These discussions always remind me how incredibly difficult these evaluations are for watches of this period. As you say, when a watch is over 80 years old, a redial could easily be 50 years old (it obviously has some age given the damage to the edge in the first quadrant).
To me, the '55' test applied above seems incredibly stringent. The difference between those two 5s seems very minor. Could any apparent difference could be ascribed to either the accuracy of dial printing in 1935, degradation of the dial since or a slight blemish in the crystal?
The dial below is similar and has a 6 more like the second example than the OP's watch (although perhaps it's somewhere in between the two?) but again the differences are very minor.
I'm not an expert on these early watches so will leave this discussion to those that are more familiar. Polerouters are trivial in comparison!
View attachment 819146
Click to expand...