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

aralatp · Aug 18, 2026

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.

rendo · Aug 18, 2026

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.

aralatp · Aug 18, 2026

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.

Dan S · Aug 18, 2026

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.

rendo · Aug 18, 2026

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.

Porteroso · Aug 18, 2026

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.

MtV · Aug 18, 2026

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.

bgrisso · Aug 18, 2026

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

Spruce · Aug 18, 2026

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

aralatp · Aug 18, 2026

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?

rendo · Aug 18, 2026

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.

SOG53 · Aug 18, 2026

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.

Davidt · Aug 18, 2026

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.

mac_omega · Aug 19, 2026

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.

theluckyluke · Aug 19, 2026

aralatp
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?

The first one is a redial so not quite the best to compare.

My thoughts - if I were to see this for sale, say.

As said above, the missing lume makes me think the dial has been touched up somewhat at some point.

Given there is no trace of it, and that this “grainy” white texture is both where the lume was expected and on the rest of the dial - my assumption is that it was redialled at some stage. They did a really good job with the fonts though.

You might be able to find out one day by looking at the other side of the dial. I suppose the redialling would have left some traces.

Spruce · Aug 19, 2026

Redial has a slightly pejorative flavour but yours looks so good you might like to think of it as ‘restored’.

bardamu · Aug 19, 2026

Printing is too good to be a redial imho.

bgrisso · Aug 19, 2026

I haven't heard anyone comment if no lume hands are a possible factory configuration

karlenko123 · Aug 19, 2026

Vietnam redial. Missing lume plots, and the markers at 3, 6, 9 and 12 should be black dots, not bold lines.

theluckyluke · Aug 20, 2026

bgrisso
I haven't heard anyone comment if no lume hands are a possible factory configuration

If the dial is meant to have lume, which is what these markers suggest (otherwise you wouldn’t have the small round recess) then the hands should always have it too

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

aralatp

rendo

aralatp

Dan S

rendo

Porteroso

MtV

bgrisso

Spruce

aralatp

rendo

SOG53

Davidt

mac_omega

theluckyluke

Spruce

bardamu

bgrisso

karlenko123

theluckyluke

Similar threads

1957 Seamaster Calendar Ref 2849-2: Original Dial?

Omega Seamaster Calendar Ref. 2849 Cal. 503 Check

1959 Omega Seamaster GX6250: Original or Refinished Dial?

1954 Omega Seamaster Bumper: Original Dial or Redial?

Omega Seamaster Calendar 14701-2 SC (1960) Cal. 562

Minerva 13-20CH in rose gold - original dial or older redial