Hi, I have a couple questions I need some help with. The next watch I'm looking to find is a 992B with around a C10XXX production date. I would like to find one with the #537 B.M.N. RWS,DS,P, dial, (which I think should be correct for this date?). The question I have is which of the Hamilton Cases would be correct for this production date?

Second question,the picture below is a pic of a #537 B.M.N. RWS dial, I know for sure because I seen the back (3 piece) but from the front I can't positively identify a #537 Dial. Does this dial have a copy that could fool the beginner like myself (without seeing the back) and if so are there any pictures posted on IHC185 showing the difference in the two,(I know the 5 and the 7 are clipped on the #379 Melamine dials and the 5 and 7 are whole numbers on the #537 porcelian dials.

The link below shows the difference between a Larosa copy and an original Melamine dial, does the #537 RWS dial have an IMPOSTER that I should be aware of?


https://ihc185.infopop.cc/eve/f...073918467#5073918467

Let me reword my question: The Melamine #379 RWS dial has the #5 and the #7 partly clipped off and the LaRose replacement dial also has the #5 and #7 clipped off. The new collector (not knowing about the LaRose dial or how to indenify it) could buy a watch with this LaRosa replacement dial thinking it is a orginial 379 Melamine RWS dial.

My question : Below is a picture from a post by President Riddle, having the #537 dial.
Does the #537 Blind Man Numerical RWS Porcelain Dial (like in the picture below) have a LaRose replacement dial that has the full number 5 and 7 that looks like this original?

I don't want to buy a watch thinking I have a 537 dial only to find out I have a replacement dial.

Thanks, Donnie T.

Donnis-

If this is the dial below you're asking about, there should be a few indicators.

1.) The 0 on the 10 goes onto the center area, where on an original it would be cut off due to the double sunk.

2.) The tails on the 3 & 9 are thick on the original and thin on this replacement.

3.) The minute markers on the original are thicker versus the replacement.

I'm unsure if these are common indicators for other replacements, but it would be for this one. You will also note that the replacement has a poor double sunk effect versus the original.

Jared

Jared, I think the picture with your post is a replacement dial for the orginial #379 Melamine Dial (clipped 5 and 7). Does the Original #537 have a replacement dial with the full 5 and 7, like the original?

Thanks so much, Donnie T.

I've never seen a counterfeit Dial 537, but the fake dial artists are always coming up with new stuff, so I expect they will be around. The only way I know to be certain is to look at the back of the dial. On premium dials where counterfeiting is a problem, such as Ferguson dials, better sellers now routinely show a picture of the back of the dial in their auctions.

I did some research and came up with a photo of a fake Dial 537, similar to what Jared posted. I agree with Donnie, it looks more like a 379 than a 537.

I made a side-by-side comparison photo of this fake with a genuine 537 on the left and a genuine 379 on the right.

Ed, The center pic looks alot like the reproduction (of the #379) that Jared posted .

I have been watching a couple of watches with the #537 dials but I wasn't for sure about reproductions for that paticular dial. I haven't been able to find any info on counterfeit 537 dials probably for the simple reason they aren't any.

Thanks so much, Donnie