Have you see the back of a dial like this?

[dapellegrini]

Any idea what my a dial back would look like this?  Burnt color sides and does it have like a white lacquer painted on the back?  The front of the dial looks perfect...

(no these are not my hands!)

[dapellegrini]

The bezel is also aged - perhaps matching those stains on the back of the dial?




Oddly the front of the dial looks pristine...

[HiBeat]

So you are thinking from the dial side it is fully 100% legitimate ?   

Only question is why the underside brown halo ring ?

[inboost]

That and why isn't the guy in the photo wearing finger cots when touching it !!!

[Fergus]

I suspect he plays classical guitar.

Moisture ingress. I have a similar issue under my 6117 dial.

[trilo]

Aug 21, 2022 18:01:10 GMT -8 HiBeat said:

So you are thinking from the dial side it is fully 100% legitimate ?   

Only question is why the underside brown halo ring ?

Maybe mildly acidic moisture misting on the inside and then creeping down on the inner surface of the crystal to the sides past dial and then gathering under the dial making the dial material to react, while the watch has been laying on its back?

[HiBeat]

Aug 22, 2022 9:17:31 GMT -8 trilo said:

Aug 21, 2022 18:01:10 GMT -8 HiBeat said:

So you are thinking from the dial side it is fully 100% legitimate ?   

Only question is why the underside brown halo ring ?

Maybe mildly acidic moisture misting on the inside and then creeping down on the inner surface of the crystal to the sides past dial and then gathering under the dial making the dial material to react, while the watch has been laying on its back?

You are deducing / surmising / guessing ?

I am curious if OP Dan thinks the pattern on the back side suggests it is not OEM, or if he is thinking it is the real deal and wondering what would cause the pattern as shown ?

[dapellegrini]

The whole watch looks correct to me. 

What I find odd is the wear on the bezel that seemingly doesn't match the rest of the setup, and the back of the dial just looks odd to me.  This is on behalf of someone else (asking me for advice).  The watch is out of "Asia". 

My first thought was a parts mix - bezel from a different watch, but with the back of the dial, maybe not.  trilo has a good guess - perhaps the humidity was seeping in from the crystal side ... perhaps the damage on the back of the dial helps match the dial to the bezel oddly?

[trilo]

Aug 22, 2022 9:19:17 GMT -8 HiBeat said:

Aug 22, 2022 9:17:31 GMT -8 trilo said:

Maybe mildly acidic moisture misting on the inside and then creeping down on the inner surface of the crystal to the sides past dial and then gathering under the dial making the dial material to react, while the watch has been laying on its back?

You are deducing / surmising / guessing ?

I am curious if OP Dan thinks the pattern on the back side suggests it is not OEM, or if he is thinking it is the real deal and wondering what would cause the pattern as shown ?

Just deducing, surmising and guessing. But I do think that it has been moisture that has caused it, because both sides have staining on the edges.

[dapellegrini]

BTW, that case back is in amazing shape.  Like this watch just sat since new somewhere and slowly rotted.

I guess in this instance that stain on the back of the dial suggests that the bezel matches the dial as a set...  Curious that there is no date stamp.  Perhaps that "whitish" look on the back of the dial is just a strange photo artifact.  Normally these are silvery on the back...

[trilo]

I have seen similar stainging few times. I think it is the oxidation of the finishing that they have used.

I remember seeing it in on dial backs aswel and older pocket watch main plates.

EDIT: I don't know how I missed the other photos of the watch (case back and movement shots)! After looking at them I'm with dapellegrini that the moisture was around the crystal and seeped in, not necessarily misting on the inside, because then I think we'd see some rusting elsewhere.

[inboost]

So from the Chapter 3 "Casing (Seiko water resistant case)" book this looks to be a 'Snap-2' case design. I blew this up a bit and added color to help figure the water path:

The leak path looks to me like it would have to work it's way past the bezel and then the crystal, next rotating dial ring, and finally to the dial. What seems odd to me is that there is so much staining on the underside of the dial but not the top surface of the dial. There looks to be an equal opportunity for a leak that seems to have traveled over the top of the dial ring (hence the visible staining) to have corrupted the top of the dial as it did the underside.

A real head scratcher for sure!

I hate to ask dapellegrini - but have you seen fake case backs for these yet? I looks a little too good for something that has dial issues. The inside markings look pretty age appropriate but the back etching just seems too sterile for such an old watch. Is it possible it's the right case back but has had it's symbols upgraded after the older and more generic ones were sanded off?

[Rod]

This is a NOS 6217-7000 dial and the discolouration is seen on this one as well, maybe the black is just part of the manufacturing process?


 

[dapellegrini]

Interesting...  Do you remember what month that dial is from - from the case back?

