Good Evening, I've noticed that you've asked this type of question several times before and I'm sure you are learning about vintage VCs.
Please share with us what your concerns and ideas are about this watch. Besides the crown, is there anything else that you think might not be right?
Overall, it looks OK to me. I'm not sure about the crown either, but the rest of the watch looks OK.
Crowns were considered replacement/disposable parts back then and would commonly be replaced during service. Although an original crown would be best, it would not be a major factor for me as long as the new replacement looks really out of place. And if that's the case, I have more bargaining power to negotiate price.
Let's see what information Alex can get from checking the serial numbers.
These kinds of engravings are common for a watchmaker to record that he did work on a specific watch. What it means is often unique to that watchmaker, like his own personal code.
The "&" and Maltese Cross from your close up picture do like a little strange.
I suggest you wait for Alex to see what he can find out after checking the serial numbers.
The watch's serial numbers match a Ref.6562 manufactured in 1964.
Hello, I'm sorry but I gave you wrong information a couple of weeks ago off-line.
Now that I see you have more pictures of cases with 2-digit reference numbers. I did more research and discovered VC did use some 2-digit, and 3-digit reference numbers in the 1930s and 1940s, but they are very rare.
The 2 cases you show hear have serial numbers from that period, 1930s & 1940s. So the should be reference #s
The picture of the watch in question has a number that is not the same, that should not be a reference number.
The 2-digit numbers inscribed in your two pictures ("20" and "32"), as well as the "1-34" in a picture shared by jsflog ARE case maker numbers that have no relevance to VC. This is what I originally thought, until several of these markings started to show up.
Anitquorum used these 2-3 digit numbers as VC ref. numbers in a few auctions (such as in 1996 "Art of VC" and the 2005 Quarter Millenium of VC", etc.). This has just now been confirmed by VC to be incorrect.
From a purely selfish POV, I guess better for them to be wrong instead of me?