What do you think of the watch?

 

As a watch collector, I have absolutely no desire to guess what your watch is worth. If you really want to know, put it up for auction with a high reserve.

What I am interested in is the watch. Would you upload photographs of the inner caseback and movement, and reveal the next two digits of the serial number?

 

Interesting debate...
I found three examples of the watch case, but all with different dials.
http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?69554-Any-Longines-Experts-here/page2&highlight=longines 13zn

 

@Seiji, thank you for complying with my terms.

I appreciate the link that you posted but I was already aware of that thread.

Process

When assessing the originality of a dial, I usually have a reflexive reaction that I then attempt to both substantiate and disprove using observations and (reliable) information. This information consists of comparable (and original) examples and any historic particulars that pertain to the watch.

Principles

1. A combination of exceptional condition and exceptional features often indicates a refinished/not original dial as the likelihood of these two occurring together is rather low.*

2. One important exceptional feature is quality. To find an authentic dial that is of relatively poor quality and exceptional in terms of design or condition, is unlikely.

3. The condition and originality of the rest of the watch is another useful indicator. If the condition of the dial is inconsistent with (particularly) the condition of the movement, then the dial may have been refinished.** The presence of incorrect/not original components elsewhere in the watch, can also be an indicator.

*Please note that I wrote, "exceptional features," plural. One exceptional feature is not necessarily sufficient if the rest of the dial is as expected.
**This is not always the case as dials can age more rapidly than movements. This means that a clean movement can still be found with a worn or refinished dial. However, a worn movement is rarely found with a clean dial.

Analysis (abridged)

The condition of the dial is undoubtedly exceptional. The edge of the dial, which is often the first to deteriorate, is essentially flawless. The condition of the movement appears to be consistent with that of the dial. I do not recall encountering many (if any) 13ZNs with contrasting hands. I wonder if the minute and hour hands have been replaced. The crown is incorrect.

The first problem that I notice is the alignment of the subdial printing. The printing is not centered but rather shifted to the left. This is atypical of 1930s Longines. The second detail that looks unusual is the signature. The typeface is not as expected for a dial of this design and period. Thirdly, I notice the inverted "10, 15, 20" in the minute counter. This is another atypical stylistic detail.

Then I look more closely at the typeface of the numerals in the subdials. It does not compare well with similar examples. The "5" of "50" is too elongated and the center of the "3" of "30" (seconds subdial) is too pointed. In the minute counter, the style of "1" is not the same. The style is not wrong for the era but the inconsistency (with the seconds counter) is strange.

Lastly, we see a bright silver dial foot. Dial feet of this era are expected to be brass-toned.

Conclusion

The dial is in exceptionally good condition. The execution of the subdial printing is unusually poor. The dial presents multiple stylistic oddities and a silver dial foot. The crown is not original.

My reflexive reaction was that this dial looked too good to be true. Based on the information that I have presented, I feel that this is indeed the case.

Note: I do not claim to own any of the images used.

Serial number: 5429165, cal. 13ZN


Serial number: 5479608, cal. 13ZN



Serial number: 5454530, cal. 10.68Z

 

Here is a theory. The watch was sent back to Longines, at some point (likely no more than a couple of decades as the lume still appears to be radium), with the intention of modifying it to have lume. The dial was either repainted or replaced (though still not with an original 1930s dial) and the non-luminous minute and hour hands were replaced as well, hence the contrasting tone.

 

The print quality in person is very sharp and delicate scrolls like an enamel dial only sharper. With the exception of the off center problems it seems otherwise OEM quality. A D said the hands should all be blue. He said definitely looks Longines. He also pointed out crown is not Longines, which is pretty obvious. The dial if you photograph and alter the contrast, faintly shows radium burns from stored long time without changing the time. Was my first 13zn.

 

I like the look of your watch. I dont have a two register chrono yet, but I'm on the lookout.

I'm the interest of sharing, would you

"upload photographs of the inner caseback and movement, and reveal the next two digits of the serial number" ?

Or maybe PM with DD?

 

Thank you the time and effort for putting together this assessment. Nice to have more information about this watch.

 

I'm the interest of sharing, would you

"upload photographs of the inner caseback and movement, and reveal the next two digits of the serial number" ?

I am not sure what you will gain. I prefer to keep the Van Dame 13zn serial number private. The previous owner died in an accident. I promise the family to keep the watch as is. Last thing I want are copies of the serial number floating about.

 

Maybe share with DD directly? It's helpful for everyone when data is made available, even if the raw data is private. Plenty of members amass data about movement numbers, ranges and how they relate to references and variations.

You don't have to of course, but a PM exchange might increase the general knowledge, even if indirectly.

In any event, there is obviously value for you here with this watch beyond pure collector value. Cherish that.

 

I would seriously consider it, but what are we trying to learn? It is not that remarkable a case or am I not well informed? The movement is not a transition one either.

 

I dunno. I'll bow out here, other than to say that I have exchanged a lot of info about my watches with others here, and it leads to better decisions - for me anyway - about how to identify the really good ones from the ok ones..

 

If my 5008 comes back From Switzerland I promise to contribute that.

 

Fair enough. Cheers dude.

 

I do not doubt the precision of the printing but this alone does not confirm its originality. The dial may be of OEM quality (though I do not feel that the misaligned subdials can simply be ignored), or even OEM, but from the 1930s? I remain highly skeptical. AD's expertise is certainly welcomed but without information/evidence to account for the inconsistencies that I have brought up, the discussion moves no further. The theory that I suggested takes into account the radium burn as the watch could have sat for 60 years after being refinished.

 

I would like firstly to applaud DirtyDozen12 for his thought examination. I agree with his notes more or less entirely.

As he says, and we know, collectors make a gut appraisal at first glance and then attempt to stay objective and prove/disprove what caught our eye. It's important in these matters to have an open mind. I also thought it was a redial/reaplcement upon first glance - and after considering details - maintain that viewpoint.

A few of my own observations:

1. The style of the minute track numbers does not match the style of the subdial numbers (not necessarily damning).

2. Evidence that the watch does not have original lume, regardless of whether or not the dial is original can be inferred by the unfilled lume gaps in almost ever numeral on the dial. Basically none of them are done well.

3. The subdials are not consistent in how they display information. The constant second numerals adjust orientation as they reach around, while the minute counters do not.

I hesitate to add this... since it is not evidence, but gut feeling - the inking feels off. The minute track and the rest. It feels off to me. But we can't count that for anything, really. I just felt I needed to say it.

I would propose a challenge to Seiji: If you can find even a single other example of a 13zn amongst the dozens or perhaps hundreds easily visible on the internet with subdials configured in the exact same way (with regards to point 3.) we can look into the matter further. Otherwise, that singular point is a huge roadblock towards originality.

 

By fixating on the inverted numerals, we are only moving backwards as this was the main point of discussion in the MWR thread. I think that the dial has more significant issues, which I outlined above.

On a side note, all of the dials that you show are enamel and therefore not comparable. I even question the authenticity of some but that is another matter entirely.

 

Wow - so much time, work and energy - just to indicate a fake dial...

 

Maybe I enjoy this too much.