Forums Latest Auctions Members
  1. dantaspaulo

    dantaspaulo Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    501
    Likes
    418
    Dear all,

    I've just received this 166.0002 and I'm not sure whether it's been redialed or not. At a first glance, everything seems to be quite in order, and the OVD even says it's OK for this to have both Seamaster and Genève on the dial (if you look under 165.0002). However, the script for Seamaster has been puzzling me since I bought it. On the bright side the seller claimed this piece to be a cal. 610, but it's a nice 565. Help, please. :unsure:

    At least it didn't cost me that much, just some 200 bucks. photo 1.JPG photo 2.JPG photo 3.JPG photo 4.JPG
     
  2. dantaspaulo

    dantaspaulo Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    501
    Likes
    418
    No thoughts? :(
     
  3. Hijak

    Hijak Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    7,110
    Likes
    22,804
    The movement serial number dates this to about 1967 and the coat hanger S in Seamaster on your dial is from the fifties I believe. This leads me to suspect a redial. The cal. 565 was used in the 166.002 from 1965 on so no problems there. If you look at the OVD you can see the more modern S in Seamaster on the watch they show for the 165.002 (very similar to yours, just no date).

    EDIT: The cal. 610 would have been a hand wind movement as where your 565 is obviously an automatic.
     
  4. Hijak

    Hijak Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    7,110
    Likes
    22,804
    For $200 bucks you have a nice watch there! I love these watches myself, I have an example of a hand wound cal. 611...

    Wrist Shot, 3.JPG

    And an automatic cal.552...

    Wrist Shot, 7.JPG


    Love the way these wear bigger as they are all dial...
     
    dantaspaulo likes this.
  5. dantaspaulo

    dantaspaulo Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    501
    Likes
    418
    Thanks, Hijak! When I was doing my homework (stupidly, after I bought the watch) I noticed the 165.002 "S" and that's what worried me. The only thing that puzzles me is that the script does seem to be applied rather than printed on the dial... but maybe that's just me being optimistic? I really wanted it not to be a redial. :unsure:

    They wear very nice, don't they?
     
  6. Hijak

    Hijak Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    7,110
    Likes
    22,804
    As redials go this one is not really that bad. The fonts are pretty good its just that they used an inaccurate, for the time, Seamaster font. IMHO especially for the money you spent this is an excellent daily wearer!:thumbsup: Overall the watch looks good...case is in good shape, it has original crown, the movement looks great and the crystal looks good. Here is an example of the Seamaster font used on your watch...this is an early 1952 cal. 352 Chronometer...

    Wrist Shot.JPG
     
  7. ulackfocus

    ulackfocus Dec 27, 2013

    Posts
    26,179
    Likes
    26,666
    Hijak hit it on the head - the font of Seamaster is wrong. That's an early to mid 50's font. Also, the SWISS MADE is too far apart. Not a terrible redial, and if they had left of the Seamaster it would have been a much better looking refinishing job. Still, for what you paid you did fine.
     
    dantaspaulo likes this.