50's Seamaster movement-caliber mismatch?

Posts
13
Likes
0
I found the watch below on ebay. It seems way too expensive (feel free to weigh in on that), but I'm more concerned right now with learning about the watches and how to identify/verify/appraise them. Feel free to correct all misuses of terminology. I'm very new.
So, I cross-checked the watch's reference number, 2520, with the Omega database. That checks out. Font seems good Serial number (12 mil range) also makes sense. And the caliber written on the movement, 352, is what it should be. BUT, I looked at the Ranfft database to see what the movement of the 352 caliber typically looks like. And the picture provided by Ranfft is very different from this watch's movement. What's up with that?

Here's the link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Vinta...738657?hash=item3b48759fe1:g:0IoAAOSwz3JaG0r-

Here are the (relevant) pictures from the watch on ebay:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0IoAAOSwz3JaG0r-/s-l1600.jpg s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0IoAAOSwz3JaG0r-/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/aokAAOSwIJlaG0ti/s-l1600.jpg
s-l1600.jpg
Here's the picture from the Ranfft database:
http://www.ranfft.de/bidfun/katb/2uswk/Omega_351.jpg Omega_351.jpg

Here's the picture from Omega's vintage watch database:
https://www.omegawatches.com/media/...391/o/m/omega-vintage-seamaster-oj-2520-l.jpg omega-vintage-seamaster-oj-2520-l.jpg

Thanks!
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
Posts
21,616
Likes
48,977
A redial I assume. The movement is probably correct, just badly oxidized, and the "rotor" is just in a different position in the Ranfft photo. Unless there's something else you're referring to, can you be more specific.
 
Posts
232
Likes
247
The movement is the same just the rose colour plating wore off. It can happen, most likely it was exposed to moisture for some time given that the hands look corroded as well
 
Posts
21,616
Likes
48,977

The Ranfft database uses the same photo for the cal 351 and 352 listings. That's pretty common for him to have only one photo for an entire family. The listing will often describe in words how the variations differ. In this case, it mentions the special regulator on the 352 but shows a photo of a 351. Of course, the OP's photo doesn't show the regulator anyway.
 
Posts
7,634
Likes
61,439
And, IMHO, it’s significantly overpriced.
 
Posts
586
Likes
765
Shame that all the original "deluxe finish" is gone and is now bare brass. There are better ones to buy
 
Posts
13
Likes
0
A redial I assume. The movement is probably correct, just badly oxidized, and the "rotor" is just in a different position in the Ranfft photo.
Thanks for the quick response! What makes you say it's a redial? Also, I thought a redial only involved changes to the dial of the watch. Here, the movement doesn't match (maybe) the caliber that's etched on the movement itself
 
Posts
1,996
Likes
1,226
Watch movement - 352 - chronometer grade

Ranfft movement - 351 - standard grade

Except for a small number of special parts. Movements are pretty much the same design which is why Ranfft probably used the same image for both movements

DON
 
Posts
21,616
Likes
48,977
Thanks for the quick response! What makes you say it's a redial? Also, I thought a redial only involved changes to the dial of the watch. Here, the movement doesn't match (maybe) the caliber that's etched on the movement itself

The movement is fine, but the dial has been repainted. With experience it will be apparent to you.
 
Posts
13,440
Likes
31,609
Thanks for the quick response! What makes you say it's a redial? Also, I thought a redial only involved changes to the dial of the watch. Here, the movement doesn't match (maybe) the caliber that's etched on the movement itself

The printing on the dial is horrible, fonts incorrect, line quality not even close.

The movement is correct, it is a caliber 352 with the correct regulator.