Identifying Omega Seamaster Turler 166010 Hands and Dial

Posts

4

Likes

0

HAPVintage

·Feb 12, 2026

Dear OFs members,

I'm quite new to Vintage Omega Seamaster and would appreciate any comment on this 166010 63 SC.
The price seems to be okay (not too high or suspiciously low).
It is a non-lume dial co-signed by Turler.
It has the correct movement and the serial is about more than 23 millions.
It has dauphine hands that seem to be at correct length but there is no black inlay. Does this mean the hands are not original?
It is one a BOR bracelet but I'm quite sure it is not original. But it has the omega logo and "515" and "804" carved on the endlinks. Anybody know about this bracelet?

Any comments about this watch, especially the dial and hands would be appreciated a lot.

Thank you very much.

 

Posts

24,102

Likes

53,679

Dan S

·Feb 12, 2026

I would be more comfortable with the hands if they had black inlays. I can't say I've seen a 23M 166.010, that seems very early. But who knows, maybe it's fine.

 

Posts

4

Likes

0

HAPVintage

·Feb 12, 2026

Dan S

I would be more comfortable with the hands if they had black inlays.

Thank you for your comment.
Me too. I saw some other example of plain dauphine hands online but too few.
Do you think this would significantly reduce the value of this watch? It may help me negotiate better.

 

Posts

24,102

Likes

53,679

Dan S

·Feb 12, 2026

I don't know, the hands might be ok, since some of the markers don't have inlay. But I like the hands with inlay better.

It's hard to tell from the photos, but I don't think the bracelet is an Omega.

 

Posts

4

Likes

0

HAPVintage

·Feb 12, 2026

Here are more pictures of the bracelet I got.
It has the omega logo but no ref number on the clasp.

 

Posts

24,102

Likes

53,679

Dan S

·Feb 12, 2026

I just looked at my photos, and the two I've owned (both chronometers) with black inlay, all the markers had inlay. On the OP watch, only the 6-9-12 markers have inlay. So maybe that's why the hands are plain.

 

Posts

4

Likes

0

HAPVintage

·Feb 12, 2026

Thank you for the comment.
The hardest thing I find about researching about vintage omegas and vintage watches in general is that standardized visual documentation (e.g original catalouge) is quite scare and there are many micro-variant.

 

Posts

3,741

Likes

6,358

hoipolloi

·Feb 12, 2026

I have seen some dials with mixed markers. That means the 12, 3, 6, 9 have inlay markers and the rest are solid and the hands are solid with no inlay.
So, it is correct with this case .
The thing that makes me concern is the color of the date ring which is yellowish, not matching with the dial.
The bracelet may be aftermarket.

 

G

Posts

10

Likes

12

Grégoire.H

·Feb 13, 2026

Hi, the hands are correct. I also have a 166.010 with this dial and hands configuration (without the double signature). These hands were for no lumes models with full stell indexes (no black/onyx part).

 

Posts

75

Likes

106

HorsinTime

·Feb 13, 2026

hoipolloi

The thing that makes me concern is the color of the date ring which is yellowish, not matching with the dial.

I wondered if that was just the lighting in the photo? Always hard to tell when the pictures aren't perfect.

Otherwise, I really like the hands and dial, and @Grégoire.H's post above should be very useful to the OP. The glass may not be original but that wouldn't concern me at all.

 

G

Posts

10

Likes

12

Grégoire.H

·Feb 13, 2026

HorsinTime

I wondered if that was just the lighting in the photo? Always hard to tell when the pictures aren't perfect.

Otherwise, I really like the hands and dial, and @Grégoire.H's post above should be very useful to the OP. The glass may not be original but that wouldn't concern me at all.

Mine also has a slightly yellowish date ring. I think that’s normal. The dial colour isn’t fully silver, it sits somewhere between off-white and what Rolex would nowadays call “sundust”, so it probably matched originally but aged differently from the dial itself...

My black 166.010 has a regular white/silver date ring

 

Posts

24,102

Likes

53,679

Dan S

·Feb 13, 2026

G Grégoire.H

Hi, the hands are correct. I also have a 166.010 with this dial and hands configuration (without the double signature). These hands were for no lumes models with full stell indexes (no black/onyx part).

Just to mention, the OP watch appears to have black inlay at 6-9-12l, so not exactly the same. I'm not casting doubt on the hands.

 

G

Posts

10

Likes

12

Grégoire.H

·Feb 13, 2026

Dan S

Just to mention, the OP watch appears to have black inlay at 6-9-12l, so not exactly the same. I'm not casting doubt on the hands.

My bad, I didn't red the post fully and never saw this dial configuration

 

Posts

29

Likes

98

Marbleu

·Feb 15, 2026

I don't like the way Türler is printed on the dial; the font is generally quite detailed. To me, it comes across as a later addition. (the attached are from 1967 and 1968)