I came across this Connie, the owner told me that it is all original, but I thought the font are thinner than I have seen and the lines seem to be inconsistence. Just wonder whether it is a redial? Regards, Ko
I'd like to see better pictures, but some of the 50's models did have thinner inking. Without being able to see the details like I want, I'd surmise that is an orignal dial.
could somebody please copy this into "paint" programm and mark the spots that look like a redial? (so that others can learn)
I agree with Dennis, better pictures are required for a proper analysis. Although based on your current pictures the dial looks far too white... Most ref. 2852 watches I've seen have this circular brushed finish on the outer part of the dial which yours does not appear to have. Most of the 2852 references for some reason also have some type of patina as well. Based on your pictures, the printing looks to be a poor stamping. In other words the printing looks to be not crisp and continuous. Better pictures using your macro setting on your camera and good natural light would help clear this up.
Not necessarily. And I agree with what has been said - need better, correctly exposed photos to make a more definitive assessment of the dial - could still be original.
This is exactly why you need to just start looking through the threads at good dials...start with WRUW!!! MOY only works until it doesn't.
This is the 2852 dial it's supposed to be I think. The OP's photo is horrible, hard to tell anything but the fonts do look weak(cleaned or reprint) But the font positions do line up correctly and the crosshairs hit the right spots. The hands,that's another story. Most 2852's organic dial clear coating tended to degrade with spots turning to holes turning to heavy patina, or somewhere in between. Some however, survived the years without this damage. I speculate it's because the watch was never opened for service.
Sorry guys for the pictures quality, the watch is not mine, but let me see if I can get some better pic
