A “Don Draper” Seamaster DeVille (but not a redial)

Posts
376
Likes
541
I started a thread on this watch in 2017 and was told (and insisted) Omega never actually produced a black crosshair dial SMDV. And the folks out on that thread are still pretty adamant about that. You could contribute to horological history here, @seekingseaquest , and order an extract from the archives. That would settle this matter once and for all.
 
Posts
1,117
Likes
1,789
I started a thread on this watch in 2017 and was told (and insisted) Omega never actually produced a black crosshair dial SMDV. And the folks out on that thread are still pretty adamant about that. You could contribute to horological history here, @seekingseaquest , and order an extract from the archives. That would settle this matter once and for all.
Even if an extract mentions the dial colour (which is unlikely) who’s to say the cross-hair wasn’t added later?
 
Posts
376
Likes
541
Even if an extract mentions the dial colour (which is unlikely) who’s to say the cross-hair wasn’t added later?
The dial information provided on the extract does not come across as standardized to me—sometimes it mentions only dial color, sometimes also indices or other details. I guess there’s only one way to find out…
Edited:
 
Posts
2,754
Likes
6,803
Even if an extract mentions the dial colour (which is unlikely) who’s to say the cross-hair wasn’t added later?
Agreed. It’s a nice thought, but it is very unlikely the archive will include sufficient information to prove either way. So I don’t plan to spend my money on it, but if anyone wants to do so, I’m happy to provide the necessary info 😀

If this was the only one we’ve seen, then I would be more skeptical (though there are lots of “only one known” Omega variants out there). But I posted another of the exact same dial variation above (I’m asking the Omega Enthusiast for more photos, serial, etc.), and I’ve seen other seemingly legitimate variants as well - see below on the right. Note this one also has uncommon non-luminous markers/hands.

 
Posts
20
Likes
16
I watched mad men, but was not into watches back then. That looks great! I gotta go back and look for the watch.
 
Posts
5,753
Likes
2,939
For those that don’t know, one of Don Draper’s watches from Mad Men was a black crosshair dial 1960s Seamaster DeVille. There are many articles on the topic (Hodinkee here), however most fail to note that the one he wore in the show was actually a redial (“Swiss made” text positioning is the biggest giveaway). Needless to say, most of the black gilt Seamasters out there are redials, especially crosshair DeVilles post the Mad Men feature.

Last year, I was lucky enough to pick up an original one from an auction house in the UK. I’ve seen other originals - including an identical dial variant as mine from the Omega Enthusiast (also below).

I finally got it back from service, where it also received a NOS crystal. I’m pretty in love 🥰



And Omega Enthusiast’s:

Nice 👍👍👍
 
Posts
880
Likes
1,678
As every very well executed fake looks legit to most (if not all) people, I think one would need more than eyes to prove the existence of original black crosshair SMDVs. You need tremendous amounts of knowledge and if you ever find one that has been untouched and that you know for sure is original, good luck convincing the others on this. You'd need substancial amounts of credibility. I for sure would have a hard time believing someone who is trying to sell one of these.
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,688
It certainly looks good to me - congrats! 😀

I am not a particularly big fan of the SMDVs, but especially amongst new collectors they are extremely popular, much more than Constellations and such from what I have experienced.

I wouldn't be surprised that this was one of the next vintage Omegas we see faked.
 
Posts
880
Likes
1,678
Here is another one that looks legit to me. Very similar dial configuration except a pre-DeVille and with lume.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/59-seamaster-story-and-questions-new-hands-crown.94325/

This picture of the dial looks suspicious to me:

003-jpg.766872

The font doesn't look right. The fact that the watch came with incorrect hands, crystal and crown doesn't help.
 
Posts
146
Likes
598
This picture of the dial looks suspicious to me:

003-jpg.766872

The font doesn't look right. The fact that the watch came with incorrect hands, crystal and crown doesn't help.
I concur. 😀
 
Posts
880
Likes
1,678
wmoh.jpg

This is a beautiful watch, but I can't unsee the difference in tone between the date window and the rest of the hardware.
 
Posts
622
Likes
1,013
Seems to be sold already, ridiclious price though.
It was available when I first posted it and it seems it’s available again! Glitch or did the buyer backed out?
Edited:
 
Posts
2,754
Likes
6,803
It certainly looks good to me - congrats! 😀

I am not a particularly big fan of the SMDVs, but especially amongst new collectors they are extremely popular, much more than Constellations and such from what I have experienced.

I wouldn't be surprised that this was one of the next vintage Omegas we see faked.
Thanks! I’m normally not the biggest fan either but this one got me.

Re: faking, I would have thought that too until I posted this thread and realized the amount of inherent skepticism.. fakers would probably be better off starting elsewhere..
 
Posts
2,754
Likes
6,803
As every very well executed fake looks legit to most (if not all) people, I think one would need more than eyes to prove the existence of original black crosshair SMDVs. You need tremendous amounts of knowledge and if you ever find one that has been untouched and that you know for sure is original, good luck convincing the others on this. You'd need substancial amounts of credibility. I for sure would have a hard time believing someone who is trying to sell one of these.
I don’t understand this at all. What’s so special about black crosshair dial DeVilles that require such a high level of certainty over other models? And what is this forum for if not for experts to come together to share experience and knowledge to help determine what is “legitimate”? This rarely comes in the form of hard facts but rather looking at thousands of each reference (as I and many others here have).

This picture of the dial looks suspicious to me:

003-jpg.766872

The font doesn't look right. The fact that the watch came with incorrect hands, crystal and crown doesn't help.
What’s wrong with the font? It looks fine for a pre-DeVille to me.

wmoh.jpg

This is a beautiful watch, but I can't unsee the difference in tone between the date window and the rest of the hardware.
It’s not uncommon for different markers on the dial to patina differently from others - particularly for the date window in my experience.