‘65 Omega Seamaster Deville critique

Posts

2,779

Likes

14,819

The Father

·Apr 23, 2020

Since I had it on today and have not had an analysis of the ‘65 Omega Seamaster Deville.
-The dial with the T Swiss MadeT leads me to believe an original or era correct dial at least
-hands appear correct for the watch of this era
-crown looks ok for the era. Seems big for the case, is it correct?
-case isn’t overly polished
-caseback looks ok
-the movement, not brave enough to open. Figure I’ll have watch movement parts scattered about.
-manual wind I assume is correct for the watch

2nd watch I ever purchased.

No answers will hurt my feelings, plus I understand nobody will worry about this.
BOR would be a good addition I feel.
Thanks ahead of time.

Damn I just realized the NFL draft is on, my apologies

 

Posts

1,177

Likes

4,963

apsm100

·Apr 23, 2020·Noob taxpayer

My gut says redial just from the font. Have never seen a DE VILLE logo like that. 😵‍💫

 

Posts

4,991

Likes

18,535

Shabbaz

·Apr 23, 2020

I dont see anything wrong with the dial. I like it. I see a bit of old lume behind the markers. SMDV's came manual and automatic. If it's the last, it's mentioned on the dial under 'omega'. Crown is probably a replacement but who gives a sh#$. It's a beauty. Enjoy!

 

Posts

10,654

Likes

51,900

Walrus

·Apr 24, 2020

I’m pretty confident that font is ok. Mine is at home but nothing strikes me as being off. I really like these watches simple with a hint of elegance. Mine is maybe 6 months out of service, keeps excellent time and has a respectable power reserve

 

Posts

415

Likes

1,088

mrbreen

·Apr 24, 2020

Original dial. Not a doubt in my mind. Unless a redialer removed and perfectly replaced the aged lume on the second track which would be very unlikely. Very nice watch!

 

Posts

12,967

Likes

22,493

Davidt

·Apr 24, 2020

The dial is perfectly fine. Absolutely not a redial.

Hands are correct.

Case isn't unpolished but how many really are? Also looks fine.

The crown isn't correct as it should be the thinner type as shown below. There may be another type of crown which is correct for these but I'm fairly sure yours is a service item.

 

Posts

1,854

Likes

5,412

omegastar

·Apr 24, 2020

Davidt

The dial is perfectly fine. Absolutely not a redial.

Hands are correct.

Case isn't unpolished but how many really are? Also looks fine.

The crown isn't correct as it should be the thinner type as shown below. There may be another type of crown which is correct for these but I'm fairly sure yours is a service item.

+1. IMO, it’s ok but lacks crispness looking at the one @Davidt displayed.

 

Posts

365

Likes

453

Maskelyne

·Apr 24, 2020

The watch looks just fine. 😀

 

Posts

3,133

Likes

5,561

Edward53

·Apr 24, 2020

Very nice dial, nothing wrong with it. The Seamaster de Ville is an underrated watch that's difficult to find in good condition. Well worth the trouble of sourcing a correct crown, should still be possible.

 

Posts

348

Likes

1,076

Candle00

·Apr 24, 2020

Looks fine IMHO. Here's my automatic with date for comparison.

 

Posts

9

Likes

0

Rosarito

·Apr 29, 2020

Candle00

Looks fine IMHO. Here's my automatic with date for comparison.

I love the Seamaster emblem indention on your arm from the case back. You've been branded.

Beautiful watch.

 

Posts

348

Likes

1,076

Candle00

·Apr 29, 2020

Rosarito

I love the Seamaster emblem indention on your arm from the case back. You've been branded.

Beautiful watch.

Might need to loosen my strap!

 

Posts

4,522

Likes

45,357

ghce

·Jan 26, 2021

looks perfectly original to me.
Here is my unmolested since new Auto of what must be the same period. Though I admit I had the crystal replaced with an OEM omega one and a service at the same time back in about 1988.