Exhibition backs on pre-1970s watches? A TISSOT-OMEGA!!

Hey guys,

I just got this in and think this is unusual. I have obviously had pocket watches with exhibition backs but had always thought that seeing an exhibition back on a vintage watch was a sign of a nasty let's-pretend Ukrainian fake or at best, a watch that had lost its back?
Then, this watch came in, along with a perfectly fitting back, marked Omega!
looking as it it was designed for the case! Does anyone have any ideas on how this came to exist?

I hope it is coming across clearly that this is an exhibition back UNDER the rear cover
Yes, this watch only just came in and I haven't yet managed to get the inner bezel off for a better photo of the movement. It sure isn't a normal dust cover under the knife-only-to-remove back.
Yes, I do know that most parts from Tissot/Omega/Lemania calibres were the same and that Omega had them made in slightly different sizes to prevent people putting, eg, Tissot parts in Omega watches: Making it more likely that this inner back is original.

Sorry for accidentally duplicating some photos but if I can figure out how to delete the duplicates, I will!






______________________________
DManzaluni

(As usual with my threads, if all you have to say is that in your expert opinion from all the Casios and Armitrons you wear this is clearly a re-dial, please don't feel the urge to post in this thread)

Way to come off as abrasive, man. 👎

Dial is so washed out who could even tell if it is a redial?

If you Google the reference number on the omega caseback you'll see it belongs to another watch that had an omega movement. Case is probably an omega too. This is a conglomeration of parts.

Who knows where the plexiglass came from...

Just… wow.

Thank you for that posting: Actually I didn't pay anything for it, and posted because I thought that the company produced different makes in different sizes specifically to prevent people putting Omega parts in/on Tissot watches?

The actual watch is certainly a bit undistinguished.

PS: The bit under the signature in my OP was not designed to be part of the posting, more a general comment and obviously couldn't be related to this specific watch or these responders!

Of course, but it is directed to this forum and its members and I find it unnecessarily abrasive, unwarranted, and inappropriate.

Of course that part of the sig isn't directed at the multitude of genuine vintage watch lovers and knowledgeable experts who frequent this site!! But if you are an Armitron collector who makes a point of posting that every nice dial on a vintage watch must be a re-dial (and implying that every re-finished dial looking nice on a beautiful vintage watch must be somehow deplorable) then please accept my sincerest apologies if my sig caused offense. I didn't realize that any subject of that description would admit to it in a public place, - especially with the comment "wow", - and I apologise.