1911 open faced Omega pocket watch

Hi

Could anyone tell me if this watch is authentic?

I’ve dated it as 1911, but just looking for a bit more info and any history on this if anyone knows it too. It’s very aged but my dad is a watch enthusiast so would like some info.

Cheers!

nice watch. I made a similar post of a Longines Grand Prix from around the same time. If anyone could tell you something about it I bet it would be @Canuck

Omega started its (famous) family of stem-set pocket watches with the 19’’’ from 1894 (with Swiss patent/Breguet 8760). Within this ‘family’ followed very similar movements of smaller and larger size (to know which yours is would need the movement diameter). This ‘family’ continued (with derivations) for years. Yours dates about 1907/1908. The movement number will be under the dial.

The watch looks to be in every way original - and clearly very tired. It would probably still run - if you wanted it to (but it will always looks tired), but it would need help from a watchmaker.

The dials on these watches were typically enamelled - yours looks as though it is silvered. Although not hallmarked, the case could be silver (at that time, .800 cases were not always hallmarked).

Will that do? Tom

I second that bet but I'm going to give it a go....
Please measure the movement but I believe it is a Caliber 17''' L and is a little older than you think. The case number puts manufacture at about 1906 and if you have it serviced the movement should have a serial number engraved on the dial side.
The "Omega Lepine 1906" ref. 544.17 fits the bill quite nicely in my opinion.
The "Grand Prix" engraving denotes the Grand Prize award given Omega at the Universal Exposition in Paris, 1900.

Welcome to the forum!

Edit: Just saw Tom's post .

Yes!

This is awesome news and thanks so much for your replies.

My dad used to fix watches, amongst other things, in the REME when he was younger.

He’s actually got it working perfectly, considering how tired it looks, I’m quite impressed.

I’ll try and get him to measure it as I’m not allowed near it except to take pictures.

So is the number that’s on the watch not the serial number? That’s why I’d pegged the year at 1911.

That’s interesting it could be silver, any reason why they didn’t stamp them? This watch really has my interest now haha

Many say that the above chart has some misprints, 1920 and 1923, 1934 and 1926, but I have seen charts like the one above printed in several prestigious compendiums so I sure couldn't question it.
I am curious what others think?

Hey,@ohmegah1911, are you going to ask the moderators to change your handle to ohmegah1906 or 1907?

I think I might have to!! Haha

Right so, I find the movement serial number behind the face? Also what is the measurement 17’’’? Can I convert that to millimetres?

https://blog.esslinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/watch-ligne-size-chart.pdf
The ''' is a symbol for the term "Ligne" which is a French measurement I believe used back in the day.
Keep in mind that we are measuring the movement size and not the overall.

A pocket watch from this period has two numbers: the case number and the movement number. Dating (in this period) is done by the case number - NOT the movement number. There are many examples of movements that were used in watches many years after the date the movement was produced.

The table that @gatorcpa shows can be confusing! As a title, it is shown as ‘Movement Numbers’ - but in smaller text it states that ‘watches may be dated by using the case numbers listed below’. But not from this table below! Presumably from a different table that was further ‘below’, in the text wherever this appeared. The table shown includes movement numbers - which cannot be used for dating. The proof of this is that the table includes numbers in the range 2.000.000 - there were NO 2-million Omega cases! In 1902, the case numbers went from 1.999.999 to 3.000.000.

The movement number of a pocket watch from this period might (just might) be an indication of the dating - but possibly not. Returning to the table, it clearly states that these numbers are ‘Earliest Production Year’. So the earliest production year for a 3-million movement number was 1906 - but (as written above) the 3-million cases started in 1902.

As @UncleBuck says (and I wrote above), the movement number will be under the dial. It didn’t appear (visibly) on the movement until later. But I’m afraid for the reasons given above, it won’t help with dating. As I wrote, I estimate the watch to date 1907/8 - but the only way to be sure would be to pay Omega CHF 120 and ask for an Extract from the Archives - if it really is so important (of course that would also confirm more details of the watch).

My suggestion is to enjoy the watch as it is - very tired, but I think original/authentic.

Tom, the case number chart is shown "below" at the bottom of the right-hand column that Evan posted and notes that 2 million was not used.
I'm not clear if you mean that there is a different chart than this for case numbers or if you are just making sure that the movement chart isn't used for cases. Sorry for my confusion.

No apologies for confusion - because it is confusing! Firstly you are correct in my concern that the table of movement numbers is (wrongly) used for dating - and secondly the table of case numbers is so brief/sparse/simple that one is forced to interpolate and assume that it’s regular (which it isn’t!). There are other tables of case numbers which are more complete and there is then at least a chance of guessing a date.

This case is 395.7 - so as near to 4 million (case table shows 1907). I have case numbers 398.2 (1907), 382.3 (1908), 357.6 (1906).

I know that people date these watches according to that movement table - and it just leads to (more) confusion.
It gets more confusing in the late-1930s because after that the dating was according to movement numbers - but that’s another story.
Tom

Thanks, Tom,
You are a wonderful asset to our hobby and to this forum!
I wish there was more interest in the old pieces.

It would help if they were called Speedmaster - but we have been there (and a famous member left as a result of it!).