168.023 Original Dial?

scottychocolates · Aug 3, 2021

I'm considering pulling the trigger on this 18k 168.023 and I'm wondering if it's an original or a redial. I've searched for these day date chronometer sparkle dials and compared fonts between different pictures ad nauseum. At this point it looks like there's at least a dozen different versions (or a lot of redials) out there. That or my eyes are just starting to notice differences that don't exist. My main concern with this one is the "AUTOMATIC CHRONOMETER OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED" lettering under the applied Omega logo and the "T SWISS MADE T" lettering at the bottom of the dial. Does this look off to anyone? Thanks in advance!

Marcel81 · Aug 3, 2021

For me its clearly a refinished dial.

pennsyl936 · Aug 3, 2021

I don't know about the dial but if I were to shell out $3400 I would first have the seller verify that the movement is a 751 (chronometer movement). The listing doesn't specify that it does and the only movement pic doesn't reveal. If it is 752 it is not a chronometer.

scottychocolates · Aug 3, 2021

Thanks guys, didn't even notice that. Moving on from this one for sure!

ollipekka · Aug 4, 2021

If you're after a golden seamaster watch, I'd consider this for a bit. I have a few of these with 564 and 751 and the dial doesn't look out of place to me. The sparkle dials are extremely hard to mess around with. However, I'm not an expert as I'm just starting out. I'd wait for an expert opinion on the dial and meanwhile verify that the movement is the chronometer movement.

ConElPueblo · Aug 4, 2021

pennsyl936
I don't know about the dial but if I were to shell out $3400 I would first have the seller verify that the movement is a 751 (chronometer movement). The listing doesn't specify that it does and the only movement pic doesn't reveal. If it is 752 it is not a chronometer.

The rotor bridge is the correct 751 part.

I would say that the dial is correct though the "T SWISS MADE T" seems placed fairly low on the dial.

kaapstadflaneur · Aug 4, 2021

I have a bunch of these sparkle dials, and I agree with @ConElPueblo that this dial looks OK based on the photo. The "T SWISS MADE T" looks low on the dial, but I think that's distortion from the crystal based on how the minute markers on the step dial are also foreshortened. I would definitely ask for a photo from a different angle to confirm that. Good luck with acquiring the Golden Seamaster!

MtV · Aug 4, 2021

kaapstadflaneur
I have a bunch of these sparkle dials, and I agree with @ConElPueblo that this dial looks OK based on the photo. The "T SWISS MADE T" looks low on the dial, but I think that's distortion from the crystal based on how the minute markers on the step dial are also foreshortened. I would definitely ask for a photo from a different angle to confirm that. Good luck with acquiring the Golden Seamaster!

+1. I've also owned a few of these and they aren't all equal - I've found differences in many minute details on the sparkle dials. The dial depicted above wouldnt worry me right now, another picture sure is a good idea though - ideally of the dial outside of the watch, but that can't be provided by every seller, admittedly.

gatorcpa · Aug 4, 2021

Pretty sure the OP watch is a redial. Compare and contrast with this example:

What do you think?
gatorcpa

mac_omega · Aug 4, 2021

IMHO this is an all orignal dial

heavily distorted by a wrong crystal

BenBagbag · Aug 4, 2021

Looks okay to me. The bridge says adjusted to 5 positions which indicates that it is a chronometer movement.

But once there is this much doubt on the originality of the dial - maybe just pass anyways...

Davidt · Aug 4, 2021

The ‘Automatic Chronometer Officially Certified’ text is slightly concerning but I think this is due to the crystal/lost resolution of the photo.

I’d vote original.

Archer · Aug 4, 2021

ConElPueblo
The rotor bridge is the correct 751 part.

I would say that the dial is correct though the "T SWISS MADE T" seems placed fairly low on the dial.

The entire automatic assembly was available as a spare part, so that is not a part I would rely on to say for certain that the movement is correct. I would want to see the complete caliber number that is on the wheel train bridge to be sure....

ConElPueblo · Aug 4, 2021

Archer
The entire automatic assembly was available as a spare part, so that is not a part I would rely on to say for certain that the movement is correct. I would want to see the complete caliber number that is on the wheel train bridge to be sure....

Oh for sure - I am not saying that there is no chance of it not being a replacement part from a wrong caliber, even though the opposite scenario (752 part in a 751) to my mind would be more likely to happen.

