Something about this one bothers me. The screws to the bumper winder that announces it's a chronometer are all mangled. So you start to wonder, was it originally a chronometer, or was that added. There are also huge gouges in the bumper winder. The movement itself is not pristine as you would expect from looking at the outside of the watch. Cuff don't match the collar so to speak. Dial and hands have Zero oxidation or patina. How does movement get all that discoloration and not the dial. Dial looks too good. Also, can't see SWISS MADE at bottom. What do you guys think?

 

Your're too fast for me. Had to edit my post to add-
Also, can't see SWISS MADE at bottom.
Does this worry you?

 

I think it's correct and original.

If you've seen some of this sellers previous offerings, I don't think he'd offer anything which wasn't legit.

One bath in the wrong solution can easily result in this type of discoloration, I certainly wouldn't discount it just because it isn't as nice as the case/dial.

Watchmakers bodged and hacked lots of stuff in the day when these were just watches.

 

Mine mine mine!!! I'm in love

 

Regardless of all the movement yuckiness, I want that watch. The dial is incredible and the case is nice too. Does the case number seem correct for the watch?

 

I guess I should comment publicly about the crosshair chronometer Seamaster instead of via PM with interested members. It'll save time and retyping.

Norm - the seller might not know it, but I suspect that the case and/or dial are NOS replacements. That movement's copper plating had verdigris on it (that green tarnish that copper gets). I know because I've owned bumpers that had it, and they look EXACTLY like that rotor and bridge do after the green has been removed. If the watch's movement look like that, the dial and case should show similar signs of moisture damage.

Pic of a bumper with verdigris:



Pic after cleaning & servicing:




Justin - the 2577 could have a chronometer rated 354 inside as long as it's from 1952 or later. The serial number is from 1952.

I can't say with 100% conviction that it's a franken but something isn't adding up and my spider sense is tingling.

 

Not me, I was out about 600 ago lol

 

not me, I figured if post was not removed, then is not worthy to serious collectors!

 

Not me either! WOW!!!

 

This looks like my kind of thing Dennis....