Would you consider a service dial "original"?

[JParm]

Originally Posted by Kingsking

He lists the hands as original too , are they service hands or original to the watch?

Good question. Don't know enough about Tudor hands to differentiate, but they do match the dial in lume so I would suspect service as well.

I could very well be wrong on the hands though - just my inclinations!

[037]

Originally Posted by jpeezy14@hotmail.com

Good question. Don't know enough about Tudor hands to differentiate, but they do match the dial in lume so I would suspect service as well.

I could very well be wrong on the hands though - just my inclinations!

The lume is crazed in the hour hand so the hands have been in there a long time and dried out. They very well could be original.

Has a Tudor dial expert said the dial is in fact a service unit? Just curious since there are examples of this dial in the wild that have yellowed with age.

[Andad]

A Rolex service dial is original but there is no reason for it not to be described as a replacement ‘service dial’ for full disclosure .

[Verdi]

We are having a hard time here establishing wether the dial and hands are service replacements or not......and at the same time expecting dealers to know?!

The truth to the matter is that few few have the knowledge and experience to point out correct all these elements.

I am not defending any dealers or sellers. This is just what I observed over the years.
I think the buyer should always do the research to make sure all questions/issues are answered from their own perspective.

PS: if this was a vintage DJ there is no way to know if the dial was not replaced at some point when the watch was fairly new. DJ came with many different dials, all period and reference correct. If someone got bored and wanted a black dial instead of the white one....good luck trying to find out.

Therefore, the term “original dial” is subject to interpretation and depends on what the seller/buyer understands and means.

[JParm]

Originally Posted by Verdi

We are having a hard time here establishing wether the dial and hands are service replacements or not......and at the same time expecting dealers to know?!

The truth to the matter is that few few have the knowledge and experience to point out correct all these elements.

I am not defending any dealers or sellers. This is just what I observed over the years.
I think the buyer should always do the research to make sure all questions/issues are answered from their own perspective.

PS: if this was a vintage DJ there is no way to know if the dial was not replaced at some point when the watch was fairly new. DJ came with many different dials, all period and reference correct. If someone got bored and wanted a black dial instead of the white one....good luck trying to find out.

Therefore, the term “original dial” is subject to interpretation and depends on what the seller/buyer understands and means.

Understand what you're saying (do your research, etc.) - but I disagree with your point on "but we expect dealers to know?!". Um, yes I do.

This is their profession and how they make a living, so be a professional about it. Don't hide behind semantics and make the buyer do the guesswork.

Let's look at a trusted seller's description of a similar watch:

"Dial
Excellent blue dial with some speckling patina present. The markers have turned a warm creamy hue and the hands are matching. There is a crack on the lume on the hour marker."

No mention of original or anything like that. It's up to the buyer to call in and ask, whereas the other seller simply makes the assertion that it is original. You and I, we would do our research, ask the appropriate questions, etc. However, not EVERY buyer will do this and I believe that it is up to these professionals to help us out as much as possible, especially if they want a clean name and don't want anything to haunt them later due to semantics...is that too much to ask these days - to be forthcoming up front??

"Hey, not sure if it is original or service, but what the hell, I'll post as original anyway"...c'mon.

[JBZ]

I agree that using the term "original" with nothing more is misleading. The word "original" in the context of vintage watches has a pretty specific meaning.

If the dealer knows the dial isn't original to the watch, they should say something along the lines of "genuine Tudor replacement/service dial", not "original".

If the dealer isn't sure, they should hedge - "unsure if the dial is original to the watch, but definitely a genuine Tudor dial" or something like that.

[Racer X]

Genuine, not original to the watch. IMO then, not original.

[Robtayham]

I understand where a lot of people are coming from. We all know that having a watch with all of it’s original parts from the day it was manufactured and being unpolished demands a premium in resale value and collectibility.

But, let’s get real. If we have a Rolex watch that has had parts replaced by Rolex, even just the crown, or the hands, then it is no longer ‘original’.

As I mentioned above, I have a 1979 18038 DD. I’ve had Rolex RSC NY replace the bracelet, caseback, crown, bezel, dial, hands, day and date wheel, and crystal. It is a 100% authentic Rolex watch, using 100% Rolex parts.

But for me to market it as ‘original’ is misleading. No doubt about that.

[Styles Bitchley]

The answer to the question is simply: no. Anyone who thinks there’s any grey area here either has a poor command of English or is trying to hoodwink someone (or both).