Do you guys see redials as a) putting new paint on an old-timer car and making it look like new again b) scratching all the paint off Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and painting it new c) something in between (model dependant)
I would say that I would like to preserve the original, but anytime someone asks if something is a redial it seems like it is always a resounding yes. So I am finding out more and more that most watches of a certain era if they look relatively new are most certainly redials, and if they look a little worn they are probably redials.
That's the best visual analogy. The fact is, most redials look like utter shit. When you get a loupe on them they look terrible and plenty stand out even with the naked eye. Plenty of people say they'd be ok with a redial but I'm sure that even these folk would start to notice the many issues after staring at a given dial day after day. The truth is there are plenty of original vintage dials in good condition for most models, especially from the 50's onwards. You just need the patience to wait for one and be willing to do your research and/or take an educated gamble on a listing.
I often wonder why so many redials look hand painted. Probably because they are. What would be so hard about applying a stamp or even a transparent waterslide decal made to match the original text exactly. If I ever get the urge to restore my Breitling Datora Ref. 799, I'll make the dial myself this way rather than let any old fuddy-duddy touch it.