15 months ago, we discussed the one shown below, which I spotted in the service department at TAG-Heuer, in New Jersey. I believe that we concluded that this one is probably an older refinished dial (but a refinished dial nonetheless). Nastiest part of this one is the "Heuer" logo.

Here is our discussion -- http://www.chronocentric.com/forums/heuer/index.cgi?page=1;md=read;id=33522

Good to see that we have been consistent in our consensus on these watches.

Jeff

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

: As Jeff shows there is no doubt, no room for debate, the dial
: alters in every way possible from an original.

: 1. Incorrect placement of the script, size of script, size of Heuer
: shield, lack of seriph flourishes on script etc etc (this
: remains an "easy" tell).
: 2. There was no metallic finish 73633B
: 3. The markers on the sub registers are clumsy, unlike the
: original, so to is the paint finish
: 4. The hour markers are painted, along with "waffle"
: style markers they are the sign of a redial.
: 5. The fact the hands are incorrect only adds to the parts bin
: element of the watch.
: 6. No Toolno033, although there is an example of 2 early Monacos (1
: chronomatic and 1 transitional) without Toolno033 all genuine
: 73633 should have this stamped on the rear. I'd wager the reason
: those 1969s may not have is they were pre production cases,
: these unsigned 73633 cases were perhaps just run off by Piquerez
: at a later date.
: 7. Some of these have unsigned 736 Valjoux movements int hem,
: however the fact some are Heuer signed only means the movemnet
: is genuine, not the watch.

: I'm sure there are more pointers, but i hope we can lay to rest any
: possibility of this being in any way related to the original
: 73633B from Heuer.

: Cheers

: Rich
: www.heuermonaco.co.uk

: :

: :

: :

: :

: :

: :

: :