Community Stories

HELP Verifying Dial on Vintage Omega Seamaster

C
Posts
7
Likes
10
Hi All,

First time posting here and first time potentially buying a Vintage Omega. I've been reading through this Forum for the past few weeks and I want to thank you all for the information that you share. It's been a great help.

As a first time buyer, I'm looking for a second opinion on a potential purchase of a Vintage Omega Seamaster. I've attached a number of pictures for reference. Specifically, I'm looking for your opinion on the dial and it's authenticity. It's been stated by the seller that the dial is original and hasn't been re-finished. Here's what I know about the watch:

1. Omega Seamaster Manual
2. Ref: 2759-6 SC, 2761
3. Serial Number 15717013. Believe this dates it to 1956 or 1957
4. Movement 420, 17 jewels
5. Case is 14k Gold Capped (correction)
6. Full ownership history is unknown
7. Seller is from Switzerland and has excellent reviews. 56 total reviews and has been selling since 2016.
8. Movement has been serviced and cleaned.

My observations are that the dial is in really good condition for it's age. The 'Swiss Made' at the bottom of the dial is also more pronounced than what I've seen with a lot of other Omega Seamasters. The case and movement appear to be authentic based on photos of similar watches and by checking against the omega database.

I plan to wear this as an everyday watch.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback you could provide on this potential purchase for a first time vintage buyer.

Thanks in advance!
Chris


Screenshot 2021-08-16 095518.png Screenshot 2021-08-16 095600.png Screenshot 2021-08-16 095627.png Screenshot 2021-08-16 095653.png Screenshot 2021-08-16 093042.png Screenshot 2021-08-16 093249.png OmegaSeamaster_rev.png
Edited:
 
aprax
Posts
321
Likes
968
Hi Chris and welcome.

IMO the dial has been refinished. As said above, the Seamaster script is uneven, and the fonts are generally wrong. The Swiss made is indeed pronounced, as you say, font is too thick, and on those watches it is usually positioned beneath the 6 marker.
The crown is wrong, and also the seconds hand (should be shorter). The hour and minute hands, which seem long also, may be correct on that model.
Without paper proof, I wouldn't believe the movement had been serviced.

I would skip that watch, whatever the price. But that is also because I generally avoid plated cases.
 
C
Posts
7
Likes
10
aprax aprax
Hi Chris and welcome.

IMO the dial has been refinished. As said above, the Seamaster script is uneven, and the fonts are generally wrong. The Swiss made is indeed pronounced, as you say, font is too thick, and on those watches it is usually positioned beneath the 6 marker.
The crown is wrong, and also the seconds hand (should be shorter). The hour and minute hands, which seem long also, may be correct on that model.
Without paper proof, I wouldn't believe the movement had been serviced.

I would skip that watch, whatever the price. But that is also because I generally avoid plated cases.

SkunkPrince SkunkPrince
That "Seamaster" script makes me uneasy. I'd pass on it.

Thanks aprax and SkunkPrince! After looking closer, I agree that the script looks off. I didn't notice the spacing, but the 'S' certainly looks "unique". For future reference, is there variability in script types for Seamasters over the years? Or is there one correct script? If the script varies depending on year, is there a good reference website or database to compare against to attempt to authenticate? I wasn't able to find a reference photo for this watch on the Omega website to compare against.

Also, have you ever seen an all original, not refinished dial in this good of shape from the 1950s/60s? Knowing this would certainly weed out a lot of potential watches in my search of finding one that's not refinished.

Thanks for all the info. I'm starting to find myself consumed with learning more about vintage watches... haha.

Chris
 
Nepomuceño
Posts
1,171
Likes
2,432
C CKnipp
Thanks aprax and SkunkPrince! After looking closer, I agree that the script looks off. I didn't notice the spacing, but the 'S' certainly looks "unique". For future reference, is there variability in script types for Seamasters over the years? Or is there one correct script? If the script varies depending on year, is there a good reference website or database to compare against to attempt to authenticate? I wasn't able to find a reference photo for this watch on the Omega website to compare against.

Also, have you ever seen an all original, not refinished dial in this good of shape from the 1950s/60s? Knowing this would certainly weed out a lot of potential watches in my search of finding one that's not refinished.

Thanks for all the info. I'm starting to find myself consumed with learning more about vintage watches... haha.

Chris
The script for Seamaster varies through the years as you mentioned. And there tons of 50s and 60s Seamasters with original dials out there. It just takes some time to learn what is right and wrong 👍
 
K
Posts
20
Likes
7
I have a 1956 Seamaster but with the 471 automatic movement which I know is original since it has been in our family since new. The dial design looks exactly like yours. The "S" in the Seamaster script has much more rounded edges and is nowhere as "edgy" or jagged. The Swiss Made script is also much less pronounced. In mine the hands are also a little shorter. I'm not familiar with all the model variations as others here may be so take my input for whatever its worth.
 
