What can we really extract from this so called memo?
In memo, SINGER did not comment specifically on the print style..And how can Singer not unlike Rolex writting on their service write up under the dial description that the PN dial was an exotic dial form that corresponding era. As we all know, a lot of fake and redone PN dials got past Rolex service..
It is hard for me to believe that SINGER is a vintage dial print authorizing firm as no more as Rolex was. Singer can prove the dial plate was real, but can they unequivocally show evidence that the print is original to the dial plate? That memo is short and sweet for a reason. If Singer was a vintage dial print authorizing firm, we would have a hell of a long explanation with tons of hand painted renderings and printing plates and other hard to disprove facts..But 35 years ago..why would Singer as with many other watch supplier firms get into the vintage parts game as authenticators?
I bet all the PN related tools and support equipment for dial printing form the 1960's and 1970's is long gone in the dumpster of old.
"We confirm you that this dial is original, made in Singer atelier in the Sixties. "
Ok so the dial or in this case dial plate is original. But what other evidence has been written about the dial print?
Same case as with Rolex, Singer is a part's verification firm firm at best...Not a vintage dial print authenticator.
Arthur
In memo, SINGER did not comment specifically on the print style..And how can Singer not unlike Rolex writting on their service write up under the dial description that the PN dial was an exotic dial form that corresponding era. As we all know, a lot of fake and redone PN dials got past Rolex service..
It is hard for me to believe that SINGER is a vintage dial print authorizing firm as no more as Rolex was. Singer can prove the dial plate was real, but can they unequivocally show evidence that the print is original to the dial plate? That memo is short and sweet for a reason. If Singer was a vintage dial print authorizing firm, we would have a hell of a long explanation with tons of hand painted renderings and printing plates and other hard to disprove facts..But 35 years ago..why would Singer as with many other watch supplier firms get into the vintage parts game as authenticators?
I bet all the PN related tools and support equipment for dial printing form the 1960's and 1970's is long gone in the dumpster of old.
"We confirm you that this dial is original, made in Singer atelier in the Sixties. "
Ok so the dial or in this case dial plate is original. But what other evidence has been written about the dial print?
Same case as with Rolex, Singer is a part's verification firm firm at best...Not a vintage dial print authenticator.
Arthur
