1950s Seamaster - all original?

Posts

2

Likes

0

finecity

·Sep 7, 2020

I am looking to buy my first vintage watch and have fallen for this nicely patinated 1950s Seamaster - but having looked around for a while it is the first I have seen with an all arabic dial and some other postings have made wonder about the short sub-second hand.
Any advice really gratefully received. Asking price is around £900.

It is described as Omega Seamaster hammerautomatic, 1950, Cal 342

Edited: Sep 7, 2020

 

Posts

1,790

Likes

2,001

michael22

·Sep 7, 2020

Price seems massively excessive.
The big dial scratch is a negative, & it should be priced accordingly.

 

Posts

7,778

Likes

27,052

Tony C.

·Sep 7, 2020·Ωf Jury member

Crown is a replacement, and not the same style as the original. Second hand, as you note, is also a problem.

 

Posts

2

Likes

0

finecity

·Sep 7, 2020

michael22

Price seems massively excessive.
The big dial scratch is a negative, & it should be priced accordingly.

Thanks. Would a scratch like that scare you off? Does it mean someone has been very careless with the watch to do that sort of damage (so stay away) or is it something that could easily happen in 70 years and is ok if I don't mind?

 

Posts

21,834

Likes

49,532

Dan S

·Sep 7, 2020

The sub-second hand is a minor issue compared to the dial damage, crown, and polished case IMO. It would have to be about 1/3 of the asking price for me to even consider it.

 

Posts

1,790

Likes

2,001

michael22

·Sep 7, 2020

finecity

Thanks. Would a scratch like that scare you off? Does it mean someone has been very careless with the watch to do that sort of damage (so stay away) or is it something that could easily happen in 70 years and is ok if I don't mind?

I would avoid it because of the dial, not what the dial scratch may mean. The dial is what you look at 20 times a day.
The movt. is also 70 yrs old, & looks well used.

 

Posts

1,998

Likes

1,229

DON

·Sep 7, 2020

Absolute mess. Only value is the case and some movement parts

DON

 

Posts

377

Likes

467

onlyomega94

·Sep 7, 2020

I am by no means an expert on this reference, but numbers going into the sub-dial seems very odd to me. Notice also how the sub-dial is not completely filled by the grooves on the left and right edges as opposed to the bottom. I would pass - and most definitely at that price.

 

Posts

365

Likes

452

Maskelyne

·Sep 7, 2020

I have had a couple of those. All though the dial is correct, it´s in my opinion destroyed. Numbers in the sub dial are correct and you can see the same layout on other Omega watches. These watches are small, (33 mm I think). Price is as mentioned ballistic - seek further...

 

Posts

377

Likes

467

onlyomega94

·Sep 7, 2020

Maskelyne

I have had a couple of those. All though the dial is correct, it´s in my opinion destroyed. Numbers in the sub dial are correct and you can see the same layout on other Omega watches. These watches are small, (33 mm I think). Price is as mentioned ballistic - seek further...

I stand corrected - would you be able to post a picture of an example with numbers in the sub-dial for future reference (and to satisfy my personal interest)?

 

Posts

365

Likes

452

Maskelyne

·Sep 7, 2020

- Absolutely, here are a couple of examples...

OMEGA Suverän 2400-5

OMEGA 2622-2

 

Posts

377

Likes

467

onlyomega94

·Sep 7, 2020

Maskelyne

- Absolutely, here are a couple of examples...

Thanks! Just to be sure that we are on the same page. I am aware of numbers going "under" the sub-dial but what I was referring to is that the numbers on OP's watch seem to overlap the sub-dial without being "cut off". Is that also correct for some references - or is it just a bad redial?

 

Posts

365

Likes

452

Maskelyne

·Sep 7, 2020

I asses it as deteriorations of the print. Parts are probably missing due to just that. (The left side of "6" and so on). It could also be a poor print - never say never...

Another example:

 

Posts

13,441

Likes

31,614

X350 XJR

·Sep 7, 2020·Vintage Omega Aficionado

How about the obvious, ref 2402 is not a Seamaster. A non waterproof snap back and an non waterproof crown, two essential features for a Seamaster.

 

Posts

8,095

Likes

58,219

TexOmega

·Sep 7, 2020

Sloppy, ham-fisted attempt at repaint and then poor maintenance in and out, afterwards.


Crank that polishing wheel up to high, Betsy!!!

 

Posts

9,596

Likes

27,674

ConElPueblo

·Sep 7, 2020

Apart from the 'Seamaster' script which I think was added at some point, I believe it is correct.

I would never consider buying it though, no matter the price.

 

Posts

289

Likes

543

Snowman

·Sep 9, 2020

Not a Seamaster never was a Seamaster