Has anyone seen this oddball and seemingly rare Cal 1012 De Ville before?

[dsio]

So there’s a listing for this De Ville with no photos from the inside. It’s been bothering me for a few days because it is interesting, large at 38 mm, and Cal 1012 with a somewhat attractive dial and hands combination and a screw-back case.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/196262629330



I think I finally found out what it is from these old listings, which show the caseback. It’s an odd case-back though, signed CB with a lot ground out, and with the reference 166.0233 at the top.

https://www.croadco.com/product/vin...le-tv-dial-all-ss-automatic-cal-ω-1012-38-mm/



What’s really odd though is that searching for this case, there are almost none of them and no mention of them.

A handful of photos if that, and that makes me wonder if this case had a different life and reference as a Seamaster or another brand or something before it was ground out and became the 166.0233? Has anyone seen one of these before or seen another model of Omega with this case other than a De Ville?

 

[cristos71]

They both have a wierd inner bezel aswell, which looks to be designed for a larger date window as there is a big gap in that region. Very odd

 

[MtV]

That gap is super strange indeed. About an hour left - OF GoFundMe? 😁

 

[Dan S]

I like how the seller included the midnight photo to prove that the date function is working properly. 😗

 

[ketiljo]

The case is identical to the f300 DeVille, 198.0035 https://electric-watches.co.uk/makers/omega/omega-f300-tuning-fork/omega-f300-de-ville/
I have one with a black dial.
Maybe someone has swapped the movement?

 

[dsio]

ketiljo

The case is identical to the f300 DeVille, 198.0035 https://electric-watches.co.uk/makers/omega/omega-f300-tuning-fork/omega-f300-de-ville/
I have one with a black dial.
Maybe someone has swapped the movement?

Now THAT, is a really helpful insight, it is indeed identical to that De Ville f300. The dial on this black dial example on eBay does look entirely authentic and I’ve found 4 now that exist and have the same type of dial with the weird gap. I think you’ve solved it too, because the weird circular engraving that has been ground off the 166.0233 is where the f300 says “Movement Licensed Bulova & Pat” and the above reference is where it would have originally said 198.0035.

It must be that Omega had left over cases for these tuning forks when they either ran out of f300 movements or decided to discontinue them and rather than toss the cases, they ground off the prior markings and re-used them. Some similar things were done with other 70’s watches where Cal 100x movements were replaced with Cal 101x in the same case but with a new reference.

I think you’ve cracked it @ketiljo

 

[Dan S]

It gives you some insight into what things must have been like in the 70s. It has the feeling of desperation. Re-using the caseback seems sensible, but reusing the same rehaut, instead of making one without the gap for the automatic movement? The date window for the original movement made sense in that gap. Not pretty, but it fit.

Edited: Feb 29, 2024

 

[dsio]

Dan S

It gives you some insight into what things must have been like in the 70s. It has the feeling of desperation. Re-using the caseback seems sensible, but reusing the same rehaut, instead of making one without the gap for the automatic movement? The date window for the original movement made sense in that gap. Not pretty, but it fit.

Indeed, prior to Mr Hayek getting involved and sorting them out things must have been quite bleak

Oddly enough I quite like this Cal 1012 reference, it’s a cool looking watch in a nice size but they really must not have made many at all for nobody to have even discussed this model until now. Aside from those few barely informative sales listings this thread is the only information that it really exists.

 

[Dan S]

dsio

Oddly enough I quite like this Cal 1012 reference ...

I like the hummer better. 😉

 

[dsio]

Dan S

I like the hummer better. 😉

I’ve never had a hummer but I don’t have anyone local in Australia that works on them so that’s kind of the limiting factor. Every really talented watchmaker I’ve known has basically said “Please don’t darken my doorway with one of those things, I don’t want to look at them.”

This one just sold for $330, I should have bought it but I didn’t post this thread until last night and was still confused by it.

 

[dsio]

Just looking at this 198.0001 too, these almost look like a shared case with the Seamaster Sparkle chronometer shape, I wonder how many overlaps there are between hummers and mechanical variants, I’ve never looked into them that much.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/276356624572

 

[ketiljo]

That might as well be the same here. They had better luck with the dial and bezel on this one though 😀 What caliber is the automatic, 1011? If so, that's slighly smaller and thinner so it should fit with a spacer in a case that was made for the 1250.

Edited: Mar 1, 2024

 

[dsio]

ketiljo

That might as well be the same here. They had better luck with the dial and bezel on this one though 😀 What caliber is the automatic, 1011? If so, that's slighly smaller and thinner so it should fit with a spacer in a case that was made for the 1250.

The Sparkle Seamaster is Cal 564, they do have different case-backs though so that might be the difference

 

[Dan S]

dsio

Seamaster Sparkle chronometer shape

168.022, IIRC.

 

[ketiljo]

dsio

The Sparkle Seamaster is Cal 564, they do have different case-backs though so that might be the difference

That makes it older. So it's the other way around, they could have re-used an exisiting case for the first f300Hz. The 198.001 is the only one with these hands by the way, all (most) other references have "stick" hands. It became the Seamaster later, with the Hippicampus added to the back even later.

 

[mac_omega]

dsio

Just looking at this 198.0001 too, these almost look like a shared case with the Seamaster Sparkle chronometer shape, I wonder how many overlaps there are between hummers and mechanical variants, I’ve never looked into them that much.

I have a 198.0001 in 18K



The caseback is clearly different. I have tried a cal. 564 but it does not fit because it is too thick. The hummer movement is far thinner of course...
And the caseback of 168.022 does not fit to the upper case part - so they are not interchangeable

Edited: Mar 1, 2024

 

[ketiljo]

564 is 0.25mm thicker than 1250 but there e should be some clearance for the rotor as well.

 

[noless]

the hummer stem also has the case tube gasket on it, so the case tube is also quite a lot thicker to the 550 series movement cases.

In the case of the constellation c-case the hummer variant is somewhat larger, I still havent gotten my hands on one yet so I dont have one on hand to do a direct comparison, but they are definitely different cases.