- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 5
Stefan Something
·Thanks for the quick reply @Dan S Much Appreciated!
Help Finding My 1st Vintage Omega
- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 5
Stefan Something
·Greetings all, came across this listing on Chrono 24 and wanted to get your thoughts. Any red flags suggesting I should steer clear? Thanks for all the insights as usual!
https://www.chrono24.ca/omega/seama...2I2KGDA7uvRe3TLvnnBFtMYZ0HWCPri5xhrLkz46jTw==
https://www.chrono24.ca/omega/seama...2I2KGDA7uvRe3TLvnnBFtMYZ0HWCPri5xhrLkz46jTw==
- Posts
- 1,069
- Likes
- 3,711
krogerfoot
·Greetings all, came across this listing on Chrono 24 and wanted to get your thoughts. Any red flags suggesting I should steer clear? Thanks for all the insights as usual!
https://www.chrono24.ca/omega/seamaster--id34691817.htm?eeid=cff3e2587bc07d5f9faf6e61887f60&ikcampaign=SavedSearch&ikcontent=SearchResults&ikmedium=user-mail&iksource=c24sm&ikterm=AdImageLink&recid=ATsf2_ZA3TpH0vzTF4hwHHOfjOC5VdZh7O8WvlA_xO0Ocjk2I2KGDA7uvRe3TLvnnBFtMYZ0HWCPri5xhrLkz46jTw==
This reference is pretty thick on the ground (in Japan at least, which might have become less accessible than before), so I’d prefer to buy from someone who’s not playing games with the photos.
- Posts
- 1,069
- Likes
- 3,711
krogerfoot
·Here is a beautiful early example at an eminently fair price: https://omegaforums.net/threads/196...with-crosshair-dial-and-coat-hanger-s.172253/
- Posts
- 1,202
- Likes
- 5,254
iamvr
·The 165.011 is also an option IMO
- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 5
Stefan Something
·Thanks so much for the info. Sorry about the late reply, was traveling. Yup, sold to me, definitely an impulsive purchase.
I think you are right about everything but don’t think the issues with listings with the listing or photos were melodious. Apparently, it was sold to them as a 166.010. The out of focus photos with the crown out were because Chrono24 needed photos with specific times being displayed. Hopefully, that is actually the case.
Would be great to hear what others think but seems to actually be a 166.011 as it says on the case. Checked with my callipers and it does measure 36mm in diameter, excluding the crown, which I believe is right for the 166.011. The date in the ad is probably right as the 565 movement was introduced in 1965, I believe.
Thanks again for all your knowledge and insights!
I think you are right about everything but don’t think the issues with listings with the listing or photos were melodious. Apparently, it was sold to them as a 166.010. The out of focus photos with the crown out were because Chrono24 needed photos with specific times being displayed. Hopefully, that is actually the case.
Would be great to hear what others think but seems to actually be a 166.011 as it says on the case. Checked with my callipers and it does measure 36mm in diameter, excluding the crown, which I believe is right for the 166.011. The date in the ad is probably right as the 565 movement was introduced in 1965, I believe.
Thanks again for all your knowledge and insights!
Edited:
- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 5
Stefan Something
·Just thought I would post an update. Took the watch to my watch maker today. He said the watch had never been serviced in its life! Obviously needs a service and a new gasket but other then that’s it’s in good shape. He also confirmed that the dial, movement, crown is original.
- Posts
- 21
- Likes
- 5
Gary Johnston
·Greetings, long time reader, first time poster here.
A while back I tried on a vintage Seamaster and it got me started on a search for one for myself.
I'm in the market for a 60's Omega Seamaster and was hoping to get some guidance from you. A few criteria:
- Less than US $1,000
- 500 caliber movement
- 34mm to 38mm
- Stainless steel case
- White or off-white dial
- Able to accommodate a leather strap
- Water resistant
- I'm not too fussed if it has a date or not
- Don't have a preference if it's a chronometer or not
Based on these criteria, I think the following reference models would work:
- 165.001, 165.002, 165.003, 165.009
- 166.001, 166.002, 166.003, 166.010, 166.011, 166.067
- 167.070
- 168.022, 168.024
Any of these references that you prefer, any of these you would stay away from or any that I might have missed? Really appreciate any guidance that you would be able to share!
