this watch has been posted on my IG account half a dozen times. All the global HEUER experts were tagged and not one person commented on authenticity. My research has made me nervous in particular the lack of comparative dials and no evidence in HEUER literature from the 40s and 50s. I know it's not an exact science, but the points made by Jeff regarding the bridge are enough to conclude that the integrity of the watch can't be proved and it is not therefore "correct"

I am going to contact the seller this evening and discuss returning the watch based on the evidence presented.

: Darren has pointed out several questions about the dial and
: hands . . . and I agree with his observations / questions.

: The movement and case-back both look wrong to me:

: -- I have file photos of around 10 triple calendar moonphase
: chronographs and all of them from this period have a serial
: number on the movement, and also "Ed Heuer" on the
: bridge . . . yours has only the Heuer shield, an approach often
: employed by the folks producing fake watches.

: -- The case-back (exterior) does not match that of any Heuer that I
: have ever seen . . . and we are talking about thousands of
: samples.

: Bottom line -- we see a lot of variety among the triple calendar
: moonphase chronographs, with many different types of elements
: being used -- hands, markers, numerals, dial finishes, etc.
: Yours does not match up well with any of these elements.

: My conclusion is that it's a fake.

: Jeff

: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

: