1959 Seamaster Calendar 2849-2 SC original dial or not?

Posts

3

Likes

1

aralatp

·1:53pm yesterday

Hi everyone,

I picked up this Seamaster Calendar a little while ago. The deal is done either way, but I would really like to know whether the dial is original.

Details:

• Ref. 2849-2 SC, cal. 503, 33.5mm, 1959
• Seller says case is unpolished and dial, hands and crystal are original. Bracelet and buckle are replacements.

I am new to vintage Omega, so I cannot tell myself. Does this dial look original to you, or is it a redial?

Photos below.

Thanks.

 

Posts

902

Likes

3,774

rendo

·2:39pm yesterday·faux legend

My vote goes to redial, but I was wrong the last time I shared my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt.

 

Posts

3

Likes

1

aralatp

·2:45pm yesterday

rendo

My vote goes to redial, but I was wrong the last time I shared my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Thanks for your answer. Could you point out what makes you lean that way? I am new to vintage Omega and I would like to learn what to look for.

 

Posts

24,751

Likes

54,980

Dan S

·2:56pm yesterday

The printing is really good, and it's rare to see such accurate fonts and painted markers in a redial. The texture of the dial and missing lume dots do give me some concern, however. I'm curious to hear various opinions on this one.

 

Posts

902

Likes

3,774

rendo

·2:56pm yesterday·faux legend

To me, the texture of the dial is off and looks too clean for a 60+ year old watch. I suspect they accidentally stamped the black dot under the "R" in "calendar" during the redial process. You can see where the lume would go on the indices, but it's missing and there is no sign of previous lume on the dial. I also have never seen these hands on this watch before.

Again, I would be happy to be wrong in this case, since you already bought the watch.

 

Posts

916

Likes

2,890

Porteroso

·3:12pm yesterday

The missing lume gives you pause, but very good printing and fonts. These sparkle dials tend to wear well. There are lots of them that look nearly perfect.

I am 50/50, but when they are this good, don't worry too much, just enjoy. Have someone add back the lume plots, and it will look as it looked when it left the factory.

 

Posts

3,523

Likes

13,409

MtV

·3:23pm yesterday

rendo

[…] looks too clean for a 60+ year old watch. I suspect they accidentally stamped the black dot under the "R" in "calendar" during the redial process. […] I also have never seen these hands on this watch before.

1. “Looks too clean” is an argument that’ll prevent you from ever owning nice pieces. This very forum is full of proof this isn’t leading anywhere.

2. The black dot might well be a random particle of dust or whatever black material.

3. Do you mean this style, dauphine hands? I’d argue it’s the most common on 2849s.

Not saying this dial is legit, but those 3 arguments above I didn’t quite feel.

 

Posts

3,644

Likes

8,423

bgrisso

·3:33pm yesterday

I'm not familiar with this ref, but there's no lume in the hands, would there be lume on the dial?

 

Posts

9,049

Likes

75,416

Spruce

·3:50pm yesterday·London sunburst dial fan

Everything about it looks nice and I’d happily wear without a second thought.

 

Posts

3

Likes

1

aralatp

·3:52pm yesterday

What made me suspicious in the first place is the shape of the markers at 12, 6 and 9. They look different from the Seamaster Calendars I have seen online.

I am attaching two photos. The one on the black background is an example I found online, the second one is my watch. On the online example the 12 and 6 markers are narrow arrowheads, while mine are wider and flatter. Is this a known variation for this reference, or does it point to a redial?

 

Posts

902

Likes

3,774

rendo

·4:03pm yesterday·faux legend

MtV

1. “Looks too clean” is an argument that’ll prevent you from ever owning nice pieces. This very forum is full of proof this isn’t leading anywhere.

2. The black dot might well be a random particle of dust or whatever black material.

3. Do you mean this style, dauphine hands? I’d argue it’s the most common on 2849s.

Not saying this dial is legit, but those 3 arguments above I didn’t quite feel.

1. While I find "this will prevent you from ever owning nice pieces" comment a little strong, I get your point.
2. True, that's why I said I suspected. You might be right.
3. I was referring to the lack of lume on the hands.

Thanks for the critique.

 

Posts

3,471

Likes

7,645

SOG53

·4:25pm yesterday

Lots of dial variations here’s black one with Arabic at 12 6 and 9.
The hour markers have little recess on periphery where lume belongs.
Your dial looks good other than missing lume.
Possibly service dial that didn’t get lumed?
I agree with above wear and enjoy it very nice watch.

 

Posts

13,413

Likes

23,287

Davidt

·4:41pm yesterday

My gut reaction was redial. The missing lume is strange.

However, the macros show the printing is good, the serifs are present etc. I just can’t believe a redialer got the print so right, but there’s still ‘something’ thats making me uneasy.

But, if it is a redial, it’s the best I’ve seen.

 

Posts

3,610

Likes

7,687

mac_omega

·Today at 1:43am

Porteroso

These sparkle dials tend to wear well.

Well, I am not sure this is a sparkle dial - it looks more like it has been sandblasted during the restoration.
I have never seen a Ref. 2849-2 SC with a sparkling dial - usually these dials have a vertical "brushing" structure.
And then the missing lume gives me pause...
Fonts are very good - maybe a Vietnamese restoration - @hoipoloi has shown excelent examples, I would not wonder if this dial came also from Vietnam.