In my opinion, the numbering on the watch dial is reflective of that on the modern Max Bill, but the fact that the watch has a sub dial is throwing me off. Is it that perhaps at the time this watch was made there was no "Max Bill" edition? Perhaps Junghans used Max Bill's numbering, but did not recognize the watch as being a "Max Bill" specifically?
I also happened across the following link that I believe shares similarities to the watch pictured in the above post.
Junghans Max Bill did not use dauphine hands.
The J93 movement was not encased in Max Bill watches, no small seconds either.
Max Bills were either gold-plated or stainless steel. The pictured one is chrome-plated brass as indicated by back engraving:“stainless steel back".
Lugs were shorter and curved down at tad more.
Max Bill dials were imprinted with „Junghans Design“, „Junghans“, „Junghans Meister“ or „Junghans Automatic“. No jewels print.
Ok, so I discovered the following website that contains a photo of a watch very similar to the watch pictured in the above photos. This article states much the same thing as Mike stated in his previous thread. (Thank you Mike.)
As you figured, it’s not a Max Bill, i.e it’s not a watch fully designed by Max Bill. However, the font for the numerals quite obviously reuses the font designed by Max Bill. This is perhaps not surprising as material design rights for the font were probably transfered to Junghans when Bill designed for them.
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.