Hello dear Members, I'm again on the hunt and I found this Honeycomb Crosshair Dial.
I never had any honeycomb dial and I'm not sure if this one is a redial. I find the r to be hanging to low and the Crosshair doesn't seem to be well centered. Crown isn't the right one but that's okay for me. Not sure about the Hands neither. Indexes seem to be not well placed.
What do you think?
Thank you for your help!

 

You are right, it is a redial.

 

And wrong hands.

 

Looks good to me.

Wrong.

 

I'm with Conelpueblo...Looks ok to me ..perhaps the dial has had a light brush cleaning......I like it!

 

What makes you say that? It's the second time in a couple of days that you have labeled a watch as a redial, with no arguments on why it's the case.

I see absolutely no reason for this to be a redial. It looks all correct.

 

Dauphine hands are perfectly normal and correct for this reference.

 

I can not say anything about the dial, but the hour hand actually seems to be too long for me. Should not he end up with the tip at the minute markers?

 

Sorry No free lessons anymore.

 

Wrong

 

Here's mine for comparison

 

I honestly think I would pass on those

 

@hoipolloi I am disappointed - another of your posts that are off the mark.

The dial is perfectly fine, as are the hour and minute hands. On 2892s such as this one, the minute hand does overlap the markers, though I am less certain of the seconds hand. If you don't believe me, google either 2892 or 2792 (gold capped and stainless steel center seconds respectively. The same refs with sub seconds are 2891 and 2791) and you'll see.

Here's one of my old ones:



Actually - @Hnansen didn't you buy this from me??


EDIT: The seconds hand should only reach the minute/seconds track.

 

Ok, let's talk about the second hand first. It has a big hole and it is NOT Omega original for that period.
The colour of the hour hand and minute hand don't match with the hour indexes and that is wrong from my point of view.

The crosshair is too bold that made me think it is a redial.

 

Comparison of my watch, a 2635-9 SC(bottom) to the OP (top). I don't know if either is original or redials.

 

Certainly I will vote for the one with finer font.

 

The crosshairs look just like what I'd expect to see on a textured dial. It is not the first 2892/2792 I've seen with heavy crosshairs. Also, the Seamaster and Omega font is spot on, completely identical to the script on mine, down to the low "r" on Seamaster.

The seconds hand is wrong; your point about the hole being too big is good. I don't agree with the notion that the tone should be exactly identical to the dial markers, this is not the case on 14xxx Constellations, to mention the one place I've noticed different gold tones.

But yours isn't a ref. 2892, is it? I'd say that both are correct.

 

It's a 2635-9 SC

 

I will put a good chuck of my savings on them both being original

 

I sure did! For reasons unknown to me today, I later sold it
I was still a novice back then, and I dont think I realised how special those black "stardust" dials are!