C
Posts
7
Likes
10
K kalali
I have a 1956 Seamaster but with the 471 automatic movement which I know is original since it has been in our family since new. The dial design looks exactly like yours. The "S" in the Seamaster script has much more rounded edges and is nowhere as "edgy" or jagged. The Swiss Made script is also much less pronounced. In mine the hands are also a little shorter. I'm not familiar with all the model variations as others here may be so take my input for whatever its worth.

That's great info, kalali. If it's not too much trouble, could you reply with a photo of the watch that you reference? I'd like to see what an original looks like. Thanks!
 
K
Posts
20
Likes
7
Here is mine. For full disclosure, the crown is not original. I still have the original crown but the seal was in a really bad shape so I replaced it when I restored the movement.
Edited:
 
Omega.jpg
padders
Posts
9,500
Likes
14,984
K kalali
Here is mine. For full disclosure, the crown is not original. I still have the original crown but the seal was in a really bad shape so I replaced it when I restored the movement.
Unfortunately I am certain that is a redial too. There are several tells inc irregularity of the minute track, the over large fonts and the presence of a badly centred cross hair. Note the apparent lack of Swiss Made text and the second hand length which is too long for the minute track. It may be a historic redial, but it is a redial.
Edited:
 
K
Posts
20
Likes
7
I got this watch from my dad some 30+ years ago and it never crossed my mind he would have had the dial restored/refinished so I never paid close attention to the minute details on the dial. I certainly never compared the fonts/scripts with another dial of the same vintge. That said, after looking at it more closely under some magnification, I agree with padders and I can now see the irregularities around the minute track. It is of little consequence to me since I don't plan to sell the watch but I find it ineteresting that he even went through the trouble of getting this work done. He must have really liked this watch and I would have asked him but unfortunately he's no longer around. Thanks for point it out and I apologize for sharing misleading information, although definitely not my intent.
 
ChrisN
Posts
2,218
Likes
4,942
@kalali - as you say, of little concern to you. If my father had given me such a watch, I would never sell it.👍

I believe that back in the era your watch is from, people wanted the best looking watch and if the dial was damaged at all, then they would often be re-painted so, it is likely a very old rework as @padders says.

Oh, and we've all passed comments on watches that were incorrect... Nothing to worry about there as we're all learning.

Enjoy your watch, Chris
 
padders
Posts
9,500
Likes
14,984
K kalali
I got this watch from my dad some 30+ years ago and it never crossed my mind he would have had the dial restored/refinished so I never paid close attention to the minute details on the dial. I certainly never compared the fonts/scripts with another dial of the same vintge. That said, after looking at it more closely under some magnification, I agree with padders and I can now see the irregularities around the minute track. It is of little consequence to me since I don't plan to sell the watch but I find it ineteresting that he even went through the trouble of getting this work done. He must have really liked this watch and I would have asked him but unfortunately he's no longer around. Thanks for point it out and I apologize for sharing misleading information, although definitely not my intent.
That is the right attitude. The fact it had dial work is part of its history and being a family piece this detracts from its importance to you not a jot. The only reason I mentioned it was because it seemed you were holding it up to the OP as an example of an original dial which isn't ideal if that is in fact not the case. My post may have appeared unkind which was not my intention. I am glad you have taken my comments in the right spirit.
Edited:
 
C
Posts
7
Likes
10
@kalali I appreciate the reply and for you putting in the effort to post the photo to try and help. I'm guessing that watch is invaluable to you regardless of the re-finished dial and I'm sure you'll still enjoy it. I know I would if I had something handed down like that through the family.

@padders Thanks for your input on this subject as well.

@ChrisN Thanks for the guidance on the scripts. I'll be sure to save this for future reference.

I'll try and give back to the community here, but I'm sure you experienced folks are already aware. I found this pretty cool website that shows Seamasters (and other watches) throughout time with a nice writeup for each period. It doesn't look like it's entirely complete, but still a nice reference to have to see the evolution of the watch over time:

https://www.timeline.watch/category/brands/omega/seamaster/

Thanks again to all! I have decided to not move forward with the purchase of the watch in the OP. The search continues...

Chris
 
SkunkPrince
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,790
Definitely refinished. But it's better if you start your own thread.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

W

Help Verifying Watch

wabryant Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
dsio
dsio
Posts
5
Views
973
B

Recent purchase - help verifying

bsot123 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
X350 XJR
X350 XJR
Posts
10
Views
2K
G

Need help verifying if genuine or fake Omega De Ville

galadriel Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
JimInOz
JimInOz
Posts
16
Views
2K
MohTheory

Need help verifying 16700 GMT 1997

MohTheory Rolex Watches
MohTheory
MohTheory
Posts
6
Views
2K
T

Help verifying date of my Grand Prix 1900

Tymorial Open Discussion
gatorcpa
gatorcpa
Posts
2
Views
1K
M

Help verifying 145.022-68 (or 69)

millertime021 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Jorisvp
Jorisvp
Posts
58
Views
5K