Redial without a doubt, I believe. Edit: Note to self - do not use the phrase "without a doubt, I believe"
I think it could be original. 1940's dials didn't always say Swiss Made. Most have printed logo and symbol, like this one. Needs to be examined in person with a loupe. View of insides would be nice. gatorcpa
There seems to be inconsistencies between the 5's, 2's and 0's and the length of the sub second markers. Doesn't look right to my eyes but I'm far from an expert.
I vote for original These early dials do not show such high quality and consistency than later dials do Font looks right difference in the length of the seconds markers is due to distortion in the photo
I would say redial, because the distance between the bezel and the minute track is not even, which means the printing is not centered properly, which would lead to a redial. Especially, if you compare the 12 to 2 o'clock zone to the 6 to 9 o'clock.
I agree, font and logo look good to me. A picture without crystal (removing the bezel) would avoid distortion.
I have big doubts, look at AAAKK big picture, the minute track is going from 3mm to 1 mm. Omega would never do that.
I think this an optical illusion; the photo of the dial is not taken perfectly orthogonal to the dial but a bit from the top left. So he markers on the upper left appear to be shorter as they vanish under the edge of the crystal.
For way of explanation: I didn't have any doubt that it was a redial when I initially commented, but added the qualifier "I believe". In other words, that's only my belief; it acknowledges that others may have a differing opinion. Googling "I believe without a doubt" shows it's not a totally uncommon phrase but I didn't think much about it at the time I wrote it. With the expert opinions that differ from mine, I've learned to temper my opinion and refrain from absolutes.
and yet -while the minute track has lengthened -the seconds numerals towards 5 appear to have have compressed ........hmmmmm
They are being hidden by the edge of the domed crystal. This crystal is likely a modern replacement. The original crystals for these was relatively flat and did not stand straight up at the edge. Newer replacements (even most Omega OEM's) tend to be more domed. I have a similar issue with my Ref. 2179, which is why I have no good photos of it after I replaced the crystal. On newer watches the minute registers tend to be printed a bit more towards the center, so this distortion is not as pronounced when converting from 3D to 2D. This is a fact of life with these early Omegas. It's why I say you have to examine in person if you have any questions. gatorcpa
Threads like this are fascinating & show the massive attraction of the hunt and the value of the community. Most people with some degree of collecting knowledge are saying redial - except the smaller number who are truly expert and focussed on watches from this period. There's always something to be learned !