to others. That is why this forum exists at all.

 

I would state (as an "expert") that (concerning the Hodinkee thing) it is not competent to write several sentences about a "tooth" which blocks the flyback-function and, below, to describe a movement equipped with that "tooth" as a flyback-movement. That´s a bad joke...
And I don´t think that it´s useful and reasonable to transport such information-trash further on and on and on...
That was one reason i wrote about that article; perhaps it´s interesting to someone, perhaps not.

 

Here's my 2012 Record Vernier Column Wheel Chrono on a new strap... great watch that keeps amazing time!

 

And I can't forget this beauty! The perfect dress watch, so slim and understated!

 

I think you should read the post again. I am only saying that the only ones who could have any selfish motives would be the ones with a financial/emotional/whatever stake in play. Please don't imply that I am implying anything or throwing accusations around, I am nothing but straight forward

However, I wouldn't for one second be surprised to learn that someone on the Hodinkee "staff" was twisting the truth a little for their own, or one of their sponsor's, sake.