| Author | Message | ||
     Blgg New member Username: Blgg Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2007 Rating: N/A |
Hello Zaf, Please, what are your thoughts -- original or redial? Thank you.  | ||
| Blgg New member Username: Blgg Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2007 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Jimh New member Username: Jimh Post Number: 11 Registered: 06-2007 Rating: N/A |
It's a re-dial. Notice how the subseconds chapter doesn't fill the depression and the printed markers don't always line up with the applied hour markers, etc. | ||
| Blgg New member Username: Blgg Post Number: 56 Registered: 04-2007 Rating: N/A |
I'm not at all as certain as you. I believe I've seen old original LC dials where - both - the second dial is smaller than the depression (this one appears well centered to me), and with the applied hour marks rotated a bit off center on their pins. To me, the minute register looks reasonable.. What caught my eye, was the large space between the 'L' and 'E'. The patina looks good to me as well -- if it is a redial, it's older... | ||
| Blgg New member Username: Blgg Post Number: 57 Registered: 04-2007 Rating: N/A |
... well, I've looked about, and not found an example of an original with the second dial smaller than the depression -- so perhaps that is a 'tell'. Zaf -- if you make it to this post -- if you wouldn't mind, aside from your view of the dial/redial, what ballpark would you place on its value -- as there's nothing current in the archives? Thank you, as always, for your time. | ||
| Zaf Moderator Username: Zaf Post Number: 2654 Registered: 05-2003 Rating: N/A |
It's a redial for sure. |