Interesting piece... stepped pie-pan dial gold Seamaster calendar, date at 6:00

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300712443076Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Generally speaking I don't bring up eBay ads like this for positive reasons but I'm just really keen to see what happens with this piece

 

Owner is member Kathleen Canales

From Kat:

 

Hmm, wonder if we can track down one of the others, I didn't finish following up but I've got a lead on the one sold by astorlive.

Its going to be very interesting seeing what this goes for to set a precedent (though I'm sure you've already considered this )

I'm sort of hoping it gets nabbed by one of our members so that once its serviced and cleaned up we get a good photo shoot out of it =D

Even if it doesn't I'll see if I can get Kat to pass on the request for detailed pics to the future owner.

 

Oh wow, them's fighting words!

 

Why is it an 18K dial on a 14K watch? :\

 

Actually, they are two totally different watches.

ULF's watch is in a 14K case and is without the "DeLuxe" ridges between the markers. Kathleen's has the dial ridges. In addition, I think Kathleen's watch has notches in the lugs and a screw-back case that would indicate a Ref. 2627, while ULF's has a press-in caseback (Ref. 2757). Movements should be slightly different as well (Cal. 353 vs. 355).

I've been privledged to see both the dial in Desmond's article at Sonny's office and ULF's watch and they are both stunning. Either length of hands should be acceptable on these watches, since they are both so rare that no one really knows which ones were used at the factory when new.

Take care,
gatorcpa

 

I see what you mean, they're more being lumped together (along with the one in Desmond's article) as half-brothers due to their collective lack of other family members rather than they being the same

 

All I am saying is that you can choose the ones you want without any prejudice from me.

All "Date at 6" Seamasters (Ref. 2627 and 2757) that I've seen come with the longer hands. All 1st generation Constellations (cal. 35X and 50X) that I've seen have the shorter hands.

Since the picture in ULF's book shows the shorter hands, maybe those are really supposed to be correct. However, here in the real world, both ULF's and Kathleen's watch seem to have come with the longer hands. The hands on these watches are known to be solid gold. They are not likely to tarnish and need to be replaced. So why are both the longer length when it would seem that the shorter ones would be more appropriate?

It's very hard to say what is correct with a population of only three known examples,
gatorcpa

P.S. Just to muddy up the water even more, note that in ULF's photo, the watch has the ridged dial and a Constellation-style 10-sided crown!

 

If you are correct, then the AJTT watch pictured doesn't match the description in the text, as the Ref. 2757 only had the "beefy" lugs.

No, I think it is the same case as your watch.

The watch in the eBay listing has to be a Ref. 2627, due to the screw-in back,
gatorcpa

 

Except when it doesn't apply. There just isn't a large enough known population (2) of the OJ 2757 with the pie-pan dial to be sure.

Although, as I usually say, anything is possible with vintage Omegas,
gatorcpa

 

Looks like a 2627 to me too, the lugs look notched. Either that or they've been heavily polished...

I used to have this Pre-Seamaster 353, and it had longer hands?