anon438
429
I try to get an objective look at them
Oct 19, 2019,10:36 AM
What to say about the Guilloché.
The normal surface would be oxided because the dial surface is silverd and silver oxides after > 50 years in contact to oxygen that's the natural process.
If the watch was used there would have been also some intrusion of humidity and salt e.g. from the human skin, this could make the oxidation uneven or one-sided, but it would be still the 'natural wabi' - artifically not altered.
What you can find are dial surfaces oxided in different degrees and dials cleaned in different intensity - if they are cleaned well they may look even more pleasant than the oxided ones.
Back to the ref discussion, what make you think that the watch with the Cloisonné dial is a diffent ref than your watch (except the written statements)?
Did you have a picture of yours watch case back?
As I look further I came accross the statement that the CR was initially (in 1953) marked as 4838 wrongly, and later marked correctly as 4907.
My thoght was, what is the difference between those refs?
The difference for the CR is at least the CR inscribtion on the back, that's the explenation for 4838 -> 4907.
But did we actually understand the difference between 4724 -> 4838? I don't think so, it is not yet understood.