Hello, my wife purchased this 1950s Seamaster for me for our recent wedding anniversary. There are aspects to it that make me think it’s not 100% legit. For one the finish of the numbers seems crude (too sharp), I haven’t seen a similar watch of this reference number with this subsecond set up, and when I asked the seller to open it up and give me the serial number he did but the number he gave me was only 5 digits long and of course didn’t match any database look up. Despite the serial number issue the movement did look clean and legit - typical Omega markings and expected jewels. Is anyone able to ease my worries?

 

Well, it’s certainly no 2846, that would be a center second watch. 2848, possibly, but really we’d need a picture of the movement and the inside of the case back to help properly.

 

Dial is original and correct with the obvious aging.

2846 (center seconds) and 2848 (sub-seconds) are often seen with both reference numbers marked inside the case back.

We need to see the movement and inside the case back.

 

Looks legit to me with wear to dial and case. I suspect that the confusion about the reference number is due to a double-reference case-back as noted above.

 

Thank you for all your quick responses. I’ll try and get a photo of the movement and case back. Any thoughts on the strange 5 digit serial number as opposed to the classic 7-8 digit number?

 

I think you were most likely given a partial serial number, although I guess it's possible it was damaged or obscured. Let's see some good photos of the movement.

 

Or the seller read the ref plus the sub-ref. Something like 2848-1

 

If my wife bought me a watch as a gift I would take the thing for what it is and show her nothing but gratitude. Perhaps your wife is different than mine?

 

Well done!

 

I don't usually butt in on questions of authenticity like this one and leave it to those more knowledgeable, but I can't help but ask, does anyone else think the dial was cleaned and that is why the loss of some of the "Seamaster" lettering? I am probably wrong and I don't mean to take away from the original poster's intent. I am just asking so I can learn as well. TY

McK

 

Quite possibly, but I don't see how that really matters. The condition issues are apparent, however they occurred.

 

If you remember the 5 digits, that might give a clue about what the seller was looking at.

That's a thoughtful gift.

 

Just trying to learn, Dan. Trying to recognize different things and hoping I have picked up some of you guys' knowledge over the last few years of being here myself. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

McK

 

Sorry for my late reply and thanks again for all your insight. As it's the weekend I haven't been able to get any photos of the movement but I do have the details the seller gave me, perhaps they're of help until I can finally get a photo of the watch's 'insides':

Model: 2846-6-SC or 2846-6-5C (I can't read his writing properly)
Cal: 491
Serial: 20375

 

As noted above, it is not a ref 2846 and the serial number will be 8 digits, so unfortunately those numbers aren't super helpful. I don't even think that 20375 could be the first 5 digits of the serial for a cal 491. I suspect there will be a second reference number in the case-back and the serial number will be something different. Most likely everything is fine, you're just not getting good info.

 

The phrase “looking a gift horse in the mouth” occurs to me!

 

It looks tired (as in it has character) but original. As already correctly noted, it is a 2848. The serial will actually be somewhere from 16m to 19m, the number you show isn't possible. I like it and if given it would wear it.

 

I take your point.

Although it doesn't absolve me of that accusation it's slightly more complicated than that.

I received it a week ago, as mentioned. On receiving it I was very grateful as it was exactly what I'd been looking for - a vintage 50s Omega Seamaster in gold with a brown strap and some age - so I was stoked! Unfortunately on receiving it it wasn't working and as such I took it back to the seller who said they'd get their watchmaker to repair it. It was only then in the store when the back was open that I asked for the serial and the reference number and received information that raised my suspicions. That's why I've come to you for help / info. I actually love the watch, and will happily wear it I just don't want my wife paying for one thing and getting another... it was also kind of disappointing that it was dead on arrival, sorry if that comes across as being ungrateful.

 

I see no reason to doubt this watch, I would be super happy if my wife offered me the same. Lucky you !

 

So, I finally have the watch back from the watchmaker and they still can't resolve the serial number issue. I managed to convince the seller to open it up so I could get some photos of the inside and sure enough there isn't a serial other than the 20375 number which you can just see poking out at the bottom of the movement in the first photo. They did confirm that it's a 2848 and not a 2846 which you can see as the secondary number printed on the inside of the watche’s back. I'm curious to hear what you all think... Why doesn't it show a traditional serial number and what's with this 20375 number?