Here's one of my August (1964 obviously):




EDIT: Here's the dial side of this example (one of mine):

[saldog]

Aug 22, 2022 12:17:26 GMT -8 inboost said:

So from the Chapter 3 "Casing (Seiko water resistant case)" book this looks to be a 'Snap-2' case design. I blew this up a bit and added color to help figure the water path:

The leak path looks to me like it would have to work it's way past the bezel and then the crystal, next rotating dial ring, and finally to the dial. What seems odd to me is that there is so much staining on the underside of the dial but not the top surface of the dial. There looks to be an equal opportunity for a leak that seems to have traveled over the top of the dial ring (hence the visible staining) to have corrupted the top of the dial as it did the underside.

A real head scratcher for sure!

I hate to ask dapellegrini - but have you seen fake case backs for these yet? I looks a little too good for something that has dial issues. The inside markings look pretty age appropriate but the back etching just seems too sterile for such an old watch. Is it possible it's the right case back but has had it's symbols upgraded after the older and more generic ones were sanded off?

Is the dial made of brass? I would suggest galvanic corrosion due to dissimilar metals between the brass dial and the ferrous alloy (lower grade of stainless?) dial ring. Moisture on its own wouldn't be a problem really because brass doesn't rust, but it will oxidize, and a little moisture would provide an electrolyte for some exchange to take place between anode and cathode.

The brass dial looks like it is treated with some corrosion inhibitor. It's strange how some dials look really burnt from the soldering process and some look great, like this one. But with electrical contact between the dissimilar metals and a little moisture, we will get corrosion of the less noble metal, in this case the brass.

Later on, dial rings were made out of plastic I think not just to save money, but to act as dielectric insulators.

[trilo]

Aug 22, 2022 12:17:26 GMT -8 inboost said:

So from the Chapter 3 "Casing (Seiko water resistant case)" book this looks to be a 'Snap-2' case design. I blew this up a bit and added color to help figure the water path:

The leak path looks to me like it would have to work it's way past the bezel and then the crystal, next rotating dial ring, and finally to the dial. What seems odd to me is that there is so much staining on the underside of the dial but not the top surface of the dial. There looks to be an equal opportunity for a leak that seems to have traveled over the top of the dial ring (hence the visible staining) to have corrupted the top of the dial as it did the underside.

A real head scratcher for sure!

I hate to ask dapellegrini - but have you seen fake case backs for these yet? I looks a little too good for something that has dial issues. The inside markings look pretty age appropriate but the back etching just seems too sterile for such an old watch. Is it possible it's the right case back but has had it's symbols upgraded after the older and more generic ones were sanded off?

Seems to me that my earlier statement is wrong. No way water could creep in and then climb all those obstacles without misting. 

How about the dial being like that from the start, but the stains on the bezel are from handling it with bare hands (staining is only on the edges and is not uniform) and the sweat and oil from skin has reacted over time with the bezel material?

And like before, continuing guessing here.

[inboost]

I have to say I like saldog's hypothesis! From what I can tell the dial rests upon the top calendar side of the main plate with no dial spacer in between so definitely a contact point between the nickle plated main plate and the back of the dial there.

[saldog]

Aug 23, 2022 6:09:21 GMT -8 inboost said:

I have to say I like saldog 's hypothesis! From what I can tell the dial rests upon the top calendar side of the main plate with no dial spacer in between so definitely a contact point between the nickle plated main plate and the back of the dial there.

I was thinking it was a ferrous alloy dial ring but I see now that the dial rests on the mainplate (I haven't had a 6217 WT apart before, but I have had a couple 6117s apart and they are the same). I don't think dissimilar metals will be an issue because there is not a huge galvanic difference between nickel and brass, hence the reason why brass is frequently nickel plated. Edit: Unless the stainless case ring is close enough to the edge anyway.

I'm switching my hypothesis to trilo 's. It could just be good ol' fashioned sweat as the culprit.

[trilo]

Aug 23, 2022 7:35:37 GMT -8 saldog said:

Aug 23, 2022 6:09:21 GMT -8 inboost said:

I have to say I like saldog 's hypothesis! From what I can tell the dial rests upon the top calendar side of the main plate with no dial spacer in between so definitely a contact point between the nickle plated main plate and the back of the dial there.

I was thinking it was a ferrous alloy dial ring but I see now that the dial rests on the mainplate (I haven't had a 6217 WT apart before, but I have had a couple 6117s apart and they are the same). I don't think dissimilar metals will be an issue because there is not a huge galvanic difference between nickel and brass, hence the reason why brass is frequently nickel plated. Edit: Unless the stainless case ring is close enough to the edge anyway.

I'm switching my hypothesis to trilo 's. It could just be good ol' fashioned sweat as the culprit.

I think the underside of the dial has definetely tarnished through some sort of reaction, no sweaty/greasy hands there (tarnish was actually the word I have been looking for the whole time ). What I mean is the bezel with the cities on it. The gray stains on the edge look like finger prints to me (finger marks above Los Angeles?).

[dapellegrini]

You guys are awesome.  inboost - no I have not (yet) seen a faked case back for these.  I have seen a few in this state - really beautiful.