Saw a lot of threads about redials. What do you guys think of this watch? Redial or not-redial?

Cheers,

JB

 

It's done well if it's a redial, and it might or might not be for a few reasons. We need a slightly better picture but that might be good enough to work with.

1) The models with Seamaster De Ville on the dial were made from 1963 through 1967. I only see one T on that dial - and we just had a discussion about that, the relevant information for this subject starting with this post: http://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-cal-601-strage-looking-hands.696/page-2#post-6968. If it's an early 1963 model (we need the movement's serial number - it should be in the low 20 million range) than I don't see any problem and would lean towards it being original.

2) The ink for AUTOMATIC, Seasmaster, and DE VILLE looks white. If that's a stainless watch with stainless hands and indices then it's correct - if a gold case than it should be gold.

3) Given the aging/discoloration of the white backround on the date wheel, the dial should show some aging. Also, black dials are the first tip off to refinishing since they rarely came that way on the SMDV line.

If it is refinished it's excellent. Even the minute/second track looks evenly spaced. In this case we'd need to see the back of the dial to spot any indication of the markers being removed or not.

 

I still can see some lume left at the end of 1 o'clock marker and if you like to know if it 's a redial or not, I need a photo this size.