http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1963-GENTS-9K-GOLD-OMEGA-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-/390522287914Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Hello I'm belatedly looking for help from experts. To cellebrate my 50th birthday this year I had mind to own a quality vitage piece of machinery which had been going as long as I. I.e. since 1963. Foolishly without research I purchased this watch and only now after receipt decided to spend a bit of time looking into it. The pictures are not clear but on closer inspection the case is halmarked gold london 1963 and the case is 1115022 -however there is a mark over the first number so the first number could be a 3 or 5. Moter appears to run well for last 24 hours, loosing only 2 mins. However, onthe Omega site this case number is not listed so I'm begining to worry a lot. Have I a fake; frankenwatch; lucky buy or something else? Andy.

 

Your advice is well recived. Thanks. I will now step off the stool and remove the noose and I will use the site now. Still I'm interested in the watch I've paid for and why it's not on the Omega list. Any help with ID.

 

It is a beautiful watch! Omega often used local agents (France, uk, USA, Seth america) to get around high local tariffs on gold and complete watches.

 

63 was a great year . I went through a birth year phase awhile back.

 

Usually, omega got AL Dennison to produce their 9 ct gold cases in the uk. Do an Internet search and you,ll find an interesting thread on another watch forum about dennison cases. Their cases were made to omega standards, but were much heavier - so more gold in them, which I like, and much heavier on the wrist for these smaller watches!

yours seems to be uk hallmarked for London, and made by omega - unusual, from what I.ve seen over the past 4 years.

i,m not sure, but in some of the pictures it seems to be missing its bevel. There should be another ring of 9ct gold surrounding the glass - does anyone else think this?

If so, you have grounds for returning it.

best of luck, paul

 

Very nice set of watches. Thank you all for your help and guidance. I hope one day to share pics of my own quality buys. Andy

 

Paul,

In response to your piont about the possible missing bezel, I'm not sure had a very hard look yesterday at the watch and have a couple of observations:

1. Yes there is room for a thin bezel the lens does sit up quite proud. However the finish on the top of the section it would sit on is very well polished and there appears to be no retaining option. Of course it could have been re-polished this way.
2. The case opens from the top, in that the lens (attached to a thin bezel) lifts up to reveal the face which lifts out with the movement.

Does any of this info change your opinion?

Andy

 

Hi Andy, you may be right, I haven't handled one of these in the flesh. But from the pictures on the eBay listing, it just doesn't look right to me. Even if its a front loader, it looks to me as if it could accomodate a bezel ring, which would press/ clip onto that ring around the glass. It looks like its been lost- they do easily dislodge if banged or knocked.

Unless someone else has one, or you can find it in a book or old catelogue, you may never know as its not in the database.



cheers, paul