Forums Latest Members
  1. John R Smith Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    . . . with my latest acquisition, the 18k ref 2445 from 1946 which we all had a look at just after it arrived -

    Dial-2.jpg

    I've been playing around with it all week, trying different straps and stuff like that. The movement is running like a dream, the seller confirms it was serviced back in May this year, so all seemed well. But something was niggling me about that dial, it just did not look as crisp and neat and tidy as the other Omegas I have. Even allowing for its age. So I got out a loupe, and to my horror yes the hour baton edges are messy with what looks like a squeeze-out of transparent glue along the sides in places. Perhaps you can see it here -

    Dial Close-1.jpg

    Now from what I have read here and elsewhere, that can only mean one thing - a poor quality re-dial where the batons have been glued back on rather than riveted as they should be. I assume that is correct? I checked the lettering very carefully when I first got the watch, and the script is an exact match for my 1951 2635 so I thought the dial must be OK -

    Dial Close-2.jpg

    Everything else about the watch says that it is genuine and almost mint, but this dial looks like bad news. Can the experts here please confirm that my fears are not unfounded, because this could prove difficult to resolve with the seller. I need some moral support, or on the other hand you telling me not to be so silly . . .
     
  2. michael e Still learning. Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,501
    Likes
    4,665
    Hi.
    Could it be the metal markers reacting with the paint? I have a untouched Omega that is a little like this around the markers.
    Does it look like glue or the paint which has oxidised?
    I am not familiar with this model really, should it have the word Swiss at 6?
    Thanks Mick
     
  3. JimInOz Melbourne Australia Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    15,399
    Likes
    32,160
    I think you need to get access to a decent microscope so that you can get a real understanding of the problem.

    It's only on one or two markers, and the numerals and other markers look OK in these pics, although the left side of the logo also seems to heve some gunk.

    Its possible that it's simply that verdigris type of corrosion you get with antique copper/brass/bronze and may be able to be cleaned off.

    Best of luck with it mate.

    And to my old eyes, it's still a stunner of a watch :thumbsup:
     
  4. Tire-comedon First Globemaster Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,314
    Likes
    3,627
    Could a cleaning explain that? The railways seems a little bit faded away between 10 and 12, and the traces at 2-3 look like a fingerprint.... Not sure at, it could be scratches on the crytal, difficult to say on a picture.
    Markers could have been taken off during the cleaining and then re-glued, or chemicals could have caused chemical reaction.
    Only an hypothesis, no affirmation.
    If it's a cleaning, the dial is original, but it can explain why the dial is not as crisp as other ones...
     
  5. John R Smith Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    The traces at 2 to 3 are a fingerprint, I'm sure of it. Probably someone being careless and it would not have shown at the time - later on the moisture and grease from the finger has darkened. The crystal is actually very clean, so you are getting a good view of the dial.
     
    cicindela likes this.
  6. mac_omega Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    3,161
    Likes
    6,700
    The dial could have been "washed" in order to remove yellowish old lacquer and obviously was not re-coated - thus the visible fingerprints which "developed" later as dark traces. One or two indices could have fallen off and were reglued afterwards. I do not think that the dial had a full restoration/repaint!
    Maybe this helps to understand the condition of the dial.
    BTW does not look too bad - I would not really mind about as the rest of the watch is so beautiful - with patience you might be able to find a better replacement dial from a parts donor movement/watch over time...
    just my humble thoughts

    regards
    erich
     
    Habitant, Dablitzer and John R Smith like this.
  7. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    6,528
    Likes
    10,780
    I think Erich's assessment is right on the money. Some markers may actually have been removed to facilitate the cleaning of the dial (and subsequently re-attached).
     
    John R Smith likes this.
  8. rick42650 Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    92
    Likes
    36
    I am comforted when reading this post-as I realize there are others who are as obsessive compulsive as I am!
     
    John R Smith likes this.
  9. John R Smith Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Yes - that really fits with how it looks now. It is not as yellow/warm as my other dials, rather more silver/cool in appearance. It also explains the fingerprint.

    Which would explain why there is no glue on most of the numerals, just some. And of course someone would have wanted to do this because the lacquer had developed the usual black spots and nasties, as it does.

    So in your opinion, this is still the original dial, as far as you can tell? Because if it is, that is OK.

    P.S. And that would explain why the minute track is partly missing between 8 and 11 - it hasn't faded away, it's been rubbed off.
     
  10. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    6,528
    Likes
    10,780
    Yes I think it's an original dial that has been cleaned like Erich said.
     
  11. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    12,168
    Likes
    15,627
    +1 from here.

    Original dials from this era do not always have "Swiss" or "Swiss Made" at the bottom.

    This one is probably better than 75% of the ones we see here.
    gatorcpa
     
  12. seamonster Respectable Member Oct 12, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191

    Respectable Member gatorcpa

    Kindly advise, whether there is any explanation as to why one of the one-fifth of a second strokes between 26 and 27 seconds, looks like an 'r' instead of 'I'.

    Thank-you.
     
  13. mac_omega Oct 13, 2013

    Posts
    3,161
    Likes
    6,700
    I think this is just dirt