Hi OF,

Thanks again in advance for answering my questions re: this watch. I'm just trying practice a bit more re: looking for redials and signs of frankenwatches. This example looks good overall to me. I think it looks great, seems to have a nice patina and cream dial. Lume has aged nicely on the hour markers, and the case beveled edges still looks relatively sharp, doesn't look overpolished. Font looks OK to me too. Serial numbers seem to date it to 1954ish.

The few things I noticed: If you look at the minute markers, I'm noticing uneven spacing, particularly when comparing the markers right after/before the hour markers. Now I've seen members comment on this before as a sign of a redial. That being said, in this example, it seems minimal, and it almost seems like it's consistent at each hour marker (it's like that around the dial). What do you guys think?

Second, the caseback lacks the seamaster logo. I was looking up other cal 283 ref 2792, and this seems to be the case as well. How can you really tell that it's "normal" or genuine that the seamaster caseback logo is missing? I know they sometimes omitted it to allow for engraving. I was trying to figure out the Omega case reference numbering system as well, but I can't seem to find any information online re: the numbering system prior to the 1960s.


Thanks for your help OF,
-J.

 

I do think it's a redial... the M in OMEGA should be a bit wider, in my opinion. As for the "seamonster" on the back, that didn't start appearing until after 1954, so you're fine on that. It never was very consistent... there are Seamasters from the 70s with plain backs, for example.

The reference number is CK2792. The "-6SC" refers to a case revision. At least I'm remembering that prefix as CK; others will correct me if I'm wrong. CK is for stainless, KT (I think) is for gold over stainless, and KO for solid gold. Again, by memory. I'm sure someone has it written down somewhere.

Enjoy your watch for what it is. Redials sometimes bother people, but it was quite common back in the day, which is why you see so many watches that have been redialed.

Tom

 

Thanks gatorcpa. The issues with the areas I circled were more with respect to the minute markers (even at the 2 o'clock position, I'm highlighting the minute marker just after 2 o'clock, not the seconds hand). I'm finding the minute markers just after the hour markers seem uneven in the circled areas. i.e. the spacing is uneven. I've seen other members comment that this may be a sign of a redial. That being said, maybe it's just the angle of the pictures. It almost seems like the pattern is consistent across the dial.

I agree though, I thought the dial was original. Omega logo seems consistent with other models during this time period that I'm finding online

 

kk thanks man, appreciate it

 

In my short time here I learned that many Omega watches that were serviced back in the day ( over 30 years ago ) were redialed without the owners being told. Omega or the servicer just wanted the watch to look new after the service. At the time it was perfectly acceptable and even appreciated. My fathers Omegas got this treatment. It may make the watch less collectable to the purist collectors here, but if the redial was done well they are awesome watches.
There are many here who like their vintage watches to look old and have the patina that ageing watches get over time. I appreciate this, but also love to see a vintage watch looking like it's brand new - even if it has been redialed and even it it has been slightly polished. I guess this makes me a watch wearer, not a watch collector.

 

Hard to tell with those pics, but the dial looks original to me.

 

Agreed, and to be even more precise, originals were commonly replaced with service dials from the manufacturer. My '56 Longines Conquest has been in the family since '56 . . .



. . . and was serviced only once (by Longines' London agency in '65) prior to being passed down in '04. Given the family history, I thought the dial was original until both Tony C and Bill S informed me otherwise. It's possible the watch came with that dial in '56, but outright replacement during service is the more likely explanation.

Cordially,

Art