A waffle dial is always hard to assess.

I am well familiar with early 30 mm and its chronometre dials but not so much with the later automatic...

So I thought to ask the experts here



I have compared it with similar dials (but non-waffle versions): fonts look OK, even the cross hair being so close to the S in SWISS, no notch visible (but this is a poor hint for redial anyway and one should not rely on this fact).
Hands are of correct length and colour, serial numbers in the right range and everything else looks OK
The only thing which bothers me is the thickness of the cross hairs - but maybe they sometimes are thicker on these waffle dials?

What do the experts think?

 

These dials are very hard to print in the original instance and "defects" may appear where minute tracks are not consistent, where markers look misaligned etc and this is all due to trying to print or place things on what is essentially, a rough uneven surface.

While there are a couple of things that would indicate a redial to me if it was on a smooth dial, in this case I could forgive them.
I also can't see a mark or notch on the edge of the dial which is sometimes used as an index when re-inking.

No expert by any means, but I will vote original.

 

I'm not an expert on these, so I can't even tell if this particular version existed. I've never seen it before. No 'Seamaster?

Looking at the font, the non concentric minute track and the hour markers (especially the bent one at 2 o'clock), I'd vote for redial.

 

Looks original to me.

 

@cristos71 is my waffle dial go to man. ( he has that many )

 

What's there looks good. What isn't there just raises the slightest suspiscion: there's minor wear to the edges, I usually see much more but that could just mean it's been very well looked after; then, there's no model reference on the lower dial - do you know the reference?

 

I think this one is ok, too hard to be that precise and alligned for being a redial. But this is only my first feeling looking at it.

 

Probably original but the photo has been processed with lots of contrast and so the lines are not as fine. Have a look at this one as I assume your watch is a bumper? There are some font variations but that happens with the "M" for example. If you look at the "R"s in chronometre, I'd say they are the same.

Cheers, Chris

 

It is a pre-SM and pre-Conny, just a bumper chronometer - hence there is no additional lettering...

 

Looks fine to me, but I remember we had a similar discussion not too long ago re. crosshairs. Perhaps @hoipolloi can join in?

 

Not a expert, don’t even know if this existed and never seen one before then you question why a pre Seamaster doesn’t have Seamaster. And you vote for a redial on a waffle dial that is by way the hardest dial to redial.

You sometimes need to refrain from posting if you don’t have experience with a model.

 

Mine. Not a chronometer, but original.

 

Thank you. I knew this. I meant that I haven't seen a similar combination before.

 

The question was redial or not, wasn't it?

I was posting my opinion on this, not on if this is a legit model or not.

And yeah, obviously sometimes it's better to refrain from posting...

 

I always like to be certain as posting redial is a big call to the owner of the watch. As you can see some heavy hitters think it's not a redial. If your not sure why post is all I'm saying. ( even I thought best to call someone I think is more knowledgeable than me )

 

How about a photo on the back of the dial?

 

Far away from stating anything to the OPs watch, here is an interesting thread with lots of pictures:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/show-your-honeycomb-textured-omega-dial.14340/

 

I believe the text is original. Here’s mine though resolution isn’t as good as OP’s:

 

Unfortunately its not mine and the seller is not capable to remove it... maybe I take a plunge.

Even if it turned out to be a redial it is not a catastrophy as it was done very precisely and I could accept it as is