...but I think it’s a stellar job and I would much rather take this over the compromised dial.
I don’t and I wouldn’t.
The fonts are incorrect and Omegas of that era did not have glossy black dials. Looks like the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on.
But that’s just my opinion.
gatorcpa
PS - Hands are not Omega and the crown is incorrect as well.
This thread is perfect timing as I just came across this on Ebay. Described as "stunning pumpkin dial". So how was the tinting of the lume done? Tea, Coffee?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-V...547215?hash=item287bf8130f:g:kD8AAOSwzsVcupeL
Same seller has this listed. Enhanced lume?. That pumpkin color looks familiar.
Personally speaking I really don't get "beautiful", "attractive", "pleasant" or any other subjective opinion when applied to "patina". Give me decent pictures and I'll decide for myself according to my personal aesthetic values. Also related to "patina", don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining, sometimes fubar is just fubar 😒
So you are saying, you "really don't get" what marketing/advertising 101 is...
... since people have realized that tremendous beauty can be found in imperfection...
Very true mate! I'm a big fan of 'wobbly, wrinkly, wooly, women'.🥰 They always have an interesting story to tell!
I sometimes wonder about the damage vs patina thing. Rolex fans seem to go wild over certain "patina". This speedsonic has a dial that has been wrecked by moisture. It may look cool, but will slowly crumble away and cause problems in the watch. I prefer a perfect dial any day and understand that sometimes you buy a project watch in hopes of scoring a new dial. If the "patina" is evenly applied and doesn't look horrible, then I think it is appealing. I dislike the constant marketing hype, but it must be working or people wouldn't keep buying ugly and destroyed watches.
So I understand that with time comes signs of age, my graying hair and crows feet speak to that. But at what point did the watch community embrace damage as authenticity and credibility?
...
Am I in the minority that sees these “features” as flaws?
The reason that I disagree is because your definition is too narrow. Part of the patina found on leather, to use just one example, are signs of wear. On a bicycle seat that may take the form of rub marks, or on a baseball glove, fine wrinkles. On metals, both color and texture are considered patina, including rust. Color change is just one form of patina.
So, when the chemical lacquers applied to watch dials form very fine cracks over time, it is every bit as "true" a form of patina as the change of colors that typically occur from such processes.
As an example- this was from an auction that ended last night. I was highly tempted to bid and it went for a great price for what it is, but the water damage around 6 in the dial kept me from jumping on it. I really was tempted but realized that that “patina” was just too much damage for me to deal with
In contrast, this is clearly a redial, the seller states it and isn’t trying to hide that at all, but I think it’s a stellar job and I would much rather take this over the compromised dial. I know many that would clobber me for such an assertion, but the “patina” on the first one would drive me nuts. I could happily wear this one knowing it’s a redial but with a stunning look dial even if the micro-details may be off.
You and I have very different taste in watches. I don't love that first watch, but I would take it for the right price. I wouldn't touch that redial, it's a hideous, glossy, fake, overpolished piece of crap.
Pristine pieces are great, but I've also been enjoying this thread: https://omegaforums.net/threads/wat...t-love-all-the-same.93553/page-2#post-1214252
