14722 / 14733 Seamaster

Hi all,

I’ve posted on the WTB board in the hope of finding a 14722. I used this watch as an example which some of you might have already seen and commented on there

I’ve actually just realised it’s a 14723 not 14722 - could somebody explain the difference, if any?! A Google would suggest no difference…

Anyway, I just wanted some more in depth understanding and approach to this example - from my opinion it looks good - original dial, some patina around the hands with the only replacement being the crystal.

The negatives are what look like rusted hands and the wear on the back of the lugs clearly from where a bracelet has been (or is that the shape of the lugs?!). Because of these I would assume value would depreciate and wouldn’t warrant the £650 as listed on the website.

If anyone would like to add an opinion that would be much appreciated.

Regards,
H

My question is, what is it about this particular Omega that warrants the extra cost, when there are literally millions of watches in the market that look darn near identical? About the only thing unique about this watch is the word OMEGA on the dial.

Omega made some good watches with some unique styling, but this isn't one of them.

Fair point - its is fairly standard but maybe that's why i like the look of it. Certainly I don't think it warrants the cost and was just seeing by how much the 'defects' affect the price.

Sometimes for me classic and understated is what I'm looking for and unique doesn't necessarily always mean nice, sometimes it does... All opinions and likes are subjective though so each to their own and I respect that.

I think those marks on the lugs are just shadows caused by their curved shape. I see there's a number etched onto one of the lugs.

I'd be put off by the rusted hands, and more importantly the rust staining on the centre of the dial. Has it progressed into the movement and done any damage there that we can't see?

My thoughts confirmed. Thank you all. The search continues…