Thoughts on this Tudor 94110 Submariner

[fizz]

Hello everyone.

I have been in talks with a private seller about this Tudor 9411/0 submariner. I am looking for a recommendation on whether it makes sense to proceed or whether anyone can spot any warning signs (I can't, except for one thing that was pointed out by another forum member, which I've stated at the end below).

The price is right (below market in my opinion) and I might proceed to purchase unless something is amiss.

In any case, here are some facts to consider:

1 - Dated to 82 (Serial no 9712)
2 - The bracelet included is a later reference 78360 with M clasp code. End links will be 380b.
3 - Tritium does not glow under UV (see the pics)
4 - The dial is Type B hence the "S" and not reverse Z font for Submariner.
5 - The tritium pip on the insert is likely a newer replacement.
6 - Case has been recut (by Alex Ciani)
7 - Hands have been relumed to stabilize. This was done fairly recently so some of the pics may show the previous hands.
8 - The Tudor font looks odd (or applied with poor quality) in the real close up image but that is apparently down to how it appears due to dial texture. I am not smart enough to know whether it's right....

Some pics (click to see full resolution)

Thanks as always to all those that take the time out and reply.

[tekno]

@linesiders can tell you for sure, but I’m 99% sure that dial is either repro or refinished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MrChamfers]

The dial looks good to me. Comparing it to the ones on tudorsub and tudorcollector I can't see any issues. edit:the dial texture looks kind of odd.

The insert looks like a service insert, but there are experts here with a sharper eye, hopefully they will comment.
I'm interested to know the price range you're seeing for these. I am looking for a blue flake as well, and ones with all original parts look to be at least 12k.

[fizz]

Thanks guys. The dial is the real question here....for the record I first discussed this with linesiders who isn't 100% the dial is legit, hence this thread.

The price being asked is much less than 12k.

[fizz]

Thanks guys. The dial is the real question here....for the record I first discussed this with linesiders who isn't 100% the dial is legit, hence this thread.

The price being asked is much less than 12k.

[MrChamfers]

Originally Posted by fizz

Thanks guys. The dial is the real question here....for the record I first discussed this with linesiders who isn't 100% the dial is legit, hence this thread.

The price being asked is much less than 12k.

You've got the expert opinion then.

[Lesnerelli23]

That dial looks EXACTLY like the one I’ve been looking at. The way it kind refracts the light. I thought it was the “texture” that happens on the older dials but now seeing it on this one, I’m wondering if it’s an attempt to replicate that…. I’m leaning toward non-tudor dial.

[Lesnerelli23]

That dial looks EXACTLY like the one I’ve been looking at. The way it kind refracts the light. I thought it was the “texture” that happens on the older dials but now seeing it on this one, I’m wondering if it’s an attempt to replicate that…. I’m leaning toward non-tudor dial.

[linesiders]

I don't like the smudge font, the width of the lower fonts, and the = . Lume is very suspect too.

For me it is a pass, even if it was legit it would get questioned a lot. Pending better photos that change my mind, I don't trust the dial.

[Mark020]

IMHO this does not pass the smell test

[harry in montreal]

I too would not buy it. I kind of gravitate towards dials with a bit of age. The one listed is quite pristine. The case looks super sharp cut. Minimal case scratches. From my experience these watches should always have wear unless they are refinished heavily

[tekno]

The font and tic marks are the right length/shape but it’s blurry looking… The surface of the lume looks off to me - I see some dials with the little fish eyes on a marker or two but every marker has fish eye looking spots, the texture of the paint, there are inconsistencies in the painted surface, the lack of a wear ring around the dial from sitting in the case for 40 years.

The biggest thing that looks off to me is the date window, the dial in questions date window looks glossed over and there seems to be less sharp in the corners - this is something I noticed on a lot of professional refinished dials I have studied. You know how sharp lines disappear when you use a cheap spray paint on something (most modern paints have ingredients that are intended to fill in pits/sanding lines/blemishes) the original paint on matte Rolex dials always looks very uniform to me and follows the sharp edges of the dial. There is never a curved look in the corners of the date window.

Something looks off. Maybe it has some kind of a clear coat sprayed on it. Or maybe I’m completely wrong, it just doesn’t look right to me.

Here is a dial I have been looking at recently. I know it’s black but compare the two as they are from the same time period. Look at the date window on both, the look of the lume etc.

The edges of legit lume seems to usually bleed over on to the dial around the edges leaving a inconsistent white border and it has that real look. Every edge of the lume on the dial in question is very uniform.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[alwayshere]

IMO, this looks like a genuine dial to me but I suspect its had some work done on it (over coat of some nature across the dial or its been baked? hence the darker lume)

The "rounded" date wheel has been seen on service dials of the 9411 blue variation. Here's one sold by a dealer before.

https://oysterpalace.com/sport-watch...wflake-op-1372

The printing of the one by the dealer looks good vs. the one in question other than the texture of the dial (gloss vs. matte versions) and the darken lume plots. So I suspect either the dial has been artificially aged or its had some coating on top to create a "matte" look?

Its a strange watch though as the crown also looks like a 700? (its definitely not a 702 or a 703 given shape the design of the tube) As you know, the 700 crown was way earlier. Feels like the watch could be cobbled together.

[alwayshere]

--

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

IMO, this looks like a genuine dial to me but I suspect its had some work done on it (over coat of some nature across the dial or its been baked? hence the darker lume)

The "rounded" date wheel has been seen on service dials of the 9411 blue variation. Here's one sold by a dealer before.

https://oysterpalace.com/sport-watch...wflake-op-1372

The printing of the one by the dealer looks good vs. the one in question other than the texture of the dial (gloss vs. matte versions) and the darken lume plots. So I suspect either the dial has been artificially aged or its had some coating on top to create a "matte" look?

