When I started looking at Omegas I quickly decided to avoid Genèves on the basis that one should aim for as high a spec as possible for long-term investments. However, given that they have the same movements as Seamasters and Connies, I’m wondering if the vintage Genèves are now collectible and I’m maybe being a snob about them.

They certainly go for a lot less, so arguably you get more “bang for your buck” with a Genève.

In any event, I recently purchased a 1960s Omega automatic cal 5xx with no marque, which I assume is the equivalent of a Genève. I’m perfectly happy to wear it now and again, while it slowly accumulates a little more value.

I guess my question is, do these watches represent a reasonable investment strategy?

 

There are two basic questions embedded in your post.

The answer to the question of whether Genèves are collectable, is a resounding yes. But there is a qualification, which is that the early models (up to around 1960) are more desirable and were much higher up on the model line than the later versions. In fact, they were, with the exception of the Chronometres, the highest quality hand-wind watches produced by Omega during the 1950s.

Your second question relates to "investment" potential, and to that question I would give two answers. Over a long time-line, the early Genèves will certainly appreciate in value. But we are on the other side of an inflection point in a bubble in the vintage watch market, so if you are thinking about short-term profits, I would suggest not investing until the unfolding "correction" has gone much further.

 

More a pleasure than an investment

Cal 613


Cal 552


Cal 601


Cal 552


Cal 565

 

Thank you, that’s very helpful. I will look for early hand winders in that case.

 

You're welcome. There are plenty of threads on the forum that include nice examples, so you can search for reference.

 

Tony, never get tired of seeing these!

 

Those really are lovely

 

I know what I’m looking for!

 

I would add a small codicil to Tony’s comments, I would put the quality cut off, ie when the Geneve label was down graded, a little later at around 1966. The Omega Geneva facility closed around then and after that the label was used (misused?) on a wide variety of other pieces. Some entry level, some quirky, some weird. Pre 66, Geneve was a mark of quality.

ps the OP post is tingling my deja vu. I have seen a very similar post before at some point.

pps if you want to talk investment strategies you are likely in the wrong place. This isn’t a forum of traders in pork bellies or bushels of wheat and I hope it never is.

 

I disagree with this. After the early '60s the hand-wind Genèves were greatly de-emphasized, and not in the same class. Have a look at the various catalogues later than 1959 on this well known site:

http://www.old-omegas.com

Most of them don't even feature, let alone emphasize the Genève model.

Did the 'transitional' Genèves of the mid-'60s, without the iconic script logo, include gold indexes, including the steel models? I don't believe so. Were the cases specially finished? Nope. Nothing wrong with those models, but don't confuse them with the early ones, which were marketing statements by the manufacturer. The large gold versions were significantly more expensive than both the Speedmaster and Seamaster 300!

This strikes me as an overreaction. There are many newer collectors who have mostly seen only price appreciations in the market, and so it is understandable that they may wonder about vintage watches as investments. Offering opinions along those lines can help them, potentially, and there is no real danger, given the wide variety of views that they are likely to receive.

 

Here some more info on the Geneve line, posted by someone else once on the forum. Can't remember who.

 

The 60s Geneves, as pointed out by Tony C, aren't of the same high quality as the earlier models but they have a distinctive appeal and style of their own. In terms of value for money, I agree totally with your point about "bang per buck". I would not however regard them as a better investment than Seamasters of the same era. The case design and execution of the Seamasters is of higher quality and to collectors that's every bit as important as the movement. So the answer to your original question is No, as they won't ever equal the Seamasters in financial value, but they are still minor classics.

 

To be honest, seamaster 600's and handwind geneves in the 34mm+ sizes are my favorite vintage omegas. They wear a lot like a nomos tangente, but with vintage panache and more classic design .

 

Well you may have a point, I was under the impression the cursive script models continues to the mid 60s but I am likely mistaken there. I would say though that Geneves don't really feature at all in the Old Omegas selection of catalogues during the era in question, the early to mid 1960s. Bearing in mind that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that there were clearly Geneve models being sold during that period suggests that on this topic those catalogues aren't really conclusive either way.

Regarding investment, I may have been overly dismissive, but this is because I personally hate it when conversations on watches turn purely to investment, it sucks all the love out of the subject and replaces it with avarice and self interest. The world of Rolex went that way long ago and it would be a shame if we saw that here too. It has already crept into many threads featuring the modern LE models and rears its head on the some of the vintage Speedy and Seamaster topics also.

ps I have one myself from 1960 and have owned other much later models too so do understand the difference in look and quality you describe:

 

Well, as the early models were featured prominently in '50s catalogues, it strikes me as being meaningful that they all but disappeared from those printed in the '60s. The cursive script models did continue to be manufactured into the '60s, but a large majority were automatics, probably because of customers' changing tastes. They are very nice watches, and do share some of the fine finishing of the early hand-winds.

I'm with you on this, but again, imagine how easy it is for other than long-time collectors to fall into the trap of assuming that it may be easy to make money buying vintage.

 

Thank you, that’s interesting and helpful. I’m already re-thinking my attitude tocthis marque. It’s clearly not simply “Omega Lite” but a name with a story behind it.

 

I’m sorry if I offended anyone by using the “I” word. I didn’t know that discussing watches in these terms was frowned upon. I’ve seen many comments on the forum discussing watch values and assumed it was a legitimate aspect of collecting. I’m not ashamed to say that while I’m developing an interest in the subject, I’m also thinking about how I can make some of my money work harder for me than it would sitting in a bank in these times of low interest rates, but clearly if I was only interested in investing I wouldn’t be buying watches. So it’s a bit of both, and I assumed others here had a similar take on their collections.

 

I don't think anyone's really taken offence. But there is no such thing as a safe investment with vintage watches or indeed any collectable as they are subject to the whims of public taste which aren't ruled by good sense. IMO the only people who've ever made money from any collectables are those who knew their subject intimately, had a very good eye for quality and bought what they liked in the best condition.

 

Interesting article. For the sake of completeness I can confirm that the five watches photographed above date 1968, 1969, 1970. I hadn’t realised until I checked just now that I was such a niche collector.

 

Indeed, the cursive scripted Geneve's like the gorgeous specimens shown here by @Tony C. and @padders are just beautiful (I'm so freaking jealous!) and yes, are the most desirable of the Geneve family. These represent some of Omega's most stunning sub second watches.

And yet, Omega created some great mid-late 1960's Geneve's I believe are worth sourcing - and hanging onto. I speak of the (somewhat confusing - at least to me!) Seamaster Geneve examples; they represent terrific value. Not sure about future profit potential as it is not my objective, but for me they fit the Omega fancier-not-collector-per-se bill perfectly, and I derive great pleasure of ownership from mine. A Seamaster in all but dial, this one came from one of OF's most respected experts and contributors. A terrific investment (albeit a strictly emotional one)!