But a remarkably good job, as far as the redials we see go. I even dug out a real 1553 for comparison to see where they'd slipped up. Let's play dissect the watch, as I noticed something about 1553s whilst I was doing that myself.

Let's start with the obvious:

- Hands. As stated before, these aren't original. In fact, not a single one of the five is correct. And lord knows where that blobby perpetual seconds hand is from.

- Tachy ring. On a 1553, these should be the later type with "Tachy" at 1 o'clock and should always contrast with the dial (so silver with blue and vice versa).

- Dial colour. This should be a deep blue, which may appear brighter in certain light or may have turned violet with exposure to light. This dial looks black in the photographs.

- Register. Looks the right colour, but the "extension" where it says "Carrera" seems to have a serrated edge on the photos, whereas this should be a sharp straight line.

- Heuer shield. Done well, but a peculiarity of the 1553 is just how much of the shield the Heuer wording fills up - the margin around the wording is very fine, whereas this watch looks more like the Heuer shield does on an 1153, for example.

- Lume. No lume dot at 3. Classic redialler slip-up, they've seen that the markers need reluming but presumably without an original 1553 for reference haven't realised that there should be a lume dot at 3 o'clock as well.

- Date window. Now here's the one where I found something out. My 1553s have sharp-edged date windows, so I was prepared to flag this one, with its rounded corners, as incorrect too but a picture search showed up some more 1553s, particularly Ss, with rounded windows. So touch and go on this one.

Anyone for anything else?! All in all, a put together it would appear, but at least it reminded me of how much I like the 1553 and made the decision on today's watch for me :)