Its a strange watch though as the crown also looks like a 700? (its definitely not a 702 or a 703 given shape the design of the tube) As you know, the 700 crown was way earlier. Feels like the watch could be cobbled together.

I would plump for a service dial too, that's had some 'fettling' or 'molestation'.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

IMO, this looks like a genuine dial to me but I suspect its had some work done on it (over coat of some nature across the dial or its been baked? hence the darker lume)

The "rounded" date wheel has been seen on service dials of the 9411 blue variation. Here's one sold by a dealer before.

https://oysterpalace.com/sport-watch...wflake-op-1372

The printing of the one by the dealer looks good vs. the one in question other than the texture of the dial (gloss vs. matte versions) and the darken lume plots. So I suspect either the dial has been artificially aged or its had some coating on top to create a "matte" look?

Its a strange watch though as the crown also looks like a 700? (its definitely not a 702 or a 703 given shape the design of the tube) As you know, the 700 crown was way earlier. Feels like the watch could be cobbled together.

Tube looks like a 702 that has not been fully seated. Crown looks like a 702 (wider than 703) and you can see the 3 dots in one photo.

The biggest thing for me is the fonts looking more smudged than normal. I've called this dial font variation the Smudge Font for a decade because it looks smudged, softer, less precisely defined than other font variations (smudge font is borrowed from similar 5513 dials). The very smudged (way more than normal) TUDOR O-P sloppiness could be from an improperly stored dial with a reaction with other materials. It does look like some dials that have a chemical reaction with foam protection.

Originally Posted by pauldavidthorpe

I would plump for a service dial too, that's had some 'fettling' or 'molestation'.

Or storage damage.

[TuRo]

[QUOTE=linesiders;12300946


Or storage damage.[/QUOTE]

Indeed - this smudginess seems more apparent in the dial type with the SUBMARINER in very square writing, rather than the other more typical style, I've noticed too.

[tekno]

I guess it’s a service dial compared to the dial you linked to.

Is the lume on a service dial usually this creamy? Atleast it’s real.

Do people really bake the dials to darken lume? That seems like a high dollar gamble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by tekno

I guess it’s a service dial compared to the dial you linked to.

Is the lume on a service dial usually this creamy? Atleast it’s real.

Do people really bake the dials to darken lume? That seems like a high dollar gamble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't know if it is real, on later dials you often get a different texture, not enough depth in the photo to tell if it is relume over standard lume. The air bubbles due not look factory to me.

Everything is held back by marginal photos. One reason I am not 100% is the photos are not great.

[fizz]

Great discussions.

Still not sure if the dial is wrong or the images sub par? I have asked for better images multiple times before posting these.

Perhaps a couple of videos might help?

The sparkle on the dial seems real and legit...

Video 1:
https://www.veed.io/view/32cfbc90-66...ingWidget=true

Video 2:
https://www.veed.io/view/512e215f-ea...ingWidget=true

(VDO links will only last 24 hours from this post....)

[fizz]

Great discussions.

Still not sure if the dial is wrong or the images sub par? I have asked for better images multiple times before posting these.

Perhaps a couple of videos might help?

The sparkle on the dial seems real and legit...

Video 1:
https://www.veed.io/view/32cfbc90-66...ingWidget=true

Video 2:
https://www.veed.io/view/512e215f-ea...ingWidget=true

(VDO links will only last 24 hours from this post....)

[linesiders]

Without substantially better photos with crisp detail and focus, I would pass.

Videos rarely help as they tend to mask more than clarify.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Tube looks like a 702 that has not been fully seated. Crown looks like a 702 (wider than 703) and you can see the 3 dots in one photo.

The biggest thing for me is the fonts looking more smudged than normal. I've called this dial font variation the Smudge Font for a decade because it looks smudged, softer, less precisely defined than other font variations (smudge font is borrowed from similar 5513 dials). The very smudged (way more than normal) TUDOR O-P sloppiness could be from an improperly stored dial with a reaction with other materials. It does look like some dials that have a chemical reaction with foam protection.


Or storage damage.

You're right - it is a 702 tube but its all the way out! thanks

[fizz]

It's settled then. I won't pursue this (or the seller's watch) any longer.

As always, invaluable learnings.

[fizz]

Sorry to seem like I am flogging a dead horse, but the plot on this one thickens (welcome to the mysteries and nuances of vintage watch hunting).

Over the weekend, as we were debating this topic here, the owner managed to sell the watch to lunaroyster (it's listed on their site now).

I spoke to Kirill and he is sure (or convinced) the dial on this is all original.

For comparison, Hodinkee also sold a Type B Snowflake Sub with practically the same dial (except in black):

https://shop.hodinkee.com/products/2...5#&gid=1&pid=1

So does the pedigree of the new seller (with applied mark-up) now make this an acceptable specimen (I admit, I am smitten by how it looks overall).

[linesiders]

It may be legit dial - as stated many times the photos made it difficult to confirm. Also mentioned, the photos show the dial to be damaged or have surface issues, particularly with the main TUDOR OP fonts. It looks to me that the dial was placed on a surface (or reacted with a fluid )that had a chemical reaction with the dial and paint to smudge fonts way more than a normal dial. In several different photos you can see several different issues (sloppy fonts, different texture / line running thru middle of dial.