Firstly, I would like to thank Kyle for uploading such high quality images and engaging with me in spite of my raucous approach. Secondly, I acknowledge that I am in the minority among far more experienced Zenith collectors and scrutineers.
Despite Kyle’s phenomenal photography, I am clearly at the mercy of technology. Without having the watch in hand, one does not see the full picture. On a more philosophical note, even if it is a redial (though this seems increasingly unlikely based on the overwhelming opposition), if I am the only one who believes this/knows, does it really matter? I suspect not.
My closing remarks on the watch are as follows.
The condition of the dial matches well with its associated components. The overall condition is plausible given the condition of similar examples.
The printing quality is of a high level. However, I do not believe that it far outreaches an astute dial restorer. I acknowledge that this view is contentious. Here is the signature of a well done Longines redial beside an original.
Though aspects such as the outer track appear untouched, the style of the primary text and the width of the secondary text do not compare well with similar examples. There is too much space in between the letters of the word “chronometre”. The letters of the word “Zenith” do not appear horizontally elongated as they do on other examples (note the E). The letters of the word “automatic” look slightly too close to each other and the typeface looks incorrect. Note the crosses of the T’s; they are too short. The span of “Swiss made” is too narrow. The W of "Swiss" and the D of "made" do not extend outside of the 29 and 31 markers. This is not the case on the similar examples that I have found.
Based on the limited number of comparisons that I have made with similar and allegedly original pieces, I believe that this dial has been reprinted.
