Speculate on value of this early 13zn

Posts
2,926
Likes
6,226
Ah - I didn't know there was a MWR thread. I see, now.

Yes, you're right. Many other points to fixate on.
 
Posts
2,926
Likes
6,226
Wow - so much time, work and energy - just to indicate a fake dial...

The originality of a dial can have a massive impact on the value and general desirability of a watch. 30%-60% of the value, in most cases. You have to ask yourself - why is that? It's because most collectors care a great deal about this point.

Not saying the OP should care - or implying that he cares about the value or not - just that this fixation should be expected amongst certain crowds.
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
The originality of a dial can have a massive impact on the value and general desirability of a watch. 30%-60% of the value, in most cases. You have to ask yourself - why is that? It's because most collectors care a great deal about this point.

Not saying the OP should care - or implying that he cares about the value or not - just that this fixation should be expected amongst certain crowds.
I think that @minutenrohr was implying that to some, the dial is quite clearly not original. But I do not want to speak on his behalf.
 
Posts
1,414
Likes
4,306
I am more interested in discovering who re-created the dial. Was it Longines or Longines affiliate?
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
I just remembered that I have seen another 13ZN with many of the same dial characteristics as the OP's. The dial is found in a 13ZN from the mid-1940s. Like the OP's, the dial does not look correct for its era. The fact that two very similar dials are found in watches that were produced ten years apart seems to further suggest that neither is original. However, as they are so similar and both of relatively high quality, I wonder if Longines was involved. I suppose that the dials could have been replaced with service dials or simply refinished.
Edited:
 
Posts
7,612
Likes
21,831
I just remembered that I have seen another 13ZN with many of the same dial characteristics as the OP's. The dial is found in a 13ZN from the mid-1940s. Like the OP's, the dial does not look correct for its era. The fact that two very similar dials are found in watches that were produced ten years apart seems to further suggest that neither is original. However, as they are so similar and both of relatively high quality, I wonder if Longines was involved. I suppose that the dials could have been replaced with service dials or simply refinished.
Just curious, I really know nothing about those Longines chronographs, why do you say the dial in the watch pictured here would not be correct for the period ? Looks like a 1940s Longines dial design to me...
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
Just curious, I really know nothing about those Longines chronographs, why do you say the dial in the watch pictured here would not be correct for the period ? Looks like a 1940s Longines dial design to me...
You will not find the typeface that appears in the subdials, on a correct 1940s dial. Also, the signature does not resemble those found on correct examples.
 
Posts
7,612
Likes
21,831
And does the back look to you like one that's been refinished?
I must admit I have problems telling the difference, at least based on my one examination of a old refinished Longines dial I have.
That business about the dial feet color and the patina on the back sounds great on paper, but applying it in practice is not so obvious…

Edit - well on this one, the painted indexes encroach onto the sundials so that does seem a sign, and the color on the back does appear quite uniform.
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
Admittedly, I am not well-versed in dial-back forensics. However, based on my reading I see a couple of red (or in this case white) flags. Firstly, a correct 13ZN dial should have three feet; this dial has two. Given its otherwise great condition, I struggle to imagine how a foot could go missing. Secondly, dial feet are not expected to be the same color as the back of the dial. In this instance, they seem to be. Furthermore, the feet do not appear to be brass/copper toned but white. Now, looking at the front, and given the other two dials in this thread, my feelings are not exactly equivocal.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,961
Likes
24,733
Another comparison:
13ZN%20-%2030CH%20zifferblattruumlckseite%204_zpsgbg14lmd.jpg
I think it looks like someone has thrown it into a electrosilvering bath. Perhaps the original Stern Freres silvering was a kind of lacquer (I believe that, but who knows?) - which would be an explanation concerning the fact, that most 13ZN dials are showing different silver shades:
23295%201_zpseylhky3l.jpg
In german descriptions it´s called "zweifarbig versilbert" = "two-colored silvered" or "two-tone silvered"?.
rgds - h.u.
 
Posts
7,612
Likes
21,831
Another comparison:
13ZN%20-%2030CH%20zifferblattruumlckseite%204_zpsgbg14lmd.jpg
I think it looks like someone has thrown it into a electrosilvering bath.
Thanks for those pictures.
Just so I understand, are you highlighting similarities with the OP or differences?
Those dial feet on these picture are indeed copper in tone (except one) and appear to have the same color as the back of the dial.... also the back of the dial shows a relatively uniform patina.
I might be a bit too thick to understand, but the chronograph is quite stunning for sure!
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
I believe that the different silver tones were achieved by brushing the "silvered" (silver plated) surface in opposing directions. Later, a clear protective coating (varnish rather than lacquer) was applied to the surface of the dial. I am no expert on the differences between lacquer and varnish but it is my understanding that the coatings were varnish. Here is my source: http://longinespassion.com/oldlonginespassion/Longines_Passion/quadranti_1.html One used to be able to copy and paste this page into Google translate however this does not seem possible anymore.

Given that original dials have dial feet that appear copper or brass toned, a silver or white appearance suggests that the dial, and therefore feet, have been coated in something as a result of refinishing.
Secondly, dial feet are not expected to be the same color as the back of the dial.
This statement likely has exceptions and is not necessarily a useful guideline. For more context, here is my source: http://www.orologeria.com/italiano/rivista/rivista020b.html
 
Posts
7,612
Likes
21,831
For what it's worth I'll contribute backside pictures of an old Longines redial I have. Some of the feet display some whitish color on the side, but it's not so obvious from other angles.
(Perhaps because the redial is so old?)
 
Posts
1,961
Likes
24,733
@DirtyDozen12:

I read the Longines-Passion text (not easy due to the translation) and think you´re right. I just thought about possibilities to bring the silver just on one side of the dial, because that seems to be the main difference between originally preserved (Stern-) dials and the refinished.

rgds - h.u.
 
Posts
2,780
Likes
4,821
I just thought about possibilities to bring the silver just on one side of the dial, because that seems to be the main difference between originally preserved (Stern-) dials and the refinished.
This is a key issue that is not explicitly covered in the text. From the information provided, I speculate that the preparation of the front surface (i.e. mirror polishing) allows for a better plating than on the back, which is not polished. Then, over time, the back deteriorates more quickly as it lacks the protective varnish (which would have been applied using a brush) of the front. This still does not explain the bright copper/brass ends of the dial feet.

On more modern redials, I wonder if the plating technique that is used is more effective and so coats the poorly prepared back surface. Or maybe the technique is entirely different.