More OPS questions

[jbcollier]

Looking at yet another OPS. It's an earlier one. It has a "sand-blasted" back which strikes me as not correct. I thought I would check here before rejecting it just in case some plumber's union ordered a batch and specced it that way...

 

[Hugger69]

Wow, that’s interesting!
It’s mounted wrong but otherwise I’m as curious as you!

 

[JimJupiter]

Wasnt the Birks OPS naked as this one, or was it just the sanded seapearl? And since the "0" is still there and looks sharp, it makes me wonder if this was sanded / polished at all. What about the front?

 

[jbcollier]

 

[jbcollier]

 

[jbcollier]

 

[jbcollier]

 

[jbcollier]

Seems otherwise normal.

 

[jbcollier]

Here's the back of the painter's Birks OPS:

 

[jbcollier]

Not a clear photo. Hard to say if it is worn, polished, or blasted. No sign of an "0" though.

 

[jbcollier]

Another shot:

 

[jbcollier]

Looks polished, not blasted, to me.

 

[JimJupiter]

I can check my Mint Example at home, I think it was blasted too.

 

[jbcollier]

Appreciate that, thanks.

 

[JimJupiter]

Found this in my camera roll.

 

[jbcollier]

Blasted? Yes. Obliterated? No.

 

[jbcollier]

Comparing your back photo with the one I posted up top, you can see that a large amount of material has been polished/blasted off as the centre ring is quite shallow.

 

[JimJupiter]

Hm, Dunno. The "0" and "I" has the same depth as the other letters. For me it looks like it came without markings, except for the 0 and I. I guess the blasting came first, the markings second.

 

[jbcollier]

You think Enicar might have made it this way?

 

[jbcollier]

If you look very closely at the "0", it seems there may be signs of blasting in the engraving itself. So I would say engraving first, blasting second.

I do agree that this is not a factory engraved caseback that was then polished and blasted into obliteration but I do not like the fact that the centre ring is also shallow. If there were more, similar examples, I'd be more sanguine.