Hi all,

After much looking around I finally decided to jump into the classic wristwatch world. I picked up the watch below and wanted to get a little more insight into it.

While the movement (420) matches the case number the watch face says "seamaster". When I look at the database it seems as though the 2667 was a generic watch and not part of the seamaster collection. The face itself is gorgeous, the lume looks original but if you notice at the 6 position I believe the original indicator got replaced as it is currently covering the word "swiss". This part kind of confuses me because if it is such a well done redial why would they add "swiss" only to cover it up?

Just looking for overall opinions on the watch and what you think the story is. I love the look of the watch but the more I look at it the more I want to know the story.

What is happening with this face? Is it just redone but the "seamaster" was added? Is it from a different watch? Do I simply have the wrong caseback? If it is a redial why go through the hassle of adding "swiss" only to cover it up?

 

This is the second "spirograph" dial recently. I can't remember if the other one was a Seamaster or not.

In my opinion, this dial has been stripped to the base metal and simply re-inked (leaving the bare metal) and then the markers replaced. The obvious tell is the centering of the Omega text and the general positioning of indices and Swiss etc.

 

Also, the lume on the indices seems oddly fresh for a 50s watch.

 

But none on the hands? If lume was used Omega always put it on both. That is a redial. Far too clean to be original. Nice looking watch but not remotely original.

 

My first entry was also a cal 420, but unfortunately with a bad black redial

Mine was a small watch at 32 mm, but serial dated it to 1969 - seems like Omega had quite a few of these older movements to get rid off in later years, and this was simply sold as “ international collection” and not branded Seamaster

It had the same nice lugs though

Your dial is much prettier, so all in all, not a bad first choice for your NooB tax

Enjoy

 

While I am in total agreement that it isn’t original, I am not sure I fully agree with your logic there. The database is very sketchy, not every variant is listed and many Omega case refs were branded in multiple ways. The original 30m water resistance doesn’t preclude Omega branding some of these 2667s as Seamasters. Had it been dust proof only, I would have fully agreed that they probably weren’t. I haven’t seen one like this but I wouldn’t personally use absence from the database as compelling evidence of absence of originality.

 

I was aware of the lack of early branding. I had a 2577 which looked exactly like Ref 549 above, only a lot more lived in! Your point I quote above I do find persuasive, I just don't like to place that much faith in the database as there are many omissions. Often for instance they will reference one case material when several were available which can be misleading unless you are intimately familiar with the case metal codes.

 

1954 is when the database is showing seamasters with the 420 movement.

So is this dial more likely to be:

From an actual seamaster just moved to a new case

Or

The original dial for this watch with “seamaster” added

Is there any way to tell this? I haven’t seen a dial like this before so I’m not too sure.

 

I would expect that the redial requires that the indices are first removed, the repainting done and then the indices reattached. Shame they didn’t check how far the indices would come down and reapplied the Swiss Made accordingly. It should be able to confirm this by looking at the back of the dial to see that the indices have been reapplied.
Regards
Chris

 

Perfect so the dial may be the one for the case just with "seamaster" added for some reason