Picked up this automatic from around 1949, maybe 1950. The serial number of the 351 movement is 117959431. I'm a sucker for a dress watch with Arabic numerals and Omega models of this period appear to feature markers much more often than they do full numerals. If numerals are Breguet or similarly styled then I esteem them even more. A couple of questions: Can y'all determine dial originality from the photographs? Would this crown be correct for this model? Forgot to stick up the photo taken in full sun.
Photos of the inside of the caseback? And the movement? The dial looks correct, if it is a redial then at least the basics are right. This version with all Breguet numbers is the most desirable. The crown is later and probably incorrect, I think it should be the "bowler-hat" style. And the second hand is too long . . . A nice watch, though
Dial looks nice (in magnification), it´s not a redial. crown is uncertain - i saw non-seamaster bumpers with and without seamaster-crown. rgds - h.u.
Dial looks to be original Omega. Whether it is original to this movement and case, we cannot be sure of that without more information about case reference. The crown is almost certainly an Omega replacement part. Looks too big for the case. Same for the seconds hand. If you made me guess, this looks like something a semi-knowledgeable watchmaker or collector put together. Still a nice watch and it wouldn't be difficult to obtain the original parts. gatorcpa
It's been at the watchmaker's shop. He does good work. It's so accurate now I can't tell that it was off even a second in 24 hours use. The crown that was on it was obviously incorrect, being a later Omega crown. The watchmaker said he would be able to provide the proper crown after researching the watch's reference number. This is the crown he chose. I had assumed it would be the "bowler-hat" style. What would a proper second hand look like on a watch like this one? Here are some photos pulled from the Ebay auction site.
Thanks gatorcpa. You posted while I was posting the photos. Your thoughts on the matter would explain why my watchmaker used this style crown.
Here is information on your watch. http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-watches-database?ref=14972 Bowler hat crown would be correct. Seconds hand should end at the register. This looks to be a very early version of this reference, so original crown may not have been signed. Omega was just switching over in the late 1940's when this was made. "Unadjusted" on the rotor and "Swiss" on the dial are a match for a US market watch like this. Very nice, gatorcpa
So the watch is original after all and not a "put-together?" Thanks for the reference link. It didn't occur to me to go there. Is there a more reliable source for a proper second hand and bowler hat crown, rather than Ebay "guesstimate purchases," and would a bowler hat crown require any additional different parts to install?
Here are part numbers for crown and crystal: http://boley.de/en/case-parts/omega/4769?search=2635 Seconds hands are ordered by length and caliber. Watch guy needs to go to a parts supplier like Jules Borel or Ofrei.com. gatorcpa
Here is a photo for reference of my similar 2635, bowler crown and shorter second hand would seem to be correct... You have a very nice watch there, love the dial!
Agreeing with everything our experts have said so far, and just to make the point - the correct seconds hand on these is very, very fine indeed, and easily bent so is often replaced. But the later thick ones just do not look right!
one question: we have two different dials; a non-seamaster with twelve breguet numerals and the black one with seamaster-writing. Does that mean that ref. 2635 appears both, as seamaster and non-seamaster? rgds - h.u.
In the Omega database, the 2635 is listed as a Seamaster. But it seems that many 2635s did not have the Seamaster script - mine does not - And on the rear it is just engraved "Waterproof", not Seamaster.
Early US model Seamsters generally did not have writing on the dial: Yours is one of the lowest serial numbers I've seen on a cal. 351, so that's even more evidence that it is correct. Hope this helps, gatorcpa
Thanks again, gatorcpa. Your ad shows the crown that's been installed on my watch but one supposes that it's a few years later. The watch in the ad looks very much like another one I have featuring the 344 movement that dates to 1954.
That case is a "beefy lug" Ref. 2520 (chronometer) or Ref. 2577 (non-chronometer). The cases on these are rather thick and looks more balanced with that crown than your combo. gatorcpa
Thanks! And I still have that black waffle dialed Seamaster I purchased from you, oh so long ago...think that was my first purchase here on OF.