Archer · Aug 4, 2021

ConElPueblo
Oh for sure - I am not saying that there is no chance of it not being a replacement part from a wrong caliber, even though the opposite scenario (752 part in a 751) to my mind would be more likely to happen.

Interesting - can I ask why you think that would be more likely?

I was just looking at this one recently...it's an "interesting mix" to say the least - very obvious redial:

It has the chronometer auto winding bridge, removed in this photo:

But have a look at the caliber on the wheel train bridge:

A 561 is not only not a chronometer version of the movement, but it's a date movement, and this one has no provision for the date on the movement:

I guess I've seen so many messed up watches, I don't see any one scenario as being more likely than another.

Cheers, Al

MtV · Aug 4, 2021

Archer
A 561 is not only not a chronometer version of the movement, but it's a date movement, and this one has no provision for the date on the movement:

Completely agree it's a date movement and doesnt belong in this watch (14381?), but were there 561s that werent chronometre rated? It's the most common movement in the 168.005 Connie, for example, so absolutely a chronometre version as far as I know.

ConElPueblo · Aug 4, 2021

Archer
Interesting - can I ask why you think that would be more likely?

It would be my reckoning that the non-chronometer parts are more plentiful than the chronometer-specific ones. If a watchmaker has access to order new parts, he could just as well order the 751-specific part, but if he has to use what is available to him without ordering through official channels, I would expect it to be more likely to be the 752-part that was readily available.

While I naturally haven't kept count, I would say that this is also what is most often seen on OF as well.

Archer
I was just looking at this one recently...it's an "interesting mix" to say the least - very obvious redial:

It has the chronometer auto winding bridge, removed in this photo:

But have a look at the caliber on the wheel train bridge:

A 561 is not only not a chronometer version of the movement, but it's a date movement, and this one has no provision for the date on the movement:

I guess I've seen so many messed up watches, I don't see any one scenario as being more likely than another.

Cheers, Al

What a train wreck... Do you have the reference noted down? Nice colours in the movement 😵‍💫

What makes you say that a 561 is not a chronometer?

Archer · Aug 4, 2021

ConElPueblo
What a train wreck... Do you have the reference noted down? Nice colours in the movement 😵‍💫

The inside of the case back had no reference number inside - not even 100% sure what is genuine on this one.

ConElPueblo
What makes you say that a 561 is not a chronometer?

Okay sorry - I will retract that. Omega doesn't classify it a chronometer movement now, but they did then. I have to always remember this forum isn't concerned with the current status, so that was my mistake.

MtV · Aug 4, 2021

Archer
Okay sorry - I will retract that. Omega doesn't classify it a chronometer movement now, but they did then. I have to always remember this forum isn't concerned with the current status, so that was my mistake.

Interesting, I wasn't aware. Is that true for any other of the chronometer movements?

Archer · Aug 4, 2021

MtV
Interesting, I wasn't aware. Is that true for any other of the chronometer movements?

Yes, lots of them that are vintage do not have anywhere near chronometer specs. For example all the 550, 560, and 750 series have the same timing requirements. All of these are only measured over 3 positions, not the 5 noted on the automatic bridge. Average daily rate between -1 and +16 seconds per day, with positional variation at full wind allowed to be 25 seconds over those three positions, and 24 hours after full wind it can be 35 seconds.

Contrast that to say an Omega 1120 (or any other relatively modern Omega COSC only movement), and the measurements are made over 5 positions, average daily rate is between -1 and +6 per day, Delta at full wind is 12 seconds max., and 24 hours after full wind is 15 seconds max.

Same with the 30T2SC's, and pretty much anything before the ETA based era.

168.023 Original Dial?

scottychocolates

Marcel81

pennsyl936

scottychocolates

ollipekka

ConElPueblo

kaapstadflaneur

MtV

gatorcpa

mac_omega

BenBagbag

Davidt

Archer

ConElPueblo

Archer

MtV

ConElPueblo

Archer

MtV

Archer

Similar threads

Original Dial? Constellation Pie Pan 168.005

Omega Constellation 14381 Re-Dial or original Dial?

Omega 166.0168 original dial color?

need help verifying if this is an original dial - seamaster

Original Dial or Repainted? Help please!

Omega 2753: black dial, original or restored?