Different versions of the "Seamaster" signature style

Posts
1,541
Likes
3,350
In attempting to ascertain genuine watches from fakes and redials I'm noticing differences in the way Seamaster is written on dials. I had concluded that the earlier examples have a more angular capital "S" than the later, rounder ones, but I'm now also noticing other differences, particularly in the way the final "r" looks. Some have a much more pronounced flourish than others.

Today I saw this example of a 2802 8SC which I understand goes back to the late 50s. An image search oon Google brings up a number of different dial and body colours, and some have the more angular style while other the rounder version. This one has the rounder "S" with the more pronounced flourish on the "r"

Am I right that the style changed at a point in time, and therefore I should be able to match the date to the style of writing, or did different contractors turn out various styles concurrently for any period of time?

Is there perhaps some kind of guide that I can refer to about this?
 
Posts
276
Likes
1,226
As far as I know both coat hanger and round Seamaster S coexisted in the 50s up to the early 60s. To be sure if a dial is original and not repainted it’s best to check it against other watches with confirmed original dials. To do that I mostly use the forum to find reference watches of similar age period / reference. The one you posted looks fine btw.
Edited:
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,936
I believe this is an old redial. The G in Omega should have the overbite, the S should be a hanger S and I don't see any lume pips at the end of the markers. I agree with Henneth that there was some overlap but that was more around '60-63 from what I have gathered and I believe this is earlier. And the Swiss Made looks a little too big.

Edit...looking at it again...damn is this a tough one. It all looks pretty good...but the above points still don't gel for me...although the seemingly big Swiss Made may just be a wide angle shot with the bottom of the watch slightly closer to the lens that the top.
 
Posts
328
Likes
981
The OP's dial is absolutely correct. This version of "Seamaster" was quite common in the '50s, from 1954 onwards at least.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,936
The OP's dial is absolutely correct. This version of "Seamaster" was quite common in the '50s, from 1954 onwards at least.
Dammit- I failed the quiz ::facepalm1::
 
Posts
11,971
Likes
20,814
This is the 'large bottom, curved S', or whatever the actual name for it is, that was contemporary to the 'coat hanger S' isn't it?

The 'overbite on the G' didn't come in until mid-late 60's I think.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,936
Surrender all your seamasters and start again
Well, considering 2 of mine are redials...::facepalm1::::facepalm1::::facepalm1:::whipped:
Newbie mistakes I will not make again. Now I’m overly cautious.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,936
This is the 'large bottom, curved S', or whatever the actual name for it is, that was contemporary to the 'coat hanger S' isn't it?

The 'overbite on the G' didn't come in until mid-late 60's I think.
I have a waffle dial from the 50’s with the overbite so it gets really confusing.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,936
O Oldboy
Wow! I own the watch in the above photo!
Welcome! And now your watch is immortalized in an OF thread.
 
Posts
16,754
Likes
47,413
Coat hanger S for reference