New here, but was just wondering if anyone would have any further information on a recent acquisition, a 166.036 Seamaster Cosmic. I've searched online, but can only find date/day-date versions, and none with these indices/hand set.

Anyone have any further info here? I would be really interested to know a bit more about it.

 

My recommendation would be to get photos of the movement and inside of the case back. If it actually is that reference, according to the OVD, it should have a 752 cal. day/date movement. I guess that doesn't bode well for what you have there. However, it's possible that reference was shared with a couple of movements. The fact that you can't find any examples without a day/date would be a huge red flag.

 

Hard to tell from the photo, but is there a "swiss made" at the 6?

 

Yep, it has the usual "–T Swiss Made T–", see below. Also for reference a picture of the caseback:

 

That reference should be a cal. 752 with day/date dial so something is very wrong. The dial is IMHO redone. I think it is a franken watch with a NOS case, wrong caliber movement and a redone dial. Sorry.

http://naligazone.com/index.php/data-watch/omega/13-watch/omega/729

 

Shit. Does anyone else have anything further? I have found this example, which has a pretty much identical dial, albeit in gold, but I'm guessing it should be a different reference: https://omegaforums.net/attachments/omega-1968-seamaster-cosmic-1-jpg.6201/

 

Keep in mind that the site you are using is not always complete. Looking at the Extranet, there was a version in white gold with a Cal. 565:

055BC1660036 | WHITE GOLD CASE 18CT CAL. 0565

Doesn't explain this one with a lack of date, but I'm not sure even the Extranet has all the possible variations listed. Not saying this one is good, just that there may have been other options out there not shown on that site.

Cheers, Al

 

Perhaps you were given the wrong reference number as noted.

I believe the correct reference for a no date Seamaster Cosmic Automatic would be 165.023.

The hands have been replaced and not correct as well.

 

Unfortunately that is the reference given on the caseback. You can just about make it out in the picture I posted above. And yes, while the dial seems like it might be legit, based on some other examples I've found, the hands do not look correct. They actually have weak but functioning lume, which seems unlikely for a ~50 year old watch.