Help identify Seamaster De Ville age

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.
 
Posts
7,544
Likes
34,626
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.

Photo's will help your cause greatly......we don't operate/function without them 馃槈
 
Posts
3,133
Likes
5,560
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.
 
Posts
7
Likes
0
Can anyone find me any documentation or details on it? Perhaps from Omega?
 
Posts
7
Likes
0
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.
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.
 
Posts
1,853
Likes
5,395
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Posts
3,133
Likes
5,560
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.

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.
 
Posts
25,980
Likes
27,647
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.
 
Posts
3,133
Likes
5,560
Well blimming heck. That's something new I've learned today. Thanks for the education!
 
Posts
7
Likes
0
Do you have anything for this model (manual, without De Ville on it)? I was hoping to find the actual model number for it without having to get it serviced to find the serial number.
 
Posts
32
Likes
333
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
 
Posts
7
Likes
0
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
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.