Cal. 352 witchout chronometer certyfikate?

Posts
627
Likes
8,221
Hello.
Have you come across a watch that has a movement cal 352 without a marking on the chronometer dial? It's nice, but isn't the case number 10 million too far from the movement number?
 
Posts
12,691
Likes
17,144
The general style and the case serial number says late 1940’s to me, but the cal. 352 movement wasn’t introduced until the early 1950’s.

My thought is that this piece was “upgraded” at some point.
gatorcpa
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
The general style and the case serial number says late 1940’s to me, but the cal. 352 movement wasn’t introduced until the early 1950’s.

My thought is that this piece was “upgraded” at some point.
gatorcpa


Thanks for your entry.
I thought so at the beginning, but when I started looking through case and movement 2648 numbers, the difference no longer scared me so much. It's a pity that 2517 didn't have a numbered case. Couldn't it be that in the early 1950s, before 2517, they put this movement in this case and added the Omega Automat dial?
In total, 2517 (1000 pieces) were tested on the chronometer and only after these tests was the chronometer added. Am I somewhat right?


 
Posts
12,691
Likes
17,144
Couldn't it be that in the early 1950s, before 2517, they put this movement in this case and added the Omega Automat dial?
Not sure what you are asking about here. My point was that chronometer rated movements were matched with dials that said “Chronometre”. Your watch does not have that. Therefore, either the movement or the dial was switched.
In total, 2517 (1000 pieces) were tested on the chronometer and only after these tests was the chronometer added. Am I somewhat right?
Somewhat. It is true that 1,000 consecutive Omega movements passed chronometer tests in 1949. These were all caliber 352. However, all had serial numbers earlier than your example. Also, I have not seen any of this group of movement serial numbers in an actual watch. You can read more about this here:

http://download1336.mediafire.com/y...p0t79p66ubj/Omega+History+Making+Movement.pdf

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
I wasn't sure, that's why I asked, because the red light was on with a big difference in the dial and movement serial numbers. I learned from collecting Omega watches that nothing can be 100% certain. In ref 2577 they put various movements, even with a chronometer certificate, and not every dial talked about it
 
Posts
12,691
Likes
17,144
In ref 2577 they put various movements, even with a chronometer certificate, and not every dial talked about it
I’d like to see an example of this please.

Omega charged more for chronometer movements back then. It seems counterintuitive that they would not recognize that on the dial.
gatorcpa
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
[
I’d like to see an example of this please.

Omega charged more for chronometer movements back then. It seems counterintuitive that they would not recognize that on the dial.
gatorcpa

In all Connie references in which the cal 354 movement appears, it is elevated to the status of a chronometer, and in the Seamaster 2577 it is no longer mandatory. Similarly, cal 501 in the Connie 2852 is raised to a chronometer, and in the Seamaster 2848 it is only an automatic
 
Posts
2,790
Likes
4,836
In all Connie references in which the cal 354 movement appears, it is elevated to the status of a chronometer, and in the Seamaster 2577 it is no longer mandatory. Similarly, cal 501 in the Connie 2852 is raised to a chronometer, and in the Seamaster 2848 it is only an automatic
I do no think that this is what @gatorcpa was talking about. He asked if you could show us other examples of chronometer-rated movements (as per markings on the movement) that do not mention "Chronometer" or "Chronometre" on the dial.
 
Posts
12,691
Likes
17,144
Chronometer ratings were typically given to movements, not case references. As @skand pointed out that Omega did have two versions of cal. 354 and 501. To my knowledge these are the only Omega movements that had both chronometer and non-chronometer versions.

Both appeared in several case references. However, I’ve not seen an Omega extract that mentioned a chronometer rating without such rating mentioned on the dial, with the exception of the 30T2SC movement in the “US Army” watch, Ref. 2179. That one was not tested outside the Omega factory, but was adjusted as part of the original order.

gatorcpa
 
Posts
3,395
Likes
7,301
Omega did have two versions of cal. 354 and 501. To my knowledge these are the only Omega movements that had both chronometer and non-chronometer versions.

Maybe we should include cal 30T2SC in ref 2242 (Techron) and in ref 2384 (US army) and cal. 283 of the UK chronometres and in the UK pilots watches like ref 2777 which were regulated to chronometre specs. But none of these movements show any chronometre inscriptions on their bridges - they are "stealth chronometres".
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
Omega released in the late 1970s (ordered from the Far East) the Connie with a movement cal 752, which does not have a chronometer certificate. What is your opinion on whether this is a collector's watch?
 
Posts
13,438
Likes
31,604
Omega released in the late 1970s (ordered from the Far East) the Connie with a movement cal 752, which does not have a chronometer certificate. What is your opinion on whether this is a collector's watch?

Why would/should it be?
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
Why would/should it be?

I asked the question a bit wrong. Omega made a series of watches that were not chronometers, but should have been. This fact sparked a discussion as to whether they are collectible? My opinion is that everything that is in small quantities has some deviations, and if it is in original condition it has even greater collector value than "standard" ones.
Maybe this watch isn't a good example, but I didn't have a better one at hand
 
Posts
5,639
Likes
8,732
This may be true for some other ‘detail-obsessed’ brand collectors but not in the Omega world.
(Let’s set Speedmaster variations aside for now)

Omega collectors tend to value anomalies as ‘interesting’ rather than more collectible. (Or more valuable)

In the case of non-chronometer Constellations - a watch is only meant to be a chronometer if it was designated as such and something that was diminished by virtue of corporate financial cost cutting does not make it more desirable no matter how few there are ( unless a collector is trying to plug a hole in an all-encompassing collection)
 
Posts
627
Likes
8,221
This may be true for some other ‘detail-obsessed’ brand collectors but not in the Omega world.
(Let’s set Speedmaster variations aside for now)

Omega collectors tend to value anomalies as ‘interesting’ rather than more collectible. (Or more valuable)

In the case of non-chronometer Constellations - a watch is only meant to be a chronometer if it was designated as such and something that was diminished by virtue of corporate financial cost cutting does not make it more desirable no matter how few there are ( unless a collector is trying to plug a hole in an all-encompassing collection)


Well then, let's take Ranchero as an example. The name did not stick and the dial, hands and name (Seamaster) were changed. Just because it retains the Ranchero reference it costs a lot more than the comparable Seamaster
 
Posts
5,639
Likes
8,732
Well then, let's take Ranchero as an example. The name did not stick and the dial, hands and name (Seamaster) were changed. Just because it retains the Ranchero reference it costs a lot more than the comparable Seamaster

Not being into Rancheros, I’ll let someone like @gbesq extol the unique virtues of that particular reference but by your own description the dial and hands were changed and IIRC the case references they came in appear to be interchangeable with a Seamaster at that time. (and they had the same/similar movement)

I’m not sure this equates to producing a famously chronometer-rated watch and putting a less highly rated non-chronometer movement in it.

It would be a bit like Alfa taking an exclusively Quadrifoglio line and making a few cars with a standard engine in them and removing the green cloverleaf off the car.
They would still be a nice looking car with a decent engine but certainly not especially desirable due to their rarity.
(I realise this simile doesn’t quite work as Alfa generally add the engine/cloverleaf to an existing range of cars but you get the general idea)