Community Stories

Cal. 321 with removed copper finish

alingher
Posts
38
Likes
24
Hi all, what do you think about this cal. 321?

It seems that the copper finish has been removed. I just don't really see why. The movement is in a 145.012 with see-through case back, so maybe they thought that a silver finish looks better? You can still see the texture of the original finish and everything else, including the serial number, seems to be fine.
I know that the 27 CHRO C12p did not have the finish yet, but this is certainly a later 321.

So, what do you think? No biggy, leave it like this? Try to have it refinished? It is a little strange, isn't it?

omwerk1.JPG omwerk2.JPG
 
Archer
Posts
27,911
Likes
71,083
Unclear what that is. If the copper coloured plating was simply removed, the main plate and bridges would all be yellow brass coloured, as that's what they are made of. So if this started as a copper tone 321, it was stripped and then plated with something else.
 
alingher
Posts
38
Likes
24
Thanks! I don't really have any doubts that this is a 321 - the watch had a crystal display case back and I believe they rhodanized the parts. I'll probably send it to Biel for a service estimate and wait for them to comment 😀
 
Davidt
Posts
11,967
Likes
20,806
That certainly doesn’t look like rhodium plated to me. It’s far too dull.

There were other versions of the original Lemania base movement that came in a nickel(?) finish but I believe they were earlier and all came with the symmetric clutch bridge (right name??) and more pointed regulator arm.

The serial on yous looks correct, in terms of font and serial range whereas most of the non Omega versions I believe have much lower serials.

Perhaps it is a genuine and period Omega 321 that’s been replated
 
padders
Posts
9,930
Likes
15,595
One thing that is weird there, that 26,553 serial is bang on for the 145.012-68 but the pushers are pre 67 stubby 5x3mm kind are they not? I can't see how a watch with that serial came with those pushers, what is stamped in the caseback? Unless they were added later maybe but I believe they are fundamentally different in how they fix to the case.
 
Dan S
Posts
21,605
Likes
48,955
padders padders
One thing that is weird there, that 26552 serial is bang on for the 145.012-68 but the pushers are pre 66 stubby kind are they not? I can't see how a watch with that serial came with those pushers, what is stamped in the caseback?

Those definitely look like 105.012 pushers.
 
alingher
Posts
38
Likes
24
Thanks for all the input. Yes, the pushers are 5 x 2.7mm. The casback has been replaced with a see-through back - that's probably why they replated the movement. But that's just a guess. There is no engraving but they wrote 145.012 with a pen on the inside...
 
padders
Posts
9,930
Likes
15,595
alingher alingher
Thanks for all the input. Yes, the pushers are 5 x 2.7mm. The casback has been replaced with a see-through back - that's probably why they replated the movement. But that's just a guess. There is no engraving but they wrote 145.012 with a pen on the inside...
Ah of course. You did say it was a display back. Can you show a pic of the dial? I am wondering if you have the earlier narrow T version too which would match the earlier caseband/pushers. Or the later wide T 145 dial. Though there were some wide T dials with the skinny pushers seen on the 66 models I believe too.
Edited:
 
alingher
Posts
38
Likes
24
padders padders
Ah of course. You did say it was a display back. Can you show a pic of the dial? I am wondering if you have the earlier narrow T version too which would match the earlier caseband/pushers. Or the later wide T 145 dial. Though there were some wide T dials with the skinny pushers seen on the 66 models I believe too.

I haven't it here with me now, but it's the later wide T dial...
 
Dan S
Posts
21,605
Likes
48,955
alingher alingher
So, what do you think? No biggy, leave it like this? Try to have it refinished? It is a little strange, isn't it?

Well, to answer the question in the OP, I don't think there's any point in tampering further with the watch, since it is apparently put together with parts from different watches and missing the original caseback.
 
rcs914
Posts
2,510
Likes
3,729
SkunkPrince SkunkPrince
Looks like nickel finish to me.

Fairly easy to do nickel plating on your own - could have been some enterprising watchmaker at a service time. Not even sure you have to strip the copper - I think you can nickel plate right over it.

I know @MoclovFlop has nickel plated several worn cases and parts with very good results, with a simple $50-60 kit.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

M'Bob

Cal. 321 with odd behavior…

M'Bob Open Discussion
pdxleaf
pdxleaf
Posts
14
Views
427
sgrossma

Rare 1980s Omega Speedmaster Chronograph ref 345.0808 "First Execution" Copper Cal 863

sgrossma Watches For Sale
sgrossma
sgrossma
Posts
12
Views
12K
KLXN

Vintage caliber 321 in "Silver"/Steel finish

KLXN Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
byunjoe
byunjoe
Posts
6
Views
1K
MtV

18k First-gen Omega Seamaster Chronometre "Plank Dial" with the legendary cal. 352

MtV Private Watch Sales
MtV
MtV
Posts
5
Views
4K
Malthus101

To Wear or Not To Wear - 345.0808 Copper

Malthus101 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
MTROIS
MTROIS
Posts
44
Views
5K
GuiltyGear

Omega Speedmaster Mark 4.5 176.0012 Cal. 1045 with 1162 Bracelet <REDUCED €1700>

GuiltyGear Private Watch Sales
GuiltyGear
GuiltyGear
Posts
6
Views
8K