Clear out question how to deciffer the codes on a Seamaster?

Freddedw · Nov 19, 2020

Hi i recently asked q about a Seamaster that im looking at, and it seemed ok but then after a day digging in information, question pile up if i understand this. This is what shows in text about the watch and the pictures.
Seamaster from 1961.
Cal 284
case number 2938 1SC
movement number 17088867 a bit unclear the last 5 digits but defenitly 17 million.

So my noob finding point at,
cal 284 seems like its correct for a Seamaster but 1958?
Case nr, points also at seamaster 1958?
movement number points at 1960? is this a -58 or a -60/61?
the back looks like a "snap" fitting and not screwd on, but it seems like the case 2938 has that?
Seamaster logo in back is engraved not in relief. Aperently early seamasters -58 did not have the logo but after that they did, if this then is a -58 ther logo shall be there but wasnt the logo then in relief and not engraved?
Crown is wrong? but if restored that is basicly ok?
no "T" by swiss marking but with glow, is that correct for an erly seamaster? Not all has the "t" if i understand?
But glow filling on both hands and dial is correct, if dial has glow then also the hands?

onlyomega94 · Nov 19, 2020

The case reference was put into production in 1958 meaning that it is perfectly fine that the watch has a later serial number as the same case designs were not only in production one year.

Where do you get the screw in information from? The Omega Vintage Database lists this reference as a press-in reference.

I don’t know about the seamaster logo but it looks legit to me - also the engraving on the back suggests that it was gifted to someone making it more unlikely that it’s fake/wrong IMO.

T should only be there when the lume is tritium and in some cases not even when it os. There is a thread in here somewhere on this if you search. However, the dots look too perfect and patinated not to be legit IMO.

Oh and yes as a general rule the hands should have lume if the dial has (although there are exceptions).

seekingseaquest · Nov 19, 2020

There are no Ts because the lume is radium, not tritium. Tritium replaced radium in the early 60s for Omega.

The dial/lume looks great, and I love the big engraved hippocampus on the case back. Nice watch.

Freddedw · Nov 20, 2020

onlyomega94
The case reference was put into production in 1958 meaning that it is perfectly fine that the watch has a later serial number as the same case designs were not only in production one year.

Where do you get the screw in information from? The Omega Vintage Database lists this reference as a press-in reference.

I don’t know about the seamaster logo but it looks legit to me - also the engraving on the back suggests that it was gifted to someone making it more unlikely that it’s fake/wrong IMO.

T should only be there when the lume is tritium and in some cases not even when it os. There is a thread in here somewhere on this if you search. However, the dots look too perfect and patinated not to be legit IMO.

Oh and yes as a general rule the hands should have lume if the dial has (although there are exceptions).

Ive looked on so many sites the last couple weeks so i probably mixed them up, but somewhere there was the info that the seamaster has screw on back but it was probably for another case model, 2938 is supposed to have snap on and i noticed. Thanks for enlighten me about the luminus;-)

Freddedw · Nov 20, 2020

seekingseaquest
There are no Ts because the lume is radium, not tritium. Tritium replaced radium in the early 60s for Omega.

The dial/lume looks great, and I love the big engraved hippocampus on the case back. Nice watch.

Ah diffrent material of the lume. Yes i really like the looks of it but not the asking price, but to my luck not any other either so we see how the auctions will turn out this time...

Rudi99 · Nov 20, 2020

People, I have to say, I am not yet convinced by the dial... I am not saying 100% redial, and if my suspiscion are confirmed definetely not a bad one. But look at these for comparison:

The O and M look too close together, the O not being maybe uniform enough. Seamaster maybe a tiny bit too tight?

Wondering what the more experienced here would say!

Freddedw · Nov 20, 2020

compared with the others the Seamaster text dont look the same either, but is these test printed or painted? can they be exactly the same over the years or do thay differ? if this is a -58--61 watch dial will it have the exact text as a... -68? when looking at it all 3 have differencies at the seamaster text...

VintageMasters · Nov 20, 2020

Rudi99
People, I have to say, I am not yet convinced by the dial... I am not saying 100% redial, and if my suspiscion are confirmed definetely not a bad one. But look at these for comparison:

The O and M look too close together, the O not being maybe uniform enough. Seamaster maybe a tiny bit too tight?

Wondering what the more experienced here would say!

Agreed on it being a redial. Look at the inconsistent spacing and difference in the e’s in the seamaster text

Clear out question how to deciffer the codes on a Seamaster?

Freddedw

onlyomega94

seekingseaquest

Freddedw

Freddedw

Rudi99

Freddedw

VintageMasters

Similar threads

Replacement Dial Question - how to know if a dial will fit

Christmas self-gift: Rescuing a 1956 Seamaster

Information on a Seamaster De Ville Please

Thoughts On A Seamaster 30 Listed On Ebay?