Vintage
Franco's detailed examination of a New Old Stock (NOS) Omega 30T2SCRg dial, reference 2367, sparked a fascinating debate among collectors. His initial observation of an unusual 'XIII' index instead of the expected 'VIII' at the 8 o'clock position prompted a community-wide analysis of its authenticity. This post highlights the critical eye required in vintage collecting and the collective expertise of the WatchProSite community in discerning original components.
Good morning
I wanted to show you my latest 30T2SCRg, a ref. 2367, 35.5 mm case in steel. Case in very sharp condition, excellent movement, and a NOS dial:
Do you notice anything strange?
I didn’t when I purchased the dial, neither did the seller, or four of my more expert friends:
Yes, it has a XIII (i.e. 13) index, rather than a VIII (i.e. 8) as usually seen,
I originally received the dial in its paraffin bag:
And the dial and the back seemed original to me:
The dial would be of a rare type, but what is it?
Is it a redial badly done?
I think it has all the hallmarks of a genuine Omega Chronometer dial. The back shows the correct numbers and marks, and the look of other original backs which I have. And the studs and the indices are well aligned with the graphics:
So, what is this dial? Is it a mistake of the latest stage of production, i.e. the application of the indices? I reasoned that if this was the case, the holes for the feet of the indices should at least be correct, and in fact the spacing of the “X” in “XIII” seems to be larger than, for a “V” in the “VI”.
And in fact, this seems to be the case. I have first highlighted the positions of the index feet :
And then compared these to the face of the indices:
It looks that the “V” and the “X” have the same feet position. So an “X” would easily fit in place of the “V”. But …. as the position of the feet within the index are different, the “X” is now spaced outwards. Briefly, if they had used the correct “V” it would have been spaced perfectly.
So, I would like to propose this hypothesis: the reason why this NOS Omega dial has reached me, is because it did not pass originally the last quality control, and was put aside from use. Probably because in a future they may have corrected the mistake inserting the right index.
Now, a few questions to the resident experts:
1- What are your thoughts, in view of your experience
2- Would you keep the dial as it is, or give it back to the seller?
Best wishes and thanks for your views
Franco
Hi Franco, I am absolutely convinced that it is not a NOS dial. The consistant marks front and back tell a different story - it looks as if the dial already had been used (installed) on a watch. I think it is a redo, not a bad one (except the "X" marker at eight), but not a perfect one... Let me explain: 1) the surface of the original chronometre dials usually show a slight vertical brushing - in your example it looks as if it was sandblasted (like a famous German restorer uses to do). 2) Backsi
with Erich - he is supplying some excellent arguments why this is not an original dial. I'm having a couple of issues myself with a dial. Being perfectly happy with the condition of the chronometre as is, until a dealer in La Chaux-de-Fonds pointed out to me that it must be a reconditioned dial. The gold-coloured inner circle is not exactly centered - it is slightly displaced to the left. The photo shows where it passes between the 'nine o clock' index and the "IX", whereas on the righthand side
that little notch at 12 o´clock tells the story. and all the other points raised so far. a better redial from bethge in germany would be around euro 90. causemann will be more expensive. if you go for another redial, have a light sunburst finish applied to the blank first. i´d send it back; too obvious. kind regards from down under. achim
Hello, good to hear from the usual suspects : Achim: I do agree about the finish. Unlike the dial under discussion, the many chronometer dials which I have (except the very early ones, 1939-1940) have a "microbrushed" finish (i.e. only visible at 40-80X), like this: However, the notch criterium does not always apply, as me and others (and probably yourself) have 100% original and battered dials which can have the notch, usually at 12, sometime at 9. From direct contact with Causemann, he does NO
it appears to me to be an obvious redial. had it not had the ridiculous error of XIII i would have said keep it as its pretty good, not brilliant, but pretty good, however, as it has incorrect indices on it i'd send it back. there is no possible way that it would have come out of the factory like that. i would hope that they employ people clever enough not to make such a stupid mistake. could you take it seriously if you wore it like that? thats the question to ask yourself. best Graham
... at the moment of posting I did have doubts myself. At any rate, although somebody would say that a "mistake" something makes a piece unique - I know myself and the eye would always end up on that XIII. Thanks to all for their contributions, discussions often clear your mind Best wishes Franco
This thread is active on the Omega forum with 10 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →
