Hi All

I'm new around here, so I hope you don't mind me sharing the story of a watch with you. I hope you find it interesting and I'd appreciate your input.

I live in Durban, South Africa. I have collected watches for some years, of all sorts of different brands. I only have around four Omegas, but I love the brand nonetheless.

Some years ago, I developed a long acquaintance with a certain John Walkden Davis, a seller of Marine Antiques, and a yacht person and general lover of all things related to the sea in Durban. He died of cancer in late 2010 or early 2011, so he's not around to ask anymore.

As you will see from the attached warranty slip, he was the first and only owner of this Baby Proplof which he bought on the 4th of December 1983. He wore the watch for many years as a tool watch pursuing his maritime activities.

In the year 2000, he had a diving accident which flooded the watch with seawater. He left it in a drawer for a while before sending it to Omega in Switzerland for a full repair and restoration. Although the cost of the restoration might seem very cheap by today's standards, 18 years ago it was a lot, especially if you lived in South Africa.

During 2001, I bought the watch from him because he didn't resume his water based activities after that and he knew I loved watches and he needed to cover the repair costs. The watch came with its original red Omega Square box, the original purchase warranty and the repair details.

I bought the watch because I liked it but I knew nothing much about it. Back in 2000, there wasn't the level of detail online that there is now, but I eventually pieced together the details of what it was.

Also, back then, people, in general, preferred great condition rather than the scars of life history, which is what most people want these days.

From trying to piece together the French on Google translate on the Omega restoration bill, I gathered the following, I think.

From my understanding, the dial was not replaced, the glass was damaged, and the case was too, the movement was water damaged and replaced and they tried to fix it to their best ability. There's another line in there that Google Translate can make no sense of.

Here is the stuff that makes no real sense to me:
1. The case - it was repaired (as there are deep scratches that have not been fully polished out as it would alter the profile) But unlike all the pics I have seen online, the restoration has created a sunburst brush finish which seems different from other watches.
2. The dial - John used the watch as a tool, so unless it had some other incident prior to 2000, why would it be a service dial, as clearly it states in the invoice that the dial was not replaced. The odd thing about the dial is that very small areas of damage have been touched up with matt black paint. They have been beautifully touched up as if the finest of tiny calligraphy brushed were used, by a master. Nevertheless, they are still visible on close inspection. I find it odd, especially given that there were dials floating around back then to make completely "new" versions of this watch that it was not replaced on a full restoration. Strange to me given the level of the entire restoration.
3. The bezel is original and faded and not replaced.
4. The strap buckle was replaced as I think the original was broken. I have that part.
5. The crystal was replaced.
6.The entire movement was replaced due to water damage as you will see on the Omega invoice and therefore has a new movement number.

Apart from some of the oddities, we have here, such as the case brushing there are the more philosophical or collecting issues...

Obviously, substantial parts of the watch have been replaced. But these replacements were honest and necessary to preserve rather than dispose of the watch. There was no intent to deceive anyone.

And all the provenance and documentation is there to show this history. So, given this story, has the watch now lost its value by repair and restoration? Or does the very honest provenance and detail make up for the alterations and add to the story? Does the calligraphic dial repair affect anything? Does the fact that this was actually done by Omega itself to the best of their ability make any difference? Is this just a frankenwatch or a totally justifiable repair?

Your input would be much appreciated, I'm sorry for the long story but I hope you found it interesting.

 

Hello Perturbed,
Let me start off by saying that your watch looks great. I'm French, so what I understand from this bill (pretty straightforward) is that the bezel was kept, the dial was touched up, the movement was replaced (as a whole). They don't say anything about the work done to the case, but since it was damaged ("endomagée") we can assume that it has been worked on.
It is obvious that the restoration was necessary, so as far as I'm concerned the value of the watch wouldn't be affected a lot. Since you have all the paperwork, the story to back it up and considering the fact that the restoration was done in good faith, it's good.
As a collector I'd pay more for a NOS/Mint watch, but I wouldn't be "perturbed" in the slightest by the past of the watch. Plus, I don't like yachts, so I wouldn't be afraid of it being cursed

 

Hi

@Perturbed, as someone who dives and sails and loves old dive watches, especially Seamasters of that era, thanks for sharing your story and watch. It's a great watch, and to echo @MaiLollo, some watches are bought as collector grade and others with their scars and stories. I wouldn't have any hesitation bidding / buying if this came up for sale. Hope you get many years enjoying wearing it!

 

@Peturbed , welcome!

While the dial restoration and case brushing is unusual, it is a great looking watch with the documentation and provinence to back it up. I would say the value of this is far closer to a original example than a NOS or recent omega refurb.

