Funny Explorer 1016 Gilt Dial

[thomaspp]

This dial does not look good at all.... Anyone disagree?

[fmc000]

The only thing I know for sure is that Ciani is a very respected dealer in the world of vintage watches.

[thomaspp]

Originally Posted by fmc000

The only thing I know for sure is that Ciani is a very respected dealer in the world of vintage watches.

Thank you. Agree Ciani is a good guy and well respected. But wanted thoughts/discussion on that gilt dial.

[onthedial]

@ thomaspp
Re: "This dial does not look good at all...."
In and of itself, or in relation to others factors not mentioned?
__________
Instagram: @onthedial

[mdw3]

Excuse me, but what about it bothered you?

Michael

[Toronto Soup King]

Looks pretty gnarly to me. Sure buy it if you like that sort of thing but to me it just looks like it's been flaking off for forty years and this is the result (and what's to say the markers won't COMPLETELY flake off in a year?) The 1016 dial looks best when new IMO, such a clean design

[thomaspp]

Originally Posted by onthedial

@ thomaspp
Re: "This dial does not look good at all...."
In and of itself, or in relation to others factors not mentioned?
__________
Instagram: @onthedial

Originally Posted by mdw3

Excuse me, but what about it bothered you?

Michael

Originally Posted by Toronto Soup King

Looks pretty gnarly to me. Sure buy it if you like that sort of thing but to me it just looks like it's been flaking off for forty years and this is the result (and what's to say the markers won't COMPLETELY flake off in a year?) The 1016 dial looks best when new IMO, such a clean design

Thanks for your responses. Perhaps you can educate me on this, but why is the dial smudged with "bleeding" across the markers, etc.? Does the dial look at all touched up / refinished to you? There is no description of the condition of the watch on the website so I am just curious. thanks.

[waspy1]

The dial is correct for very early 60s explorer 1. Can you post pics of the serial, and inside caseback?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shawnmarz]

I work for the dealer selling this watch. I'm at a trade show tomorrow and this weekend but I will be glad to take more photos and discuss the watch here. I'm keen on learning what could be wrong with it.

[shawnmarz]

Looks honest to me

[Sky21]

Thanks for following up and posting these extra photos. I'm not super familiar with these old 1016 so I'll let someone else speak to authenticity, but it looks pretty nice to me.

[roh123]

I guess it's mostly radium burn around the indexes. At least my guess from just lookig at the pics.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Sky21

Thanks for following up and posting these extra photos. I'm not super familiar with these old 1016 so I'll let someone else speak to authenticity, but it looks pretty nice to me.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what looks pretty nice about it. The plots (particularly the numerals) look terrible. The gilt doesn't look like gilt at all, but rather repainted with white lettering that seems to be on top of the finish (not the way gilt dials are reliefed) and overall it just looks incredibly messy/refinished.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what looks pretty nice about it. The plots (particularly the numerals) look terrible. The gilt doesn't look like gilt at all, but rather repainted with white lettering that seems to be on top of the finish (not the way gilt dials are reliefed) and overall it just looks incredibly messy/refinished.

As I stated above, I am not comfortable authenticating one of these so I did not attempt to do that. I merely said it looks nice because it is a 57 year old tool watch that cost under $100 when it was first sold. I believe that this is what these watches would truly look like today if they were all original. People have gotten too used to refinished dials, cases, hands that look perfect because they want to believe that they found the one example that was somehow locked in a safe for 50 years and never used. Just silly to think that happened, that is a newer phenomenon in the strange world of buying things just to have them and never actually use them.

[shawnmarz]

Heres a shot outside and one next to a window taken with iPhone.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Sky21

As I stated above, I am not comfortable authenticating one of these so I did not attempt to do that. I merely said it looks nice because it is a 57 year old tool watch that cost under $100 when it was first sold. I believe that this is what these watches would truly look like today if they were all original. People have gotten too used to refinished dials, cases, hands that look perfect because they want to believe that they found the one example that was somehow locked in a safe for 50 years and never used. Just silly to think that happened, that is a newer phenomenon in the strange world of buying things just to have them and never actually use them.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and I apologize. What I was trying to suggest is that this looks like a touched-up/unoriginal dial. Not one that simply aged honestly. It looks off. And, as I said earlier, messy. My 51 year-old gilt dial Sub dial looks nothing like this one. And I promise it hasn't been locked in any safes for fifty years!

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and I apologize. What I was trying to suggest is that this looks like a touched-up/unoriginal dial. Not one that simply aged honestly. It looks off. And, as I said earlier, messy. My 51 year-old gilt dial Sub dial looks nothing like this one. And I promise it hasn't been locked in any safes for fifty years!

No worries, and no need to apologize. I could be way off base and this is a total redial. I just appreciate when these watches show up used as they were intended, not unrealistically still in perfect condition. If you own a gilt Sub then I'm sure you are much more qualified than I am to judge this watch. Cheers.

[roh123]

What is somewhat odd is that this is a SCOC-dial. I would expect to see an OCC dial in a 1960 6610. I can't swear if there ever was a SCOC 6610 but it is worth to check. Perhaps a super early replacement dial? Or a modified 1016 dial as the feet are different or just as someone said; refinished.

I am sure Alex will be able to see if it is factory or touched up.

[shawnmarz]

So no expert opinions? Alex says it's not been finished. That's why we still have it...

[springer]

Let's see some others with the same look - same coronet, same text etc. did you find any. If so, post up some photos here.

[dpa94114]

It might be original and authentic with the best lineage, but you need to go with whether you like it or not.

sorry - not for me.

[waspy1]

What serial is this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mdw3]

Originally Posted by roh123

What is somewhat odd is that this is a SCOC-dial. I would expect to see an OCC dial in a 1960 6610. I can't swear if there ever was a SCOC 6610 but it is worth to check. Perhaps a super early replacement dial? Or a modified 1016 dial as the feet are different or just as someone said; refinished.

I am sure Alex will be able to see if it is factory or touched up.

Who said anything about 6610? This is the earliest version of the 1016, and the case back marking confirms this. This is most assuredly NOT a replacement dial, not refinished, and not otherwise modified. It's not perfect, but it also is not bad, considering what passes as a nice gilt dial for many these days.

Michael

[roh123]

Originally Posted by mdw3

Who said anything about 6610? This is the earliest version of the 1016, and the case back marking confirms this. This is most assuredly NOT a replacement dial, not refinished, and not otherwise modified. It's not perfect, but it also is not bad, considering what passes as a nice gilt dial for many these days.

Michael

Great. My bad thinking it was a 6610. Not sure why I was so certain it was. :)

I agree and as I said earlier it looks like pretty normal radium burn. We have seen plenty of worse.