1950 2576 -12 Bumper with unusual dial layout

I’m sorry to say that I think that the ‘Seamaster’ has been added to the dial at a later date although I believe that the rest of the dial is probably original.

Like yours, my 1950 model (a 2577) has similar gilt numerals and indices but I’ve always understood that Omega did not brand ‘Seamasters’ until a little later in the decade.

This may help

https://omegaforums.net/threads/sho...-little-introduction-to-the-reference.153541/

I read your DM @dinglem but figured I'd respond here for posterity.

First of all, note that, all details considered, there are literally hundreds of dial configurations on those early SMs 2576 (small second) and 2577 (center second). Your watch has a combination of well-known design elements: The numerals, the indices, the square lume plots etc. I wouldn't worry about not being able to find another example exactly like yours, in fact if you dive into those refs you'll find numerous examples of which you can only identify one in that exact style. The fact that these were produced in vast numbers doesnt help. But you will find many examples with those indices; many with those style of numerals; and also a few with 12-2-4-8-10 numerals, even though applied numerals are more common.

Regarding the Seamaster name on the dial: You were right in assuming it cannot be at the bottom of the dial as it would collide with the sub second, only the 2577 has that. The serial is in a range where the word Seamaster on the dial is legit. Examples with varying thickness of the font between "Seamaster" and the other words are also known, so that's not a red flag per se. It'd require much higher resolution pictures to identify if it is indeed correct, but from what I can see so far I wouldn't worry about that too much.

I’m still troubled by two issues.

First, my understanding is that in 1950, when the movement serial number indicates that the watch was made, neither the dial nor the outside of the caseback were marked ‘Seamaster' (and obviously at that time, hippocampi were not marked), and and there doesn’t appear to be any marking on the caseback of the watch, and

Second, the Seamaster' marked on the dial looks darker and newer than the other markers and letters.

Obviously I’m happy to defer to @MtV and @seekingseaquest, but it still looks to me to be a dial on which someone has added ‘Seamaster'.

Sorry, but I should have included a photo of the caseback of my 1954 2767 to illustrate what I mean

You’re right about the different case backs. Correctly, the OPs example shows (the vague remains of) circular brushing and no Seamaster and Waterproof on it.
At 12.3m serial range, I believe both 2577 and 2576 should have Seamaster on the dial - and I believe this to be later than 1950, more like mid 51 or so. An EotA of mine of a 11.3m serial came back to January 1950.

And the bolder lettering of 'Seamaster' in contrast to the more faded ‘Omega Automatic'?

I appreciate that the photos aren’t great but 'Swiss made' and the minute and seconds indices seem, to my eye to be as faded as the rest of the dial apart from ‘Seamaster'.

That apart, the published movement numbers all seem to allocate 12,000,000 to 12,999,999 to 1950.

Obviously I’m being a bit of a nerd and it doesn’t really make a lot of difference.

Does anything we discuss here make a real difference for anything in the real world? 😀

The lists of serials and their corresponding years of production are mere guesswork and aren’t precise. In the case of 2576/2577 it’s definitely off, I have a couple EotAs to confirm that.

I’ve seen a couple examples with the Seamaster line printed thicker than the rest. Will post one when I find it. I wouldn’t want to bet it’s original, but my gut points in that direction and I’d wait for a sharper pic for final judgement.

TBH, watches are a great diversion to distract from all that’s going on/wrong in the world 👎