Community Stories

14381-61-SC dial font

river9
Posts
411
Likes
626
-edit to add pics-
Hello
I own this 14381 for a while. Bought it mainly as a 'birthyear watch'.
I would want to know your opinion on this dial that I already post here in OF.
Some would said it is legit but some are inconclusive. Some OF experts suggest here to see underneath of dial but it is not done yet although I will do it on next date of watch service.

I will not part with this watch due to sentimental value. But for the shake of genuineness are there reasons for concerns? I see the following red flags...

- 4 lines on this ref are correct? Other examples are 3 lines, NO 'officially certified' wording
- font thickness: not strong enough
- font height uneven...

Please share your thoughts.
Thank you.
Edited:
 
2022_0720_17435300.jpg 2022_0720_17435800.jpg 2022_0720_17440200.jpg
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
Post a hi res picture of the dial please. If it is the dial in your avatar then be aware that black dials are to be treated with suspicion from the off but that pic isn't enough to go on.
 
river9
Posts
411
Likes
626
padders padders
Post a hi res picture of the dial please. If it is the dial in your avatar then be aware that black dials are to be treated with suspicion from the off but that pic isn't enough to go on.
No. It ref 14381
I am editing to size down my pics (10MB each strait out SD card) Sorry. Here is a smaller pic but I took it long before.

IMG_20220710_160404.jpg
 
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
What year/serial is yours? Or are you going with the -61 as the date? with the 4 lines, I would have expected it to be an early one maybe though perhaps the 2 designs coexisted. It looks nice, original and clean. The clover crown there is more suitable for a Seamaster so may have been changed but still looks good. Here is mine, a gold cap 14381-9 three liner with the same design of indices, nice but maybe not quite as tidy as yours perhaps. This is a 1960 model AFAIK.

IMG_0965.JPG IMG_5849.JPG
Edited:
 
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
Mine is 17.75m so deffo a little earlier than yours but they fact mine has a number rather than year iteration code also suggests this, I estimate it at 1960 as I say. No I don't think mine has any sunburst effect but then I don't see a lot on yours either to be honest. The Tex watch is much earlier than ours, note the French spelling of Chronometre on his. I would suggest that and the 17.0m serial say his is nearer 1958-9.
 
ALEJANDRO BOVONE
Posts
229
Likes
400
maybe you can try a pic that shows better the color of the crown. in a shade it looks more red than yellow
 
river9
Posts
411
Likes
626
The crown on mine is yellllow. I do believe 'clover crown' is not correct for 14381's ref
IMG_20220720_160929.jpg
 
Zapatta
Posts
1,567
Likes
12,406
I vote for redial. Looks like somebody tried too hard to make it perfect. We shouldn't forget that redialers also read Desmond's blog. Crosshair thickness is inconsistent with some parts of the text but otherwise looks nice compared to "regular" redials.
 
TexOmega
Posts
8,488
Likes
60,625
I vote original dial, fonts snd spacing are too precisely laid out.

now, there is a wonky minute mark or two, but that is probably Parallax from the crystal.
 
JohnSteed
Posts
4,402
Likes
5,802
imho - in my HUMBLE Opinion -
another view ... based on fonts and markers, the example looks out of place



river9 river9
-edit to add pics-
Hello
I own this 14381 for a while. Bought it mainly as a 'birthyear watch'.
I would want to know your opinion on this dial that I already post here in OF.
Some would said it is legit but some are inconclusive. Some OF experts suggest here to see underneath of dial but it is not done yet although I will do it on next date of watch service.

I will not part with this watch due to sentimental value. But for the shake of genuineness are there reasons for concerns? I see the following red flags...

- 4 lines on this ref are correct? Other examples are 3 lines, NO 'officially certified' wording
- font thickness: not strong enough
- font height uneven...

Please share your thoughts.
Thank you.
 
seekingseaquest
Posts
2,771
Likes
6,879
Do you have photos of the caseback medallion, movement, etc.? Crown is very incorrect (and surprised it fit).

On the dial, the sunburned finish in the center doesn’t feel right to me.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

dynastyx

UPDATE: Inherited Seamaster 300 Ref. CK 14755-61 SC Restoration

dynastyx Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
hansaboy
hansaboy
Posts
9
Views
296
bjtomega

New member - 1959 Constellation 14381/2 SC - seeking advice

bjtomega Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Jan Dietrich
Jan Dietrich
Posts
14
Views
193
L

Seamaster 300 14755-61 SC, wrong dial, what else ?

leop93 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
L
leop93
Posts
0
Views
222
HadgeBadge

Omega Constellation 14393 61 SC Black Pie Pan

HadgeBadge Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
gatorcpa
gatorcpa
Posts
9
Views
1K
nanjingcigaretes

1961 Omega Constellation “Jumbo” ref. 14778-61 SC, Cal. 551 - serviced Jan 2026 - €1900 shipped

nanjingcigaretes Watches For Sale
nanjingcigaretes
nanjingcigaretes
Posts
0
Views
403
dmtowl

Omega Seamaster 14390-61-SC

dmtowl Private Watch Sales
dmtowl
dmtowl
Posts
2
Views
1K