Last week Mike posted the link to this very nice gold capped 14.381:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-OMEGA-CONSTELLATION-PIE-PAN-DIAL-MENS-WATCH-CIRCA-1960S-WORKS-MINTY-/171120221169?nma=true&si=cAwJ6YQj14%2BmKPrrE7%2FeoNUd8gI%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network





Notice the lack of T's near the SWISS MADE, but luminous centers in the hands and lume dots on the marker's edges?

Well it was suggested that the 168.005 I recently bought needed to have the lume taken off and the center of the hands should be black:




After seeing the eBay watch, and a few others like it over the years from the early 60's, I'm starting to think these came lumed like this. I'm 100% sure the rest of my watch is completely original. It even has the yellow caseback gasket.

So what does everyone think?

 

Seller ended the listing because "there was an error on the listing" — yeah, right! Perhaps another case of "would you accept my offer of $$"

 

look, ebay charges you 10% fees as final value. paypal on top as well. you are a very happy seller, if you can deal outside...... kind regards. achim

 

I think both are original. Especially with these 60's Constellations, they lacked the "T" element on the dial. I have never owned a 60's connie with the lume. (see pictures of the 14.381 I sold..) But I amazed how nicely preserved they are on both watches. Nice example by the way!

Another example:

 

I hear ya there Achim! Kind Regards, alex

 

It was re-listedPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network with a US $950.00 BiN presumably after agreement via ebay message was reached.

 

"Well it was suggested that the 168.005 I recently bought needed to have the lume taken off and the center of the hands should be black:"
Is this some kind of joke ?
Did someone really lack that much focus ?
Well here are pics of my 14.381 without T's and with lume. I bought this watch in absolutely original condition with box, Omega leather strap(not in the pic) and papers, it had actually been put aside by the owner because the crown had dropped off. So I am sure that nobody has added lume or changed the color of the hands.

 

Sometime somewhere in the past I have written about this but cannot find it at the moment.

Remember the 21 mil serial number, it's when Omega started to put T next to Swiss Made, lumed dials before 21 mil should not have T and if they do, they are redials or frankened.



Check the serial # of this one, you will find it has 21 mil serial number or earlier.

 

I'm not sure about the 21 million serial being hard and fast BUT you will note that marking "T" for Tritium does not come into play on Swiss watches in general until circa 1963-64 (and 21 million for Omega = ca. 1964). It was a newly agreed upon regulation to govern the amount of radioactivity in watch dials and monitor the use of Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power regulated by the AEC, as the lume product (rather than Radium, Strontium, etc, i.e. more dangerous radioactive substances). Therefore it is perfectly normal and correct to see pre-1963 watches without any "T" markings. If somebody is looking for proof of this, you need look no further than the highly luminous Speedmaster line--here is a 19mil 105.002 (ca. 1962) with no "T" markings:



Best,
T.

P.S. Also, if you see a pre-1963 dial with "T" it can be a later genuine service replacement not only redial or franken.
P.P.S. I believe Connie's get one "T" first and then 2 at some point later--that would also be an interesting chronology to research. For example, here is a gold capped Connie with 24mil (ca. 1966) movement serial and still only the one "T":

 

And after I had an agreement with him to buy it at his asking price of $850.

 

I was thinking something similar - anything post 196x would have a T or two, and anything up to that year would not - just wasn't sure if it would be '62, '63, '64, or '65. You're correct that mine is pre-1964 with a serial number of 20,340,953.

 

This De Ville circa 1961, also no T...

 

the De Ville name is not written on dials untill +- 1963, so this one is more likely from 1963

 

Correct, but the movement could have a serial number for an earlier year or so. I've noticed it more prevalently on manual wind 600 series DeVilles, but it happened with the 55x and occasionally the 56x powered SMDVs too.

 

Movement numbers in general may be a poor guide to accurate dating of an individual watch. The best you can say is that a given timepiece cannot be before a certain date, taken from the movement serial number. With the English gold cased watches, we do get an accurate date for the watch case from the hallmark date letter code, and the biggest discrepancy I have come across so far is a movement number of 1956 and a case hallmark for 1959.

 

If this is true then help me out and explain this?

http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/history/vintage-omegas/vintage-watches-database?ref=14762

A Seamaster De Ville from the international collection starting on 1960.

 

The first of these front loaders did not have DE VILLE on the dial, just Seamaster. Norman Morris, the US agent for Omega, requested that DE VILLE be added. It seems that the Omega database has chosen to posthumously call the whole line Seamaster DeVille for simplicity's sake.

 

The illustrations used in the Omega database seem to be pretty arbitrary. They are not at all necessarily the earliest example, or indeed the most typical, and sometimes they are of a particularly rare variant. This illustration could well be of a 1963 example for this case reference.

 

Love this debate, can someone explain why there are so many lumed Omega watches with much later serial numbers that have no T's at all?

 

Thanks Dennis, thanks John...I didn't Realize these front loaders came without the De Ville added. I knew the database could be sketchy but not that sketchy, this makes sense now.