Now we're talking. In my previous post I had singled
@seekingseaquest out, because I value his opinions (that goes for you too, BTW
😁) and was genuinely curious to know what his reasoning was. If it was an obvious redial I wouldn't expect any explanation of course. But I think we can agree that this one is not obvious, one way or the other.
@padders point out. But that still remains an open question, IMO.
I like to help posters, such as the OP, and I like to think I’m helpful pretty often. However, this isn’t my job, and I don’t have a ton of time to go into the specifics of every single watch to point out exactly why I feel that a watch is a redial or not. If I’m asked, especially if I’m asked nicely, I am happy to provide an explanation. Being called out for giving my opinion without valid backing is not so appreciated, but this is really for the OP, so of course I am happy to help.
Before giving my reasoning, I want to make clear that I’ve looked at enough of these dials that the process for identifying a redial has become largely subconscious. I don’t consciously think about most of these details when I judge a dial. This process takes time.
Anyway.. here we is my assessment:
I assume that this is either an automatic reference, in which case the dial is missing the word automatic (therefore redial), or more likely, it’s a 2761 center seconds manual wind reference. Send me a photo of the case back and I can tell you what reference it most likely is.
In my experience, the Seamaster text on 2761 is typically in the bottom half of the dial, so the configuration to me looks suspicious.
Additionally, in my experience, 2761 references typically have a seconds track in the inner part of the dial, rather than at the very outside of the dial. In my experience, most of these with an outer seconds track are redials. I can’t guarantee that’s always the case however.
Fyi, 2759 sub-second references typically have the Seamaster text in the top half of the dial and they typically have the minute track on the outside of the dial, similar to this watch.
Also, something about the lume color shouts re-lume. It could be the photos, but there seems to be a greenish hue. Often a relume is a good sign of a redial.
Lastly, I’m always overly suspicious when I see a nice clean white waffle dial, especially with discolored lume. Of course nice originals exist and this lume discoloration happens.
None of these things are things I would put money on. But all of it together makes me feel that it is more likely to be a redial than not.
