Lemania 1340 movement info?

[ed335d]

Nothing at this time.

Dave seems to be hitting all the nails on the head, especially if the 1341, that drives this, was only produced between 1971-75.

Finally worked out how to post on Chronocentric OnTheDash.

Yup, Dave's done a pretty thorough appraisal!

My main two takes on this are:

1) I've never seen anything like this. I've spent a lot of time around Heuers and it just looks 'wrong' (although this does not mean it isn't original and I've not seen it before).

2) The case back engraving is almost definitely not original. It looks like it's been added (and not too well), usually a sign that someone has tried to make it look like something it's not.

Hopefully CT will provide some useful feedback (although traffic is pretty light around there these days)

[Ozyjohn]

The dial is a bit of a mystery.
The outer blue track with the 0-60 scale is not one I recall seeing.
And the 6s and 9s are pretty unique, being open. And the 2s are quite top heavy.
The only bit that is suspicious (i.e must, by definition, be dodgy, if you follow my logic above) is the Heuer name, the rest "could" be original.
The outer blue track certainly looks it, with good print, even outlines, and even some flakiness you might associate with age.
However, I have to say from the photos that are here, it is possible that all the white print has been re-done. It is pretty well done, if it is, and I am not sure the definition on the photos is good enough to be sure, but the line thickness and the ends (serifing on fonts and the end of the subdial indices) look a little indistinct.
Cliche manufacture for dials like this has been at an immensely high quality for decades on OEM dials. Re-prints less so, often with cliches derived from pictures, not orignal artwork, and therefore missing the features that make the print so crisp.
Again, I must say that this may be a feature of the photos, not the print. The bad mistakes (like extending sub-dial indices too short or long, mixed fonts and so forth) are not present at all.
One of the photos also makes the lume look quite high build (convex) rather than flat-topped, and slightly glossy. Both might be signs of re-luming, but again, definition is not complete enough.
Does the lume charge up when illuminated with a torch and glow, even for a short time?

Dave

"Does the lume charge up when illuminated with a torch and glow, even for a short time?"

The tritium barely charges, Dave, but I can see that there is enough phosphorous to keep them (though really dim) observable for about 15-20 seconds at best in full darkness. The hands have definitely been relumed as they charge quite observably and for an extended time.

The hour plots do have a very slight, but uniformed, convex shape to each plot and not too dissimilar to my 60s and 70s speedmasters and my earlier Heuer Flyback 1550SG dial.

It's really that dial that's muddying the water here. Perhaps some better quality pics might help. I have a pro photographer friend who might do the honours. I'll ask.

You've given me a heap to think on, Dave, can't ask for better than that the moment :-)

[Ozyjohn]

Yup, Dave's done a pretty thorough appraisal!

My main two takes on this are:

1) I've never seen anything like this. I've spent a lot of time around Heuers and it just looks 'wrong' (although this does not mean it isn't original and I've not seen it before).

2) The case back engraving is almost definitely not original. It looks like it's been added (and not too well), usually a sign that someone has tried to make it look like something it's not.

Hopefully CT will provide some useful feedback (although traffic is pretty light around there these days)

Hard not to agree with all of this. This is the best macro shot of the inside of the case back as I can get at the moment. The closer I get in the harder it is to maintain clarity and stability making the edges of the letters rougher than they actually are.

[Ozyjohn]

Yup, Dave's done a pretty thorough appraisal!

My main two takes on this are:

1) I've never seen anything like this. I've spent a lot of time around Heuers and it just looks 'wrong' (although this does not mean it isn't original and I've not seen it before).

2) The case back engraving is almost definitely not original. It looks like it's been added (and not too well), usually a sign that someone has tried to make it look like something it's not.

Hopefully CT will provide some useful feedback (although traffic is pretty light around there these days)

Timezone.com and CT are like deserts these days. Probably TZ.com is suffering from over-zealous mods happy to ban on a whim over the last decade and the CT format is very old and difficult to navigate through now :-)

[andy111s]

As an aside, here's a Lemania 1343 [the Regatta was a 1345] used only in the Tissot Navigator [as Tissot cal. 2160] iirc but in both a white and a black dial versions:

[Ozyjohn]

As an aside, here's a Lemania 1343 [the Regatta was a 1345] used only in the Tissot Navigator [as Tissot cal. 2160] iirc but in both a white and a black dial versions:

I can't clearly see the 12 sub dial, but is that a 376.0822 "Holy grail"

Both stunning examples.

Regarding the dial, those experienced watchmakers who have had the opportunity to examine it are consistent in the view that it doesn't show the traits of being tampered with outside of the known lume on the hands which were done recently by an experienced watchmaker I know.

[TomGW]

The dial is a bit of a mystery.
The outer blue track with the 0-60 scale is not one I recall seeing.
And the 6s and 9s are pretty unique, being open. And the 2s are quite top heavy.
The only bit that is suspicious (i.e must, by definition, be dodgy, if you follow my logic above) is the Heuer name, the rest "could" be original.
The outer blue track certainly looks it, with good print, even outlines, and even some flakiness you might associate with age.
However, I have to say from the photos that are here, it is possible that all the white print has been re-done. It is pretty well done, if it is, and I am not sure the definition on the photos is good enough to be sure, but the line thickness and the ends (serifing on fonts and the end of the subdial indices) look a little indistinct.
Cliche manufacture for dials like this has been at an immensely high quality for decades on OEM dials. Re-prints less so, often with cliches derived from pictures, not orignal artwork, and therefore missing the features that make the print so crisp.
Again, I must say that this may be a feature of the photos, not the print. The bad mistakes (like extending sub-dial indices too short or long, mixed fonts and so forth) are not present at all.
One of the photos also makes the lume look quite high build (convex) rather than flat-topped, and slightly glossy. Both might be signs of re-luming, but again, definition is not complete enough.
Does the lume charge up when illuminated with a torch and glow, even for a short time?

Dave

Not commenting on the OP’s watch but just to say that the printing of some genuine Heuer dials is not consistent. For example, one version of the Pasadena dials were originally a non branded dial with simply the ‘automatic’ text. These were over printed to add the Heuer logo above the day/date window and Pasadena below. On these the Heuer printing is of a different density and quality to the ‘automatic’. The same dial was also branded Tourneau, Lederer etc by Heuer and used by other brands.