[Advice Needed] Thinking of Buying this Polerouter 215-2

Hey all,

It has been a while since I last came here as I concentrated more on other projects. I am now back and would love to get your advice and input on the following:

I am thinking of buying this Polerouter 215-2 from 1959 but have a tough time spotting whether everything is original. As per the seller, last service has been done a while ago whereas nothing has ever been replaced, redialed or polished on this watch. The latter I somehow can assess.

Things I would need your expertise on are:

1. The Dial
-> I presume it has not been redialed / covered up. Nonetheless the black lume dots look odd to me?
-> As per this reference table, the dial text should be "Automatic Microrotor" for the Polerouter Date with 215-2 movement. Can this here be correct?

2. The Crystal
-> The Crystal looks very mint to me. I can somehow not believe that this is the one from 1959? WDYT? Would this be a big problem?

3. The Case / The Movement
-> I have seen that iconic Polerouter engraving on the caseback can vanish slightly over time...nonetheless it somehow remains visible. In this case I wonder whether it has ever been there? Is this an original caseback?

->So far I haven't received any timegrapher info or any information on the movement and it's remaining "performance". All I got is the picture attached which to me shows a rather dirty movement. Does this speak for or against anything?

We are currently negotiating the price but currently stand at 1850€ with a bit of haggling. What is your assessment of this? Would this be worth it for the watch only? How much would you say is needed to put into servicing this watch?

View attachment 1290134 View attachment 1290135

I believe the crystal/plexy should have the "U" stamp in the middle and the trapezoidal glass on the date. Like mine below.

The dial is in pretty bad shape. Not sure why the lumens turned black.

The movement is super dirty. Definitely needs a service.

To be honest, I would let it go but if you wants the watch, I would pay below 1.000 usd for that watch.

I think you are right. With a Cal 215-2, I think it is more likely that the dial would say "Automatic Microtor".

Are the reference and serial numbers present? It looks like a 204610 case with the thin bezel. The serial number might help as it would indicate whether it's early or late in the production of the reference e.g. a serial late in the range would suggest a Cal 218-2 is more likely.

Without those numbers, you are guessing and that would be enough for me to walk away.

By the way, you mistakenly referred to Cal 218-2 in the title of the thread. Perhaps a Freudian slip?

The caseback originally had the polerouter logo on it, as well as the reference and serial numbers around the outside edge.
Black lume dots seem to be common in tropical regions, e.g. Indonesia.
The colour matches on the hands and dial so thats a good sign theyve been together for at least a long time.
The plexi is not original, it would have originally had a round or trapezoidal date loupe on this depending on serial, and would have the U shield logo etched in the centre.

Id be most concerned about the acid pitting inside the case (quite a lot around the caseback thread... the sealing ability may not be so great...).
For what its worth, it looks like a 204610 case/dial.

Wow! That is a lot of input. Thanks a million for your help and assessment 😀



Indeed this was a Freudian slip. Changed it to 215-2 now. Thanks for pointing it out.

With regards to the reference it says 204503/2BD. I believe this speaks for an earlier model?

Ah, that's an unusual reference - it's the only 204503 with a 34mm case and 18mm lug width, which is what makes it look like a 204610.

If I had to guess, the Cal 215-2 is original but the dial is later.

Looks like the same watch is discussed here:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/polerouter-check-thanks-for-your-help.129933/

...and one with similar characteristics is discussed here:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/help-with-purchasing-a-polerouter-date.100495/

The combination of missing "Microtor" text and 215-2 is unusual, but that doesn't automatically mean it is not correct.

Good digging!

At least I'm consistent, even if consistently wrong.