Forums Latest Members
  1. tomtrott Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    Hello, I recently bought this Seamaster De Ville manual gold-plated. I believe that it is from either 1960 or 61 as I read that they were the only years that they did not put De Ville on the face. Can anyone confirm that?

    I also could not find this exact model in the Omega archives, so any help would be appreciated.
     
  2. cristos71 Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7,155
    Likes
    32,935
    Photo's will help your cause greatly......we don't operate/function without them ;)
     
    ulackfocus likes this.
  3. tomtrott Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    Here's a pic
     
    IMG_20180630_120757.jpg
  4. Edward53 Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    3,127
    Likes
    5,384
    It's not a De Ville, it's "just" a Seamaster. De Ville was a separate line, though the only difference seems to have been the wording on the dial. About 1959-61 would fit in with the style of the S in Seamaster. Nice watch in good original shape.
     
    connieseamaster likes this.
  5. tomtrott Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    Can anyone find me any documentation or details on it? Perhaps from Omega?
     
  6. tomtrott Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    Thank you, I was under the impression that the De Ville was first part of the Seamaster line (originally marked just Seamaster, then Seamaster De Ville), then later spun off into its own line.
     
  7. omegastar Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    1,836
    Likes
    5,323
    Actually, you are right. It could be a 1961 De Ville.
    You need to show the case back, if it is monobloc (unishell case) or screw down will determine is it is a De Ville or not.
     
  8. tomtrott Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    It's definitely monobloc, there are no screws on the back and to get to the mechanism you have to go through the front.
     
  9. Edward53 Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    3,127
    Likes
    5,384
    That is indeed how the line developed, but a Seamaster is only a Seamaster De Ville if it's got De Ville on the dial. They are the same watch in all other respects but if you'd tried to buy a Seamaster De Ville before about 1963, jewellers would not know what you meant. The name is only a small difference but it's a real one and I can't see any logical reason to ignore it.
     
  10. ulackfocus Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    Revisionist history as Edward53 says above - it wasn't a Seamaster DeVille until DeVille was put on the dial, which was because Omega's import agent Norman Morris supposedly requested it.
     
  11. omegastar Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    1,836
    Likes
    5,323
    Shabbaz and cristos71 like this.
  12. Edward53 Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    3,127
    Likes
    5,384
    Well blimming heck. That's something new I've learned today. Thanks for the education!
     
    ulackfocus, omegastar and Lucasssssss like this.
  13. rkman11 Jul 2, 2018

    Posts
    1,681
    Likes
    5,610
    Always trust @omegastar to come in with the goods. Great info!
     
    omegastar likes this.
  14. tomtrott Jul 3, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
  15. Retsamaes Jul 3, 2018

    Posts
    32
    Likes
    332
    I have a seamaster de ville pre de ville? But it's an automatic model number 14765 with a cal 552 and a 1796.... number which I place at around 1960/61.
    With yours being manual wind I think it's most likely to be a 14775 with a cal 610 movement.
    Of course this is my best guess and better information could be forthcoming.
    Cheers
     
  16. tomtrott Jul 3, 2018

    Posts
    7
    Likes
    0
    That sounds right, thanks. I think the problem I'm having is the original version (1960) had a cross background (which is the picture they show on the Omega website) whereas my one is a 1961 model, which did not, but still has the same model number.