One for fans of this classic:

Was there a silver dial version that came with a black subdial at 6 o'clock?

Most pics on the internet show this subdial as grey/silver. I've seen one or two pics with black, but is this original or service?

It appears the black subdial was quite common on the "not-Jedi" 176.005, though. Are the 007 and 005 dials basically the same? Perhaps the 007 I've spotted has a 005 dial...

Thanks for any help!

 

Is this the dial in question?



Pic from the following sales thread in 2013: https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-seamaster-chronograph-176-007-silver-dial.8830/

My method for determining whether a dial is an original configuration is to verify if the dial/case combo is seen in any Omega catalogs from the period using Steve Waddington's site http://www.old-omegas.com/ or pictured in A Journey Through Time. If not, then 99% of the time the dial came from another cal. 1040 Omega.

This dial has some features usually not seen on reference 176.007, particularly in steel.:

• Applied logo - other steel 176.007 dials have painted logos. The gold plated ones had applied logos.
• Hour indices - these have the minute numerals printed on them, like a "Yachting" chrono ref. 176.0010. No other steel -007s have this. One gold plated dial variant had this feature.
• Date window - all other correct (in my opinion anyways) 176.007 dials have an "open" date window - the black line around the window is only three sides of a box. This one is a "closed" window which is usually a sign that the dial came from another reference. 176.005 is a reference with several dial variants but all have a 4-sided, "Closed" window.

So I think you guessed correctly, it is a 176.005 dial placed on a 176.007 case, either mistakenly during service or intentionally as a mod.

 

thanks for the great info.

 

I should add some further clarification. This particular dial isn't shown in AJTT or in the old catalogs, even on a ref. 176.005. But I believe it to be legit for 176.005 because a) they show up often enough that it feels legit and b) the dial has the features that fit with the more documented 176.005 dials, including the applied logo and closed date window. So maybe I should adjust the above rule of thumb down from 99% of the time to about 90% of the time.

 

Brilliant, Andy K! Thank you so much for the enlightenment - very clearly explained.

Here's a link for the watch I was considering:

http://page12.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/p491522536

(looks the same as the pic you posted)

I think I'll pass. I do love this model, but would much prefer the blue dial. I only gave this particular one a second thought as the price was right and the condition good.

Thanks again for taking the time to write such a detailed reply.

 

You're welcome. The more I think about this though, I'm thinking that that dial may not be correct for a 176.005 either, although the examples I've seen look nice in that configuration. I've seen several 005's with that dial in my searches but now I suspect that dial is only intended for for the gold plated yachting chronograph 176.0010. See here:

http://www.regatta-yachttimers.com/brands/omega/

 

Just based on AJTT and the old ads, I don't think you have enough information to conclude this dial is wrong on any of the Seamasters with caliber 1040 at all.

 

I agree, I don't have anything conclusive. A dial/hands/case combination's appearance in an old ad or in AJTT tells me that in all likelihood it was a standard configuration that left the factory but not all of them appear in those sources and just because it is omitted doesn't mean it's wrong. Conversely, we know there are some incorrect watches in AJTT so it isn't foolproof either.

I'm open to any possibility but my gut tells me that not all combinations we see are correct and that there was a finite number of "standard" configurations per case reference. I suppose that the dial the OP mentions could have left the factory in a 176.007 or even a 176.005 but those source materials plus my own observations and notes make me suspect that dial was intended for a 176.0010. Again, I could be wrong. Basically because there were so many case, dial, bezel, and hand variants I approach cal. 1040 watches with a skeptical eye and look for what is known as stock and try to avoid deviating from the standard configurations.

 

Dials options for these colouful watches are not well documented, but one consistency I've found is the colour themes between dial and hands combination. The normal time telling hands are of a same colour and the chrono hands are of another colour theme. Both of them in turn should be in contrast of the dial/subdial itself for readability.

All 3 watches in this thread have the same very consistent colour theme for the dial and hands combination, so I doubt if any of them has an incorrect dial. A blatant dial swap would not be that cosistent across 3 different unrelated watches like that.

 

The regular time/chrono color consistency isn't the case on the 176.007 pics with black subdials at 6 that Andy K and I posted. (The yachting does follow this pattern, though).

The hand on the the black subdial is white, not blue (as per the chrono seconds). So there are black, white and blue hands on these watches (not to mention the main part of the blue jet-tip being grey!).

Anyway, all very interesting - thanks for the input and insight!

 

The regular time is usually of one colour, but the chrono is usually another theme, not neccessarily in one colour. It's just something different to the regular time and still in constrast to the dial or subdials.

 

Thanks for that - useful to know for the future.

I'm very new to vintage (picked up my first two pieces in the past month) so all of this info is really helpful.

 

Yes this holds true for the steel models. There's a few cases of gold hands on gold subdials on the gold plated models.

 

Well, the search for a 176.007 has been ongoing! I've found another example which looks good, but again, there's something I'd like to ask for clarification on.

This time it's a blue dial, blue tachy ring version. But the thing that immediately jumped out was that ALL the hands are completely white, including the jet-tipped hand etc. It looks like the hands are from a Mark III...

So my question is: were all-white hands ever an option from new on this model, or has a previous owner added all-white hands at some point?

It doesn't look bad, but I like that orange tip on the jet and the little bit of black on the hour and minute hands! I think I would replace the all-white with these, but am just curious if all-white was ever an option.

Thanks, as always, for any insight you can give.

 

If it comes from Japan then it's likely original, a Japan special just like the one in the original post.

 

Thanks for that TNTwatch - I'll follow up on your very helpful lead.

I had absolutely no idea there were special editions for the Japan market as far back as that - I thought it was an 80s or 90s thing.

Once again, thanks for the enlightenment.

 

Hard to say with hands - as you point out this is a more common trait on Speedmasters. Pics?

 

Here you go, Andy:





My first suspicion was that the hour, minute and jet hand were from a black dial Mark III. Would the fact that both watches use the 1040 movement have made that an easy thing to do? (excuse my ignorance if that's a stupid question!).

I haven't been able to find a picture or any info on a special Japan edition with these all-white hands (as TNT mentioned) - any links anyone?

 

Oh, I thought they were only partially/mostly white (and black at the pivot), not completely white like this. I haven't checked the old catalogs yet, but in this case, they are meant for the Speedmaster Mk IV and the grey dial Mk III, no doubt about that. They also look very new.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking this watch was restored and the owner just chose what appealed to him/her regarding hands, bezel, bracelet etc.

I'm getting used to the look of the all-white hands! It's not like it would be so expensive to replace them, and there's no rush to do so either...