- Posts
- 311
- Likes
- 575
fizz
·This post/thread has been created in the interest of sharing information with anyone who might be interested in pursuing one of the numerous Omega Seamaster watches that was issued to the Pakistan Airforce during the 1960s. As many here are already aware, there are at least 3 known models that were commissioned for use by Airforce personnel (both pilots and ground staff) and this included the following:
1 - Omega Railmaster 2914 (38mm)
2 - Omega Ranchero 2996 (36mm)
3 - Omega Seamaster 30 (34-35mm)
Most of the attention and information on this and other fora have always been focused on the first 2 models (primarily the first), for, what I can only guess are reasons to do with the size (38mm is more desirable and sits better on a man’s wrist than say a 34mm) but also because the 2914, in particular, was purported to be built in limited numbers (some suggest a batch of about 270 or so) with the added advantage of having P.A.F. (which obviously stands for Pakistan Airforce) engraved not just on the casebook but also on the dial itself. Furthermore, the relative mystery and the historical fascination with why what was essentially a watch called a Railmaster, be labeled as anything other than this (or Seamaster in the case of PAF’s request) compounds the continuing intrigue. The combination of these factors (in my opinion) has lead to a stratospheric rise in their perceived value (though perhaps not as much as the Peruvian airforce or the inappropriately acronymed FAP models).
Well, in an effort to document the outcomes of my humble search efforts so far (after being almost ridiculed for asking naive questions here on other threads about these PAF models which I am fascinated by due to my own background from Pakistan but also my lack of awareness about them), I have presented the variations in the 2 versions of the more demure Seamaster 30 that I’ve managed to find.
To give some perspective, this isn’t a research piece (more an opinion formed by observation) and it was at best based on visual studies that I’ve done in a short amount of time and trends I have been able to discern but what I found certainly pointed to a clear distinction in the variations of the 2 known models of the Seamaster 30 - 135.007 and the 135.011. I presented the 5 key distinctions below and my hope is that others who find this will be able to benefit from it. I will try to update this as I discover more but any thoughts or suggestions are welcome (though, given my recent experience here, I am not one to get into a debate about prices, desirability, and other mundane perspectives).
Omega logo on the dial:
The first thing you notice when you compare the 135.007 and the 135.011 is that the Omega logo on the 2 dials is visibly different. I have read on some threads of people perceiving the logo on the 135.011 as being “fake” but given how many occurrences of this version I have found, this is unlikely to be the case. As with vintage Rolex models, where the crown underwent subtle but noticeable changes (look no further than the Submariner 5513 over a 20 year period from the mid-’60s to the mid-’80s) logo variations are not uncommon especially in an era where the model may be undergoing what I would consider some form of product development.
The logo on the 137.007 is more elegant and narrower at the bottom
While the logo on the 135.011 is more rounder and broader at the bottom
The quarter numbers:
The numbers on the 135.007 seem to be, in general, sharper. The edges are more refined and less rounder. Look at the 2 in 12 or the shape of the one run 9/6, which is generally slightly more pleasant. The no 3 especially on the 135.007 a lot more of a pronounced serif than on the 135.011
In contrast, the numbers at the quarter marker on the 135.011 are slightly thicker and less well defined. Aesthetically this isn’t worse but a personal preference of the viewer.
The hands on the dial:
The hands on the dial of the 135.007 are more baton shapes and the lume fills more of the hands.
Comparatively, the hands on the 135.011 have both thinner and shorter lume filling the hands.
Other milder differences:
The way both OMEGA and Seamaster are written are distinctly different.
On the 135.007
And then on the 135.011.
The movement:
While both are manual winding, the movement on the 135.007 is the 286, while that on the 135.011 is the 601.
The dial size.
From what I can tell (I haven’t established this yet with certainty) the 135.007 is slightly larger of the 2 being 35mm without crown, while it seems the 135.011 is slightly smaller at 34mm.
Finally, the dates of manufacturing.
It seems, from the numerous copies of the Omega extract and the indications on the casebooks, the 135.007 were delivered to the PAF earlier, mostly during the period of 1963-1964, while the 135.011 came a few years later, during 1968-1969.
Anyway, I hope this post is beneficial to those who, like me, are very curious about the PAF models have a desire to at least own a more affordable variation of such a timepiece. While the 137.0xx doesn’t have the fame and cult-like following of the others, much to my surprise, I personally think it’s no less collectible or desirable, certainly from the point of view of someone who is fascinated by the history of these watches and perhaps has a cultural/ethnic association with the country and would like to own a piece, no matter how obscure or undesirable, of such a timepiece.
