We have a pop quiz today class!

[Butch]

OK Class, let's see who have been paying attention. What's wrong with this one? 280604305412

[Butch]

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Anyone?

[jon p]

  the second( third hand) hand is AWOL ! did i pass the test master??

[Butch]

No Grasshopper, you have yet to snatch the pebble from my hand.

That is normal for that model, no second hand. Notice the minute hand has no hole for a second hand?

Next!

[jon p]

  manual wind movement--werent the rotos all automatics?

[Butch]

You are getting warmer....

[jon p]

  ZOWIE--it has the wrong movement in it--a transplant !

[Butch]

Beep! Thank you for playing! Next!

UV? Wanna give it a shot?

[Ultra-Vintage]

Ok Master, I shall try my best. 

My guess is that it is the incorrect dial on a manual wind Zodiac movement, that is in a non-Zodiac case.  What makes me think this is: the dial is for a Rotographic, which I believe are all Automatics, and this movement is an original manual wind.  Looking under the balance I see what I believe to be a Peseux "P" ebauche marking.  Now, lots of companies used Peseux movements, but Zodiacs only used them for I think 2 or 3 calibers; the caliber 53 and caliber 55, which are Zodiac versions of the Peseux 320/330.  Now, being that so many other companies used this caliber my guess is that this is another company's case that someone chose to replace the original 330 based movement with the Zodiac 53 (the same movement), because it would fit directly.  The lack of Zodiac style case markings also makes me think that this is another company's case.  Could be a Girard Perregaux, they used lots of the 320/330 Peseux movements. 
The dial looks redone to me, as if not a Zodiac dial at all, but hard to tell for sure without seeing in person.  The Peseux 320/330 movements are 11 1/2 Ligne just like I think the Roto movements are, but I seriously doubt that the dial feet position would be the same.  Being that they are the same size though, means that the dial could be nearly the same size and could have the feet cut off and glued or dial-dotted to the movement.  Although, looking at it now looks like the opening would not even allow for the thicker center post required for a center sweep movement.  So, I would think it is a redial.

How incorrect am I Master?          <Prepares to fall on sword at news of failure>

[jon p]

  OMG--butch has called in a RINGER!!!  my humble self bows to you ULTRA, your answer HAS TO BE CORRECT !!

[Butch]

While you raise some interesting points but I think the case and movement are original. But it would take a closer examination to prove or disprove that. You picked up on the dial right away though.

OK, here is what I noticed immediately (I have one of these manuals in my section). This is a case of an incorrect redial from a redialer that did not care nor have any quality control. (GA?) The Rotographic was an 1950's model (I have one of those too, in a square case) and as the name implies, it had an automatic movement. This is simply a manual wind model from the late 60's or early 70's with a piss poor incorrect redial.

[Ultra-Vintage]

While you raise some interesting points but I think the case and movement are original. But it would take a closer examination to prove or disprove that. You picked up on the dial right away though.

OK, here is what I noticed immediately (I have one of these manuals in my section). This is a case of an incorrect redial from a redialer that did not care nor have any quality control. (GA?) The Rotographic was an 1950's model (I have one of those too, in a square case) and as the name implies, it had an automatic movement. This is simply a manual wind model from the late 60's or early 70's with a piss poor incorrect redial.

I will have to wait till a later date to try and grab the pebble from your hand......   
                                     
                                                                     <pauses, unsure if falling on own sword is justified in this instance of failure>