Great photo btw, what have you used?

 

Can you get a better shot of the dial.
How often have you worn it in the last 17 years ?
How many services ? serial number ?

For a watch that was flooded with seawater and not fixed straight away that dial is in very good condition, salt water and lume don't usually mix that well

Movement number on papers from purchase in 1983 is 41 million
Movement number on repair in 2000 is 36 million

 

I’ll certainly get a closer shot of the dial when I next go to the vault at the bank where I keep my watches-sadly this is South Africa and with two watches stolen off my arm this is the way it has to be. I go every month or so and give them a manual wind to hopefully keep them ok.

As to wearing it probably once or twice in all that time. It just sits there until we emigrate next year and I can finally have the pleasure of wearing my various watches. This sadly applies to almost everything I own so I’m a collector who really only gets to enjoy my stuff on the odd vacation overseas. South Africa is just too dangerous.

The dial isn’t anywhere as good close up as it appears in this shot. You can get a more accurate version of my crude translation of the intervention from the first person who replied to the post. It’s quite possible that John rinsed it in fresh water I can’t say.

As to the movement number the invoice says that movement was replaced for technical reasons and whether Omega kept a stock of older movements for this sort of purpose with varying serial numbers is not known to me at least.

I guess getting the certification from Omega might cast light on this if I supply all the documentation.

 

Oh and sorry forgot to add - no services since owning it.

 

And...it’s never been opened since then but I have no reason whatsoever to assume that the movement number is any different from the one on the invoice because I bought it shortly thereafter. I’m not really a watch opener, it scares me and I’m neither emotionally or tool equipped to do so!

 

Fairly simple - I make a infinity curve with a lightweight piece of cardboard which I support from the back on a table. I set the camera up and with a kit lens I use the zoom end of the lens and get far-ish back. A mistake people often make is to use the wide part of the lens and get too close which creates distortion. I fiddle a bit with some improvised lighting, set the camera self timer, set the White Balance manually and take the shot. Some minor contrast adjustments in Lightroom. All a bit amateur. The camera is a Canon EOS M Mirrorless with an 18-55 lens usually.

Re your comment on the case - The case brushing seems odd to me but that’s they way it is. I’d love to understand it better.

 

Hi all,
Sorry to have to say this but as I owned an all origianl Baby PloProf and did quite a bit of research re the dials and bezels for the Baby PloProf the differences between original and service dials are very clear to see. So the dial in this watch is not an original Baby PloProf dial as if it was it would have two dashes at the 12 marker and not be a single mark as seen in these pictures.

Here is a picture showing an original Baby PLoProf dial.
For Sale 1 by Marc Obermann, on Flickr

Also I can't recall seeing a case with that finish on it before either and whilst I don't doubt the recept from Omega it doesn't seem like what is stated is exalty true as the claim the dial was only touched up is obviously not true and therfore false. To be honest if the watch was flooded and the movemnet was left beyond repair and needed to be replaced completeley I would expect the far more delicate and easy to damge dial to of been also beyond repair as to why the Omega paperwork doesn't confirm a service dail was used is a mystery to me and makes no sense as its obvious it is 100% a service dial.

Marc

 

Hi Dogmann

It's perfectly possible that the dial was replaced earlier in the 17 years leading up to the water damage. I can't answer that and the original owner is deceased, he died in 2010.

I am aware that a non-service dial has a double marker as you indicated. And I can also accept that the original dial could easily have been replaced before the 2000 restoration. The owner was a fairly active marine person on a daily basis at that time of his life.

I'm sorry I don't have a detailed image of the dial close up (and I will get one at the bank vault when I next can), but as I indicated in my write up, the dial has been intricately retouched using a calligraphy type brush. The light needs to shine on it from a certain angle to be clearly visible, but there, it is. There can be no question that the dial in the watch was touched up. After all, I own it and I can see it quite clearly.

What I can tell you is the dial now in the watch was not replaced at the time of the service with a new dial - exactly as is indicated on the receipt, The description that the dial was touched up as is not "false" as you suggest. It's in fact, entirely accurate. I really think you should read exactly what the paperwork says and see the scope of the work. If you say you don't doubt the service documents from Omega, but you doubt what they said, sorry, no wish to pick a fight but that mixed message just does not make sense to me.

I am describing everything I know, as accurately as possible as if I was in a court of law. I have no vested interested in this watch other than trying to make some sense of it. I'm not looking for validation so I can sell it, because it's not going to be sold to anyone, at least in my lifetime.

I've attached an image about the original owner from whom I bought the watch and whose name is on the sales warranty. I have no reason to have ever doubted him.