Redial or original?

Posts
4
Likes
1
Just bought what the owner believed to be a 1948 2445-1. Pretty sure that’s not correct, and curious if anyone can identify the model. Also, really curious on thoughts on original or redial.
Per the previous owners story it was his grandfathers watch passed down to him, neither of which gave this watch much time on wrist, and kept it in pristine condition. Is this too good to be true, or did I just find a 75 year old watch in phenomenal shape?
Edited:
 
Posts
8,056
Likes
57,967
Mid 1950's if that is an original dial........it's a bit blurry....cannot vouch for anything I cannot see......need inside pix to confirm identity
 
Posts
4
Likes
1
Mid 1950's if that is an original dial........it's a bit blurry....cannot vouch for anything I cannot see......need inside pix to confirm identity
I’ll try to get you more photos and movement photos as well. After some additional digging looks like it could be a 2869-1.
 
Posts
4
Likes
1
Better pic are definitely needed, but...
Looks less uneven in the second photo I received. Not sure if that was just a bad angle, but looks less distinct. Picture still isn’t great, but a bit better.
 
Posts
100
Likes
19
The seamaster inscription looks suspicious; the tail of the letter r, for example.
 
Posts
21,591
Likes
48,928
The photos aren't clear enough, IMO.
 
Posts
4
Likes
1
The photos aren't clear enough, IMO.
Watch should be received by Thursday- I’ll follow up then with quality images.