1 - Omega Railmaster 2914 (38mm)
2 - Omega Ranchero 2996 (36mm)
3 - Omega Seamaster 30 (34-35mm)
Most of the attention and information on this and other fora have always been focused on the first 2 models (primarily the first), for, what I can only guess are reasons to do with the size (38mm is more desirable and sits better on a man’s wrist than say a 34mm) but also because the 2914, in particular, was purported to be built in limited numbers (some suggest a batch of about 270 or so) with the added advantage of having P.A.F. (which obviously stands for Pakistan Airforce) engraved not just on the casebook but also on the dial itself. Furthermore, the relative mystery and the historical fascination with why what was essentially a watch called a Railmaster, be labeled as anything other than this (or Seamaster in the case of PAF’s request) compounds the continuing intrigue. The combination of these factors (in my opinion) has lead to a stratospheric rise in their perceived value (though perhaps not as much as the Peruvian airforce or the inappropriately acronymed FAP models).
Well, in an effort to document the outcomes of my humble search efforts so far (after being almost ridiculed for asking naive questions here on other threads about these PAF models which I am fascinated by due to my own background from Pakistan but also my lack of awareness about them), I have presented the variations in the 2 versions of the more demure Seamaster 30 that I’ve managed to find.
To give some perspective, this isn’t a research piece (more an opinion formed by observation) and it was at best based on visual studies that I’ve done in a short amount of time and trends I have been able to discern but what I found certainly pointed to a clear distinction in the variations of the 2 known models of the Seamaster 30 - 135.007 and the 135.011. I presented the 5 key distinctions below and my hope is that others who find this will be able to benefit from it. I will try to update this as I discover more but any thoughts or suggestions are welcome (though, given my recent experience here, I am not one to get into a debate about prices, desirability, and other mundane perspectives).
Omega logo on the dial:
The first thing you notice when you compare the 135.007 and the 135.011 is that the Omega logo on the 2 dials is visibly different. I have read on some threads of people perceiving the logo on the 135.011 as being “fake” but given how many occurrences of this version I have found, this is unlikely to be the case. As with vintage Rolex models, where the crown underwent subtle but noticeable changes (look no further than the Submariner 5513 over a 20 year period from the mid-’60s to the mid-’80s) logo variations are not uncommon especially in an era where the model may be undergoing what I would consider some form of product development.
The logo on the 137.007 is more elegant and narrower at the bottom
While the logo on the 135.011 is more rounder and broader at the bottom
The quarter numbers:
The numbers on the 135.007 seem to be, in general, sharper. The edges are more refined and less rounder. Look at the 2 in 12 or the shape of the one run 9/6, which is generally slightly more pleasant. The no 3 especially on the 135.007 a lot more of a pronounced serif than on the 135.011
In contrast, the numbers at the quarter marker on the 135.011 are slightly thicker and less well defined. Aesthetically this isn’t worse but a personal preference of the viewer.
The hands on the dial:
The hands on the dial of the 135.007 are more baton shapes and the lume fills more of the hands.
Comparatively, the hands on the 135.011 have both thinner and shorter lume filling the hands.
Other milder differences:
The way both OMEGA and Seamaster are written are distinctly different.
On the 135.007
And then on the 135.011.
The movement:
While both are manual winding, the movement on the 135.007 is the 286, while that on the 135.011 is the 601.
The dial size.
From what I can tell (I haven’t established this yet with certainty) the 135.007 is slightly larger of the 2 being 35mm without crown, while it seems the 135.011 is slightly smaller at 34mm.
Finally, the dates of manufacturing.
It seems, from the numerous copies of the Omega extract and the indications on the casebooks, the 135.007 were delivered to the PAF earlier, mostly during the period of 1963-1964, while the 135.011 came a few years later, during 1968-1969.
Anyway, I hope this post is beneficial to those who, like me, are very curious about the PAF models have a desire to at least own a more affordable variation of such a timepiece. While the 137.0xx doesn’t have the fame and cult-like following of the others, much to my surprise, I personally think it’s no less collectible or desirable, certainly from the point of view of someone who is fascinated by the history of these watches and perhaps has a cultural/ethnic association with the country and would like to own a piece, no matter how obscure or undesirable, of such a timepiece.
Edited:
