Help needed for authenicity check

[YellowDog]

Hi everyone, I stumbled upon this omega ref 2446-1 which is up for sale locally, and after doing my research ive come up with these findings:
Its a reference 2446-1 in SS, calibre 28.10 dated by the serial to around 1947 ish. I think the nipple crown is original and so is the movement (please correct me if im wrong in any of these assumptions) but what troubles me is the dial. I cant find that exact dial for the life of me and cannot be certain of its autenthicity which is where the help of you lot, is needed.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mark020]

Pic is not great but I would not be surprised if it is a redial

 

[BarbVl]

Regarding the authenticity.. the watch is authentic in my opinion.

 

[Dan S]

Looks legit to me, but a from the late 50s based on what appears to be a 1.6M serial number, and therefore formally a cal 35x of some type IMO.

 

[padders]

Dan S

Looks legit to me, but a from the late 50s based on what appears to be a 1.6M serial number, and therefore formally a cal 35x of some type IMO.

Bumpers were gone by 1955 so that can’t be right. Prob 10.9m so nearer 1946

Edited: Jul 11, 2022

 

[Dan S]

padders

Bumpers were gone by 1955 so that can’t be right. Prob 10.9m so nearer 1946

That's true, I must have misread the serial and didn't think it through. Possibly that second digit is a poorly stamped "0".

Edited: Jul 11, 2022

 

[ALEJANDRO BOVONE]

padders

Bumpers were gone by 1955 so that can’t be right. Prob 10.9m so nearer 1946

bumpers were not issued with watches until 57? I had this idea but would like to learn better.

 

[YellowDog]

Dan S

Looks legit to me, but a from the late 50s based on what appears to be a 1.6M serial number, and therefore formally a cal 35x of some type IMO.

It is a 10 mil serial, the picture is a little compressed, which should be before 49 when the calibre was renamed to 35x, am i wrong? But regarding the dial, does it seem redone? Its kinda my biggest concern here cause i cant find it anywhere online.

 

[YellowDog]

BarbVl

Regarding the authenticity.. the watch is authentic in my opinion.

So would you say the dial is original aswell?

 

[Dan S]

I don't see any problem with the dial, and I would have mentioned it if I had a concern. However, if the photos are poor enough to make a "0" look like a "6", it can be hard to judge, so maybe you'd like to post better photos all around.

 

[aprax]

Your watch looks authentic to me in every respect. I have a similar one with a SN ending ...3316 (yours is 10912434?) produced in August 1948, according to the EOA. And you're correct about the movement it is calibre 28.10 RA SC PC. This is mine for comparison:



There were lots of dial variations. Here is one from the internet with similar hour markers to yours:

 

[DON]

Are the numbers foil or luminous?

If foil. I would think original, but if someone redid the numbers with luminous 🙁

DON