Dial for Seiko 6105-8110

[arkobugg]

Hello Mates,

Remember me asking about reluming or not on this Seiko 6105?  ... I have now open it up, and took this photoes:

Remember also that I thought maybe the dial was not original?   It looks original to me, but what you guys think?

The strange thing is that there is no sign of markings between the seven and six  " Japan 6105"  and six and five  "-8009T".

Somebody knows that Seiko at some time did not put in this maskings?   Can it be total gone by the years whent by?

Thanks and best

 

 

 

 

Relum Seiko 6105-8110

[clockboy]

The dial is almost certainly a copy. See the link below that explains the differences between genuine & copied seiko,s

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/How-to-Distinguish-an-Authentic-Seiko-Watch-From-a-Fake-/10000000177540240/g.html

[ramrod]

it appears to be a 6105 dial, true. and it has the proper grunge around the indices that you might see on a watch of this age. but the lume looks remarkably white for it's age. and it doesn't match the lume on the hands. the "pearl" on the bezel looks to be rather sloppy rather than a nice smooth orb.

plus, as mentioned, there's no print on the bottom of the dial.

if i looked at only the back of the dial, i'd say that it looks original - based on the patina and grunge.

my guess is that this is a fake.

what is the date code on the back? just curious.

Edited June 8, 2016 by ramrod

[oldhippy]

I would say that dial is a replacement as already pointed out the lume on the hands doesn't match the lume on the dial. No dial code or cal number as pointed out in clockboys link, most certainly not the original. 

[arkobugg]

1 hour ago, ramrod said:

it appears to be a 6105 dial, true. and it has the proper grunge around the indices that you might see on a watch of this age. but the lume looks remarkably white for it's age. and it doesn't match the lume on the hands. the "pearl" on the bezel looks to be rather sloppy rather than a nice smooth orb.

plus, as mentioned, there's no print on the bottom of the dial.

if i looked at only the back of the dial, i'd say that it looks original - based on the patina and grunge.

my guess is that this is a fake.

what is the date code on the back? just curious.

Thanks for all information from you all.... the hand writing says  "1314 with Seiko under" 

 

[rogart63]

On the back it looks like that original? Usually the fakes haven't got the pressed indicies. The fakes i have seen had plastic chrome rings around the lume. Maybe it's a redial? Somebody has repainted an original dial? 

[Dccrzr]

1 hour ago, rogart63 said:

On the back it looks like that original? Usually the fakes haven't got the pressed indicies. The fakes i have seen had plastic chrome rings around the lume. Maybe it's a redial? Somebody has repainted an original dial? 

I agree, A redial...There are a few folks on auction sites that are trying very hard to deceive the Genuine Seiko enthusiast. 

[ramrod]

a redial is possible. that would explain all of the inconsistencies.

i'm sorry - i meant " what is the code on the back of the caseback - not the dial."

another thing; since it has a code and what seems to be original printing on the back of the dial, i would lean towards a redial.

[arkobugg]

18 hours ago, rogart63 said:

On the back it looks like that original? Usually the fakes haven't got the pressed indicies. The fakes i have seen had plastic chrome rings around the lume. Maybe it's a redial? Somebody has repainted an original dial? 

Hey Rogart,   Now we talking, if it a redial. I can live with that. Stranges  that they did not put on all marking that suppose to be there.... Anyway thanks for info.   Also I got the other watch from you friend, its beautiful... Thanks for telling me...

18 hours ago, rogart63 said:

On the back it looks like that original? Usually the fakes haven't got the pressed indicies. The fakes i have seen had plastic chrome rings around the lume. Maybe it's a redial? Somebody has repainted an original dial? 

 

 

On 8.6.2016 at 8:38 AM, clockboy said:

The dial is almost certainly a copy. See the link below that explains the differences between genuine & copied seiko,s

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/How-to-Distinguish-an-Authentic-Seiko-Watch-From-a-Fake-/10000000177540240/g.html

Thanks for all information from you all....

[arkobugg]

17 hours ago, Dccrzr said:

I agree, A redial...There are a few folks on auction sites that are trying very hard to deceive the Genuine Seiko enthusiast. 

Pretty good re paint I think, have another watch, and they are very similar...Thanks for all information from you all....

[arkobugg]

41 minutes ago, ramrod said:

a redial is possible. that would explain all of the inconsistencies.

i'm sorry - i meant " what is the code on the back of the caseback - not the dial."

another thing; since it has a code and what seems to be original printing on the back of the dial, i would lean towards a redial.

No problem, I make  a note when I home from work..

[arkobugg]

On 8.6.2016 at 11:25 AM, ramrod said:

it appears to be a 6105 dial, true. and it has the proper grunge around the indices that you might see on a watch of this age. but the lume looks remarkably white for it's age. and it doesn't match the lume on the hands. the "pearl" on the bezel looks to be rather sloppy rather than a nice smooth orb.

plus, as mentioned, there's no print on the bottom of the dial.

if i looked at only the back of the dial, i'd say that it looks original - based on the patina and grunge.

my guess is that this is a fake.

what is the date code on the back? just curious.

Hey Ramrod, her is a photo of the back. There it says  140744, and that should be April of 1971 according to: http://www.watchsleuth.com/seikodatefinder/?mvmt=6105&case=8110&serial=140744

 

[ramrod]

yup, april '71.

what are you going to do? is it a keeper?

[arkobugg]

On 11.6.2016 at 3:46 PM, ramrod said:

yup, april '71.

what are you going to do? is it a keeper?

Yep, Think so...I see what I find in the future. Anyway, cant get to many 6105-8110... he he ..