- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 697
Mr Vo
·Hi all !!!
Experts give some opinion should buy it?
Looks redial ?
Thanks all.
Experts give some opinion should buy it?
Looks redial ?
Thanks all.
Help Omega Jumbo Size Cal 332
- Posts
- 2,490
- Likes
- 19,761
- Posts
- 311
- Likes
- 876
hockey
·Dial is original and in excellent condition. I really like these big bumpers. The 80 microns gold covering is quite thick and wears really, really well. The movement is nice and clean too. If it's pink gold - a good catch.
- Posts
- 311
- Likes
- 876
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 697
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 697
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 697
- Posts
- 107
- Likes
- 154
- Posts
- 1,448
- Likes
- 3,018
OllieOnTheRocks
·
- Posts
- 387
- Likes
- 3,452
kaapstadflaneur
·Very nice bumper and looks to be in good vintage condition. Great looking dial. Bonus that it's in rose gold. Whether to buy or not comes down to the ever-important question of price.
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberWould you mind noting what you see on the movement.
There are multiple fine scratches on all three of the major parts of the movement that are shown in the image. I'm not going to reproduce the image with arrows, as they should be obvious to anyone viewing the image. There is a scratch next to the 3 in "352" (the caliber designation); there are multiple scratches under and around "SWISS", and above the "Co" on the weighted rotor; a large scratch on the bottom plate near the crown stem; a long scratch (and others) on the bridge with the serial number; etc.
- Posts
- 4,701
- Likes
- 9,365
Bill Sohne
··Bill @ ΩFThere are multiple fine scratches on all three of the major parts of the movement that are shown in the image. I'm not going to reproduce the image with arrows, as they should be obvious to anyone viewing the image. There is a scratch next to the 3 in "352" (the caliber designation); there are multiple scratches under and around "SWISS", and above the "Co" on the weighted rotor; a large scratch on the bottom plate near the crown stem; a long scratch (and others) on the bridge with the serial number; etc.
Hi Tony
I had to jump in on this ..... The movement is in fine condition for one that is over 65 years old. It not NEW OLD STOCK, this watch was worn and it shows it life... Yes there are some scratches that it was not handled by a master watchmaker during its lifetime. But this is in no way a poor condition watch.
On overall condition , this is nice example and I would buy it given the price is not unreasonable.
Just my two cents...
Good Hunting
Bill
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 697
Mr Vo
·
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberI had to jump in on this ..... The movement is in fine condition for one that is over 65 years old. It not NEW OLD STOCK, this watch was worn and it shows it life... Yes there are some scratches that it was not handled by a master watchmaker during its lifetime. But this is in no way a poor condition watch.
On overall condition , this is nice example and I would buy it given the price is not unreasonable.
Bill -
I never suggested anything about the price, nor that it was in "poor" condition, so those are straw men.
Would you describe that movement as being "clean"?
I take words for what they mean, and a movement with multiple scratches throughout is, to my mind, in no sense of the word clean. If a seller were to say that he couldn't remove the case back, but guaranteed that the movement was "clean", I'd return it without hesitation if it resembled the OP's movement.
Edited:
- Posts
- 4,701
- Likes
- 9,365
Bill Sohne
··Bill @ ΩFBill -
I never suggested anything about the price, nor that it was in "poor" condition, so those are straw men.
Would you describe that movement as being "clean"?
I take words for what they mean, and a movement with multiple scratches throughout is, to my mind, in no sense of the word clean. If a seller were to say that he couldn't remove the case back, but guaranteed that the movement was "clean", I'd return it without hesitation if it resembled the OP's movement.
Hi Tony
The movement is pretty darn clean.. It still has its colored plating intact. yes it has some scratches. on the bumper , etc ... it has seen service...
It is not in new old stock condition as there are scratches and marks on the movement etc... as you pointed out.
Please take it for watch it is worth. When you comment it is not 'Clean" ..... I read it as a watch to possibly pass on ... and newer members here would think this movement is not acceptable .... I know you did not mean it that way... but I just wanted to frame it better...
