Comprehensive Omega Admiralty Super-Thread!

Posts
2
Likes
9
So glad to share I'm joining the Admiralty club after purchasing a hand winding, no-date, grey dial Omega Admiralty 135.015.
I still couldn't put my hands on it, but by the pictures (below) of the seller, it seems to be in excelent conditions and all original.
And honestly, I was only able to seal that acquisition because I found here in this 7-year thread all the information I need and even more. It was a very pleasurable experience to go through every single comment and I feel really gratefull for you guys who shared your knowledge and experience these watches.
As soon as I it arrives here in São Paulo I'll take better shots and add here.

 
Posts
993
Likes
2,419
Looks nice, looking forward to seeing more pics when you have it in hand.

I've had several of the diver style Admiralty watches and would like to have one like yours one day.
 
Posts
1,289
Likes
1,800
yes! Updates, please. That is a super clean gray dial. congrats!
 
Posts
2
Likes
9
Hello guys, I`m adding some pictures of the watch. All I can say is that I`m totally satisfied and I`ve enjoying this watch a lot, it has taken the number #1 position in my collection and this place will be hard be taken.
@DIV thanks for reaching out, you definetly had a huge contribution on this.

 
Posts
1
Likes
0
Whereas on this one, the anchor is thick and too small.

I recently came across a watch with a similar dial for sale.


Here are the errors in my opinion:

- Anchor error as pointed out.

- All types of "T Swiss" text is supposed to be placed between 27 and 33 minute makers the original. While this redial has it spread wider (between 26 and 34)

- The Omega symbol is also incorrect and accents in the text are different.

- No tritium anywhere on the dial except the 3 window. (Even the argument of old tritium flaking off without leaving any signs is weak)

- Minute track is inconsistent all long specially the think lines corresponding to the hour markers



I am not an Omega Expert but all these errors together are highly unlikely and this is a case of a batch of redial from a particular studio since a reverse image search reveals a few of these for sale in the past.

A few experienced collectors and watchmakers share my opinion while 1-2 are going the 'special unseen dial' route. Interested what the community thinks and if there is any contrary opinion.

 
Posts
1,289
Likes
1,800
@marcozf -
congrats! That's very nice. And aside from the newer logo, you have the correct crown which is no small feat. Nice!
 
Posts
4
Likes
4
DIV DIV
I've always been under the impression that the non-anchor models are the later ones, right before they stopped production of these all together. Maybe you and others on here with non-anchor models can confirm by looking at the serial number.

I would say, the the value should be the same, but that the ones WITH anchor logos would be easier to sell as they might be more attractive to collectors, but that's just hearsay....

As far as the comparable prices, keep in mind that you need to be looking at SOLD listings on ebay as those listed prices are on the high side. And that's the same for Chrono24, as a general rule. The Admiralties are not as common (yet?!) and so I think there values aren't stable and regular. Confirmed high priced sales are usually due to impulsive idiots such as myself who are obsessed about a certain dial-movement configuration and not casual collectors. (personally, I'm working on it and hope to get control over my addiction some day soon).
30330546 is the serial number on my no-date Admiralty!
 
Posts
345
Likes
521
I was chatting to a local watchmaker the other day and he pulled out a 135.015 Admiralty (17mm long lugs, hand winding) that needs a crown, hour hand and crystal. He's got plans of fixing it up so I'll let him know the part number for the correct crown and I suggested the hour hand might be the same as for a Dynamic (specifically the dark dialled hand winder that uses the same movement).
What was interesting is that it has the chocolate dial commonly seen on units found in Australia. There is some speculation that the chocolate dial was specifically for the units purchased by Queensland Rail (since it and the orange second hand match their 70s livery) and some speculation that the harsh Aussie sun results in black dials aging that way. However, they all seem to have exactly the same tone of brown so I reckon it's the colour they were supplied with in Australia. Yes, I turned his over and it wasn't QR stamped.
Updated photo of mine because I put it on a different nato this morning. 😀

 
Posts
164
Likes
576
I recently came across a watch with a similar dial for sale.


Here are the errors in my opinion:

- Anchor error as pointed out.

- All types of "T Swiss" text is supposed to be placed between 27 and 33 minute makers the original. While this redial has it spread wider (between 26 and 34)

- The Omega symbol is also incorrect and accents in the text are different.

- No tritium anywhere on the dial except the 3 window. (Even the argument of old tritium flaking off without leaving any signs is weak)

- Minute track is inconsistent all long specially the think lines corresponding to the hour markers



I am not an Omega Expert but all these errors together are highly unlikely and this is a case of a batch of redial from a particular studio since a reverse image search reveals a few of these for sale in the past.

A few experienced collectors and watchmakers share my opinion while 1-2 are going the 'special unseen dial' route. Interested what the community thinks and if there is any contrary opinion.


Thanks for this. I am looking for add a Admiralty to the collection and this is definitely something to look at.