History of 354 cal bumper

[Leep]

Hi all. I'm new to the forums, so apologies if the answer I want is already up here, somewhere.

Just picked up my latest Omega, a Seamaster with a 354 cal bumper mechanism. It's in great condition, looks like it hasn't seen much wear - the face is beautiful. However, although the case back is marked Seamaster, the dial is not, although I think (hope) it's genuine and original.

I'm trying to tie down the year of manufacture, without having the back taken off, so anyone hange any idea other than between '48 and '55?

Cheers!

 

[ConElPueblo]

L Leep

Hi all. I'm new to the forums, so apologies if the answer I want is already up here, somewhere.

Just picked up my latest Omega, a Seamaster with a 354 cal bumper mechanism. It's in great condition, looks like it hasn't seen much wear - the face is beautiful. However, although the case back is marked Seamaster, the dial is not, although I think (hope) it's genuine and original.

I'm trying to tie down the year of manufacture, without having the back taken off, so anyone hange any idea other than between '48 and '55?

Cheers!

Difficult at best, but without pictures a futile exercise.

 

[Spruce]

Here’s my 1954 354 for you to compare with yours

Edited: Oct 18, 2019

 

[Leep]

I haven't removed the back, so only have exterior images. The caseback says Seamaster, but not waterproof, and is a two piece screw done type.

 

[wagudc]

L Leep

I haven't removed the back, so only have exterior images. The caseback says Seamaster, but not waterproof, and is a two piece screw done type.

I am no expert and cannot comment on the originality of your watch, but I think it beautiful. I love those beefy long lugs.

 

[seekingseaquest]

Can you provide a straight on view of the dial without the hands obscuring the text?

 

[ConElPueblo]

I think that looks good. It'll be <1953 as the logo is the earlier type. Great dial!

EDIT: Only just remembered that I believe there are exceptions to the above rule and that is in regard to, IIRC, black dials (may have been chronometer rated black dials?) so it could be newer...

Edited: Oct 18, 2019

 

[gatorcpa]

L Leep

I'm trying to tie down the year of manufacture, without having the back taken off, so anyone hange any idea other than between '48 and '55?

Actually, it’s a pretty narrow time period. From about 1952-55.

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&2&2uswk&Omega_354

We can’t get any closer without pictures of the movement or the case reference number from the inside of the watch.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

 

[Leep]

Thank you guys. I'm checking to see if the guy that did the service took photos of the movement etc. I do love the look of the dial, and think that it is original. Under a glass you can see how cruddy the lume is, so it definitely has some age. Hopefully this photo is a little better.

I could take the back off myself, but have a habit of buggering up things that I take apart!

 

[Spruce]

Nice looking dial and case, and I’d certainly enjoy wearing the watch.

 

[Claven2]

It it me. Or is the omega symbol misaligned to the printed text?

 

[Leep]

Claven2

It it me. Or is the omega symbol misaligned to the printed text?

Yes, I pointed that out to a collector, but he said that meant nothing. However, I do not know enough to be sure.

Photos came through from the guy that serviced it.

 

[Spruce]

Assuming that the serial number and case number match and no one, so far, has suggested they don’t, this is a 67 year old watch, running well and looking great.

It is a tribute to the design and build quality, and to the care taken of it by various owners and servicers.

As others have posted, before it achieved the status of being a venerable antique, servicers may have replaced or refurbished parts, clearly taking care to maintain the appearance and integrity of a good watch and probably at a time when collectors were not particularly interested in an everyday watch, such as this.

I don’t know enough to say if the symbol is or is not out of alignment but, if it is, so what?

This is nearly 70 years old and worth around 400-500 UKP. I still think it looks great 😀

 

[hoipolloi]

Dial looks re printed to me.

 

[seekingseaquest]

hoipolloi

Dial looks re printed to me.

I’m unsure on this one - something seems off but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Perhaps a combination of the glossy finish and thick and off center text.

 

[Leep]

seekingseaquest

I’m unsure on this one - something seems off but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Perhaps a combination of the glossy finish and thick and off center text.

Always possible I guess, but the lume looks very cruddy and aged, consistent with being an old watch.

 

[felsby]

hoipolloi

Dial looks re printed to me.

Print on honeycomb dials always looks a little smeared due to the uneven base.

 

[Waltesefalcon]

I don't like that print either. The lume looks legit, but that print looks bad and doesn't seem to match the minute markers.

 

[Leep]

As I'm a newbie, can someone explain what you mean by print? And how the minute makers should match up?

 

[Spruce]

L Leep

As I'm a newbie, can someone explain what you mean by print? And how the minute makers should match up?

Some of the above posters are anxious that the dial on your watch is not the original dial which, if it were, might make the watch more valuable and desirable to a serious collector.

It is suspected that at some stage, and judging by the dial condition, many years ago, the then owner may have had the dial refinished or given a 'make over'.

I can’t say whether it was or wasn’t but my suspicion, if it was refinished or reprinted or just 'touched up', is that it was done at the behest of the then owner, who just wanted his daily wearer watch to look a bit crisper.

All members of the OF are anxious to avoid old watches that have been made up to look to be in better condition than they really were before being ‘refurbished' in order to increase their re-sale value to the more susceptible buyer.

In my view, whether or not your watch dial is original or has been refinished, it was probably so long ago that even that refinishing might have an antique value.

If it was refinished, it was refinished carefully and without an intention to show your watch to be something it wasn’t or isn’t.

You’re clearly not a collector. All you’ve done is bought a 67 year old watch to wear. You’ve probably not paid a huge amount and you’ll get a lot of pleasure from wearing it.