Question about omega 2872 dial

What happened here?

welcome @munich.watch

I can only commend you on your choice of watch - these watches are very lovely to wear (and if they were only a few millimetres larger would be worth significantly more than they are)

There is no definitive information on these two-dial chronographs and pretty much all that has been written about them is here on OF (and it isn't a great deal but you can search the site for threads about them)

Due to a lack of water-resistance most dials on this reference have been repainted due to damage from water ingress.
On top of which the original dials varied depending on the year of production, with different hands, furniture and subdial 'outer ring' sizes.

Regarding the watch you posted, the pictures are very poor and could lead to a 'misdiagnosis' of the authenticity of the dial.
The incorrect crystal and retaining ring are doing the layout no favours at all by crowding the outer tachymetre ring.
The scratches on the crystal don't help either - distorting the text.

There is one initial 'test' that I always apply to these watches and that is the '2' test in the subdials.
It would be sensible to think that they should match but in an unmolested dial they differ slightly - with the right hand dial 2 having a more acute angle between the sloping stroke and the base, whereas the left-hand dial 2 has a rounder angle.
Whilst the pics are poor I think this watch passes the '2s test'.
Plus I think the concentric rings are present - which often disappear with a redial.

The furniture does look as though it has been messed around a bit- especially the 12 markers but this could be quality control.
The 9 marker is twisted too but we have seen many rotating stars on Constellations where the marker is only fixed with a central peg.

in summary - we need much better photographs.

Here is my slightly later pink 18k version for reference (note the different 'coffin' furniture, wider subdial outer rings and correct differing 2s)

Your arrow feathers look good, the differing numbers appear to check out.
The 9s look like they are open, the 6s are closed - which is correct - except the large 60 at 12 when the 6 should be open
The subdials look correct.

The problem is that even the new pictures are nowhere near enough the quality required to assess the dial with certainty.

You need to be able to see all numbers clearly and compare them individually to a known (contemporary) genuine dial.

There are a couple of threads on genuine versions of these watches, so there is some info on them to use as comparison (and at least one sales advert)

- and for what it is worth, while the 'OMEGA' text looks a little bold in the pic, everything else checks out IMHO. (yours having the same dial as mine but with slightly earlier narrower rings around the subdials)