A rose is a rose is a rose.

In looking at the various of images of dial blueprints that I have, I see the finish described with these terms:

enamel,
white enamel,
white melamine enamel,
melamine enamel.

But never the term porcelain. So what exactly is a dial that is porcelain, or porcelain enamel, or enamel?

Also, for those dials that we typically refer to as porcelain enamel, which are comprised of either two or three pieces,all soldered together, the porcelain clearly covers both sides of all three pieces. But are there also dials whose faces are porcelain enamel but have only bare metal on the backside?

For example the 082 dial is described as being made of enamel and copper, with a white enamel finish. Does the enamel cover the entire dial, front and back? Or just the face, with the copper being visible on the backside? And is the enamel made of porcelain, or is it enamel paint?

Thanks,

Tref

many of these terms are used and mean 'the same thing'....

to put it simply...

on the hamilton dials, if the back has glaze...and has solder joints, then it is porcelain, viterous enamel, etc....

if the back is black and appears to be metal with no glaze and no solder links, then it is melamine... the 'plastic' covering that was printed and is a known hamilton mistake...

"most" repro dials will have a 'copper' back with the evidence of painting around the edge...

that is the 'dangerous' part of these blueprints... along with some of them being revisions with no real log of what was changed... and the interpetitation in todays terms of what is on the prints.....

you gotta pick up some dials to get a feel of what is what...

can u show me the dial you are speaking of with porcelain and a metal back?

Dial described as enamel

Front view

Back

do you see 'swiss' stamped on the dial back in small letters?

it also seems to have the "copper" back like i described above......

This "style" dial seems to be from the front the 082 dial...

The 082 dial was the single sunk replacement for the 532 dial... both of which were "porcelain" to begin with...

now ... when the change to melamine occurred, (which is documented) the dial changed...... and if you find one of those, then i believe the back will be black... also note on the dial blueprint the material ... aluminium..... the color of the dial pictured does not look like aluminium..


When the S LaRose replacement dials were produced, I believe this style dial was also included... many of those have the same appearance on the back of the dial as this one..
these were a quality dial.... but a replacement dial... the dial thickness seemed to be thicker, which on some watches caused bezel rubs and hand fitting problems.....

one can still get a better handle on these by touching and feeling.....

.

Terry,
No, I don't see SWISS stamped on it. I have not had it in hand yet. I paid for it on the assumption is was a copy, though I'd be pleased to learn it was authentic, especially given the low price I paid. I have quite a few dials now so I believe I know what you're talking about when it comes to feel. I have examples of porcelain, melamine and copies, and I do notice a difference in heft, but at this stage of my learning process the weight, lack of enamel on the flip side, and the SWISS markings are all I have to go by.

As you said the blueprints make it hard because where the 082 print simply says enamel and copper, this dial would certainly seem to meet that description. But I do generally subscribe to the old axiom, if it seems to good to be true, it probably isn't, hence my willingness to only part with a fraction of what this would have cost if Hamilton produced had produced, regardless of how it was described. But we'll see!

Oh, and did you mean to say the 535 dial, for the 950B's?

Thanks!

quote:

Oh, and did you mean to say the 535 dial, for the 950B's

No, I did not mispeak... (or mistype)... 532 dial. this was from a memo dated 1941.

and the 082 with copper/enamel i believe will be a porcelain and not have metal showing on back like the dial pictured above....

at this time, I 'think' the dial pictured is a "S LaRose" (or equal) dial, not a hamilton original.

Terry,
Do you have a picture of a 532 dial? I can't seem to find one. Searching on the entire site for "532" only brings up two posts, and no pictures.

Also when was it replaced? I don't see it in the 1947 dial list.

Oh, and I'm glad I didn't pay too much for the 082 replacement dial

Thanks!

Tref,
Here is a link to an image of a 532.

Robert

https://ihc185.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1...621033181#8621033181

Thank you Robert! Very interesting topic.

So just what do I have here? This is not the dial I thought I was buying, but what I was sent. I've straightened that out with the seller, and am keeping this one. I believe it is a melamine dial. I'm basing that on the chamfer around the center hole, the heft, and the black color and texture of the back, as well as the flat "look" and texture of the dial's front surface.

It's shouldn't be a 082 because it is not porcelain.

It's shouldn't be a 532 because it's not porcelain and it is not double sunk. (Strange but the caption of the picture (the one that's Courtesy of Larry Treiman), in the link that Robert provided in the post two above this one, says it is a double-sunk 532, but the picture is not DS. ???)

Though it is apparently melamine as is the 332, I don't think it is a 332 because those are supposed to have "23 Jewels" in the Signature, right?

I only have a limited amount of material to look through for the answer (even less experience), and also turned up nothing definitive in a search on this site.

Back

in my humble opinion....

you do have a melamine 082 dial shown in blueprint 500082-2-01 which superceeds 500082-1-01...
earliest date on this print is 1951, with a 1954 date also....

but... I don't have 500082-1-01 to compare.... so i would have to "assume" the -1 is the porcelain....


still think the other one is a re-pop...

.

I may end up with the other one too. Not sure yet.

The blueprint image I have is the 50-082-1-01. Is it that which you don't have, or were you referring to the dial that it pictures? Here is the image in case you need it. Thanks for the info Terry.

that confirms it.....
see the notation of this dial same part as 6532?

this is the one of initial prints for the porcelain 082 dial... would be nice to see print # 50082-0-01 which should be the unrevised drawing if they followed conventional practice..

Yes but until you mentioned the -2-01, and the fact that it was for a melamine dial, the reference to 532 didn't seem to apply, because the 532 is porcelain as is the 082.

What does your 1951, -2-01 revision have to say? Does it have a "same as" notation?

no, it does not mention 'same as'... this nomenclature was noted in the letter about these 'replacment' dials....
Hamilton had their britches around their ankles because of cracking problems with double sunk dials...

now for the 2-01...

you have the revision number, and the melamine reference... and the same font.... they just did not carry over the notes...

you have the same thing on the other dials when the change to melamine occurred... say for instance the HG RWS, became the 121 in Melamine...



.

As is always the case Terry, you have a way with words, and are a veritable fount of information. Thank you!

.

Excellent! Thank you Terry.

To reply to the original post...

The reason that porcelain is not mentioned in the blueprints is that dials were originally made from enamel on a base of copper and not from procelain.

Porcelain and Enamel are totally different substances. Porcelain is a ceramic made from clay and Enamel is made from powdered glass.

The confusion arises because some modern collectors get the two words mixed up....

Dave "Pedantic" Thomas

David,
The second link you provided may just add to that confusion, or perhaps put an end to it?

The definition of enamel says, in part:
In a discussion of art technology, enamel (or vitreous enamel, or porcelain enamel in American English)

Thanks for clearing that up