Hello OF,

I have been looking at 136/146/156 chronos and stumbled upon this beauty:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zenith-Chr...h=item4684fac245:g:XxoAAOSwTw5bludG:rk:7:pf:0Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network



I am a bit skeptical about the originality of the dial but would like more input from other members, thank you!

 

What makes you unsure? Unless I’m missing something it looks legit

 

Nice example. Dial is original, with a couple of small blemishes, but overall very nice. Is the case number legible?

 

I simply have no experience with vintage Zenith so was unfamiliar with their logos. I also see the Zenith star logo on most vintage chronos so just wanted to make sure!

While the case number is obscured on the ebay listing, the seller has provided me this number:
605599

Thank you both for sharing your expertise!

 

While I own a few, I’m no expert. But I shared the OP’s concern. Here are a couple of photos to illustrate why I share the concern. But, I’d trust @CaptainWinsor and @MMMD before me, every day of the week.

First thing was the crude 180 marker


I’m fascinated with how every 5 is a little different, including side by side ones.


Apart from another pair of different 5s, the two 2s and two 3s are also different from each other.


I could do more. What do you guys think? I’m being silly no doubt.

If it has been redone, it was done quite well.

 

Obviously you could be correct. I’m like you and look all the same numbers for likeness. I find the outer track is often distorted by the crystal. I hadn’t noticed the 180 mark but I think that Zenith serif font is really hard to duplicate. I vote good but like you said, if it is, it was done well

 

You have a sharp eye and I like your observation about the 180 marker. Zenith could have used you in their quality control department. I would say that’s a factory-original error. For me the variations in the numerals that you point out are within the range of normal. Here’s mine for comparison, but now I’m sort of afraid to have you look at it

 

Fantastic! If I may pick your brains further - do you think the crown has been replaced? It appears slightly small proportional to the rest of the watch. While not a deal-breaker, it would be good to know and possibly source a more suitable replacement if so.

Many thanks,
-Joe

 

That’s a high complement. I’d like to think that a lifetime of coin collecting has trained my eye. Telling the difference between an AU 58 and an MS 60, now there’s a challenge.

Yours has no obvious flaws, other than that the subdial printing isn’t quite exactly centered on either your watch or the OP’s. I was going to point it out to the OP, but decided it was so close that I might be being too petty.

 

You may be right. I can’t remember whether mine has a signed crown or not, but it think so... I’ll check when I can.

 

I think the crown is fine. For reference here’s a Chrono from a 1950 catalog. Unsigned crown and no star. The numbers below indicate reference