I would have to try kind of hard to find a cleaner example ...most likely it would be from a watch that was never serviced until recently.
Best
Bill
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberBill,
This is one of those rare instances that we see things very differently. There are plenty of examples of vintage watches that have been serviced that actually have clean movements. Not NOS, just well-preserved and serviced carefully. I own more than a few, and I'm quite sure that you do as well. It didn't take me long to find this 332 on eBay, and it is a good example of what a "clean" movement should look like:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OMEGA-19...976914?hash=item216ddace12:g:GwcAAOSw2MVekAZ4
Now, if you want to argue that a high percentage of watches of this approximate age are likely to show some marks from servicing, I won't disagree. But that was never the point. I was responding solely to the word used to describe the condition, and believe it clearly to have been inaccurate.
As you well know, the typical words/phrases/acronyms used to describe the condition of vintage watches and parts, are:
poor
fair
good
very good
excellent
mint
NOS
There's nothing wrong with using the word "clean", but where does it fall on that list, in your mind? To my mind, it implies excellent or better, and I would never describe the OP's movement as "excellent". Furthermore, "clean" clearly implies no marks! How is that consistent with this movement?
In order for newer members to decide whether or not to buy or pass on a watch, surely you would agree that they need to be familiar with the vocabulary used to describe them, and how the words are used. And in my view, you are doing them a disservice by suggesting that this movement is close to being "clean". You can still make a good argument about value, and point out that some collectors are more critical than others, etc., but the word has meaning.
This is one of those rare instances that we see things very differently. There are plenty of examples of vintage watches that have been serviced that actually have clean movements. Not NOS, just well-preserved and serviced carefully. I own more than a few, and I'm quite sure that you do as well. It didn't take me long to find this 332 on eBay, and it is a good example of what a "clean" movement should look like:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OMEGA-19...976914?hash=item216ddace12:g:GwcAAOSw2MVekAZ4
Now, if you want to argue that a high percentage of watches of this approximate age are likely to show some marks from servicing, I won't disagree. But that was never the point. I was responding solely to the word used to describe the condition, and believe it clearly to have been inaccurate.
As you well know, the typical words/phrases/acronyms used to describe the condition of vintage watches and parts, are:
poor
fair
good
very good
excellent
mint
NOS
There's nothing wrong with using the word "clean", but where does it fall on that list, in your mind? To my mind, it implies excellent or better, and I would never describe the OP's movement as "excellent". Furthermore, "clean" clearly implies no marks! How is that consistent with this movement?
In order for newer members to decide whether or not to buy or pass on a watch, surely you would agree that they need to be familiar with the vocabulary used to describe them, and how the words are used. And in my view, you are doing them a disservice by suggesting that this movement is close to being "clean". You can still make a good argument about value, and point out that some collectors are more critical than others, etc., but the word has meaning.
Edited:
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
- Posts
- 4,593
- Likes
- 10,810
janice&fred
·Honestly Tony I think when referring to a movement the word "clean" usually implies without stains, rust, debris, etc.
If one was describing an overall watch as clean I would suspect it might mean more, sort of like "sharp" or "nice". I don't see clean as meaning better than excellent but it might also be a language or geographical difference?
If one was describing an overall watch as clean I would suspect it might mean more, sort of like "sharp" or "nice". I don't see clean as meaning better than excellent but it might also be a language or geographical difference?
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberHonestly Tony I think when referring to a movement the word "clean" usually implies without stains, rust, debris, etc.
Would you consider a dial with scratches to be "clean"? I certainly wouldn't, so no, it's not only about rust and debris, etc.
I don't see clean as meaning better than excellent but it might also be a language or geographical difference?
You weren't reading carefully. I said that it implies excellent or better. In other words, I would never use "clean" to describe a watch (or part) that is in worse than excellent condition. We can argue about whether the subject movement is in "good" or "very good" condition, but "excellent? No way.
- Posts
- 8,156
- Likes
- 28,774
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury membern/a
