166.002 Original dial? Advice Needed.

[RG312]

Hello -

I am newer to vintage watch collecting. I've always wanted an older Seamaster and thus came across this 166.002 cal 562. However, when I looked up the reference number, I can't seem to find any examples of the 166.002 having the dial displayed on the listed watch. My question is, before I buy this watch can anyone identify if this cream tactical dial is in fact authentic to the 166.002? Also, I've only ever seen this dial with a red Omega logo.

 

[tnt9]

looks like "tehnical dial" but I think this is redial. if I remember, logo would need to be red also. but somebody with experiance will know better

 

[RG312]

tnt9

looks like "tehnical dial" but I think this is redial. if I remember, logo would need to be red also. but somebody with experiance will know better

I have a feeling you are correct and that this is a re-dial. Seemed too good to be true. Thank you for commenting!

 

[Davidt]

Exactly as @tnt9 says, this is imitating the white technical dials but it’s a redial. The case has also been poorly refinished.
Strong pass.

 

[Davidt]

I like how they redialed it a polished the case but haven’t bother to clean the case. Look as the decades old remnants of the seal in the caseback pic.

 

[Pixitfecit]

Totally agree - really a bad one!

 

[RG312]

Davidt

I like how they redialed it a polished the case but haven’t bother to clean the case. Look as the decades old remnants of the seal in the caseback pic.

My thought was they tried to leave the case dirty in an attempt to "sell" that it isn't redialed. Glad my suspicions were confirmed! Thank you!

 

[nkhandekar]

a couple of more give-aways (in addition to the ones above) that the condition of the dial is inconsistent with the rest of the watch
1. The date wheel seems to be pretty mottled looking, in contrast to the dial.
2. The rehaut has a fair amount of corrosion pitting which is inconsistent with a dial in this condition.

Edited: Oct 25, 2023

 

[Spruce]

And that corroded gasket