Identifying Vintage Omega Seamaster Ref 166.002 Case

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 9, 2026

I recently came across this case with a Ref 166.002 caseback, but I'm unfamiliar of any models this might be. I thought it might just be a non-Omega case that fits the caseback, then I thought it might be a Seamaster Cosmic 2000? Also looks like a Constellation model, but didn't think the References would be compatible...thanks for any help

 

Posts

160

Likes

135

lenndon

·Jun 9, 2026

What is the diameter and the lug width?

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 9, 2026

The diameter is listed as 35 mm; I'm checking with the seller on the lug width

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 9, 2026

lenndon

What is the diameter and the lug width?

35 mm for diameter and 19 mm for lug width

 

Posts

2,249

Likes

1,420

DON

·Jun 9, 2026

Can somewhat see. 166.092 reference

Google and you will find the case and watch to get movement. Dial and hands could be the problem. Might want to acquire those before buying movement if you want build a watch

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 9, 2026

DON

Can somewhat see. 166.092 reference

Google and you will find the case and watch to get movement. Dial and hands could be the problem. Might want to acquire those before buying movement if you want build a watch

Thanks man, I've been kind of working backwards with this whole project; got a dial I think fits a Ref 165.003, so I've been working off the hopes that it fits a Cal 552, which led me to the 166.002, but not sure about any of this, haha. I should have put clearer pics of the caseback in the post; these are the only ones that show number more clearly

 

Posts

2,249

Likes

1,420

DON

·Jun 10, 2026

I don’t think the back is original to that upper case. A check on 166.002 brings up an entirely different watch and case.

Slimmer dress model. Date. Seamaster and Seamaster De Ville models

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 10, 2026

DON

I don’t think the back is original to that upper case. A check on 166.002 brings up an entirely different watch and case.

Slimmer dress model. Date. Seamaster and Seamaster De Ville models

That's what I was afraid of. I have a 166.002 case already, but it's pretty beat up, then saw this one for sale and caught my eye; but like you said, nothing out there that I've seen matches with it. I was really liking it too, smh

 

Posts

13,335

Likes

23,153

Davidt

·Jun 10, 2026

It’s not a cosmic as they have unishell cases.

I’d be very wary of trying to piece a watch together here as your mid case may not be omega and you could spend a lot of time and money sourcing dials that don’t fit.

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 10, 2026

Davidt

It’s not a cosmic as they have unishell cases.

I’d be very wary of trying to piece a watch together here as your mid case may not be omega and you could spend a lot of time and money sourcing dials that don’t fit.

I've looked around a little more and think it might actually be a Constellation 168.017, but I don't understand how the case back fits it, of course I'm super green still

 

Posts

13,335

Likes

23,153

Davidt

·Jun 10, 2026

That’s a C Case Constellation and it doesn’t look like one of those to me unless it’s been terribly refinished.

 

Posts

10

Likes

1

Jack Vector

·Jun 10, 2026

Davidt

That’s a C Case Constellation and it doesn’t look like one of those to me unless it’s been terribly refinished.

Either way I look at it, this one's going to be off the table for me since it's not seeming to be a genuine Seamaster. I really appreciate all the advise and insights

 

Posts

160

Likes

135

lenndon

·Jun 11, 2026

I thought it might be a 166.065 midcase where the inner rim is polished away. But that would be 37-38mm. Looks very similar tho front and back. Might remain a mystery.

 

Posts

2,249

Likes

1,420

DON

·Jun 11, 2026

As I said. A 166.092 case looks right, but with the wrong back and placing a non original movement and dial. Just going to be a frankenwatch anyways

 

Posts

160

Likes

135

lenndon

·Jun 11, 2026

DON

As I said. A 166.092 case looks right,

I have to disagree. As we found out the case diameter is 35mm. That excludes 166.092. Also the midcase shape is quite different