Does this dial look a little too new?

[Sea Wolf]

130427530311   

It says refinished dial.  I missed that first looking at it.

[Butch]

Ass soon as the picture came into focus the fonts screamed redial.

[jon p]

not a bad redial,BUT it is a redial and the price is WAY too steep. i dont like any plated case, if it aint solid gold i would rather have all stainless steel. i agree about the font, butch, not original style.  JON P

[bulldog1935]

Certainly refinished, but that is a jewel of a watch. 
Sitting around in jeweler's case for 60+ years, the varnish in the original paint would break down to wax and acetic acid and corrode the finish.  Some of the vapors would condense inside the crystal, fogging it. 
(same thing is going to happen wearing it, but the damage is compounded by skin salts and oils, exposure to weather and the many mechanical scratches that go with wearing it - where you would see the evidence of wearing is pitting of the case around the edges of the back. 
I researched these a bit over the past year, and his price is better than most watchmakers trying to turn a refinished moonphase of any brand. 
Though I will admit I would rather have the watch that Butch shows in the gallery than any other moonphase I've seen... 


The question of repair vs. restoration and representation comes up in all areas of collecting. 
Here is a little discussion over generalities and ethics, from both sides of the pond, specifically regarding $2000, 100-yr-old fly reels, but there is enough overlap in the questions that you might find it interesting discussion: 
http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/topic/37897

what I hate to see is a watch that has been poorly restored and the numbers look like they were painted by a 6-y-o. 

[Ultra-Vintage]

Personally I think that dial looks horrible, they didn't even attempt to match the original font at all.
I would always rather have a slightly flawed or darkened patina original dial than ruin the watch with a bad 3rd grade art project like that dial.