- Posts
- 13,310
- Likes
- 18,424
I think it's a vintage.
- Posts
- 24,257
- Likes
- 54,014
- Posts
- 13,483
- Likes
- 31,777
X350 XJR
··Vintage Omega AficionadoPhotos of the "clip", front, back, and side would help.
- Posts
- 9
- Likes
- 2
- Posts
- 13,310
- Likes
- 18,424
- Posts
- 13,201
- Likes
- 22,957
Davidt
·If you're planning on keeping it as a wearable heirloom a repair to the clasp and a service is advisable.
If you're selling, don't invest any money into it. You won't see a return to cover it.
If you're selling, don't invest any money into it. You won't see a return to cover it.
- Posts
- 42
- Likes
- 41
DailyAdvancement
·The serial number (the one on the movement adjacent to the crown) dates this to ca 1964.
Given OP gave a very detail history of this being handed down generations:
‘ It was my granny's , my moms and now mine. From the back date we think it was made in 1865 as it was given to my grandmother by her aunty and my grandmother was born in 1929. ‘
There clearly seems to be a mismatch between its stated history and what the serial number says, unless a mechanism has been recased, which is even less likely?
- Posts
- 8,711
- Likes
- 14,617
efauser
·Given OP gave a very detail history of this being handed down generations:
‘ It was my granny's , my moms and now mine. From the back date we think it was made in 1865 as it was given to my grandmother by her aunty and my grandmother was born in 1929. ‘
There clearly seems to be a mismatch between its stated history and what the serial number says, unless a mechanism has been recased, which is even less likely?
- Posts
- 5,522
- Likes
- 9,437
BlackTalon
··This Space for RentGiven OP gave a very detail history of this being handed down generations:
‘ It was my granny's , my moms and now mine. From the back date we think it was made in 1865 as it was given to my grandmother by her aunty and my grandmother was born in 1929. ‘
There clearly seems to be a mismatch between its stated history and what the serial number says, unless a mechanism has been recased, which is even less likely?
"The forerunner of Omega, La Generale Watch Co., was founded at La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland in 1848 by Louis Brandt, who assembled key-wound precision pocket watches from parts supplied by local craftsmen.[12] He sold his watches from Italy to Scandinavia by way of England, his chief market. In 1894, his two sons Louis-Paul and César developed a revolutionary in-house manufacturing and total production control system that allowed component parts to be interchangeable. Watches developed with these techniques were marketed under the Omega brand of La Generale Watch Co. By 1903 the success of the Omega brand led the La Generale Watch Co to spin off the Omega brand as its own company, and the Omega Watch Co was officially founded in 1903."
So it was 1894 (or slightly later) before the name Omega was even used.
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 0
martinw
·🤦
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 445
ilayd
·The movement type, serial number and omega logo on the dial point to this watch not being from 1865. Omega did not use the Omega logo back in 1865 as far as I know. Here is some info from Wilipedia that backs that up:
So it was 1894 (or slightly later) before the name Omega was even used.
That's most likely a typo. Based on the birth year of OP's grandma, I'm sure they meant it was from 1965... off by one digit 8 --> 9. Which then would jive with the serial number and design.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 6
- Views
- 784
- Posts
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- Posts
- 6
- Views
- 456
- Posts
- 3
- Views
- 649
