- Posts
- 797
- Likes
- 3,593
OneTwo
·Well, I thought my watch buying was done for 2023.....apparently not. 
I've been on the lookout for a Genta design Seamaster 14710 for a while now with non-luminous hands and markers. During my search over the last few months I've come across the 14763 examples, which got me looking into the specifics of the case measurements between the two references. Now I definitely could be mistaken having not found any definitive proof, but based on what I've been able to find regarding case measurements and looking at how the cases were similarly finished, it go me thinking. Is 14763 is the date version of the 14710? Maybe? Is there an OF consensus on this?
Cut to the other night, scrolling through listings and I came across this 14763-1 SC.
The description noted the watch had received a full service and since at first glance the dial/case looked pretty good, now my interest is peaked. Only having being listed a couple hours before I quickly started analyzing it and comparing with other examples I had saved / could find with some google searches. Before I get into my findings though, and since all of us love a thread with photos here are more photos of the watch.
My thoughts on the condition:
Case / Crystal / Crown / Case Back:
- Looks pretty sharp with all the facets / definition lines still present so it doesn't appear that a robust polishing was ever performed
- In the photos of the sides of the case, albeit there are some dings, the factory brushing appears to still be present
- There does seam to be some gunk or tarnishing of the case side at the crown and a little at the opposite side as well (near the 10 o'clock marker side of the case). Could just be gunk / crud that could be remedied with good cleaning.
- Crystal doesn't appear to have the etched Omega mark but the angle of the photos leaves a bit to be desired in order to confirm this.
- Gunk/crud around the tope edge of the bezel near the crystal but also could hopefully be put right with a good cleaning.
- Crown appears to be correct for the reference.
- No significant gashes/scratches on the case back and the hippocampus / Seamaster logo looks to be sharp as well.
- Case back looks to have no watchmaker marks whatsoever but the stamped looked correct to other -61 models I have seen.
- Case back was also stamped "ACIER STAYBRITE" which I hadn't seen before seeing other -61 examples but after seeing the other -61 references with the same material stamp any concerns I had were eased.
Dial / Hands / Indexes:
- The sunburst dial looks to be in great, if not excellent condition IMO, and it seams to have patinated to a more champagne color which I have seen in other references. I also don't shy away from patinated dials so this one looks pretty lovely to me.
- Hands look good for this non-luminous version, with maybe a little patination on the seconds hand.
- The indices all look really good with no scuffing of the dial painted applied minute hash marks. So all good there.
Movement:
- The listing stated that the watch had just received a full servicing but there were no photos of listing receipts. That said other listings of the seller shown components mid-servicing so maybe the seller is a watchmaker.
- The 562 movement, compared to other movements I've seen it looked good, but that said I'm not a watchmaker. There did appear to be some rotor rub and the automatic rotor itself looks to have some discoloration at the outer edge.
- The case gasket though definitely looks like it needed some love, and by love I mean replacement. Which was surprising as the listed said fully serviced.
After scouring over the images provided and comparing with photos of other reference examples I found, I felt this one was a pretty great candidate to end my search, so I decided to send an offer over to the seller. We quickly came to an agreement and the watch is in process of be readied for shipment to me.
I'm looking forward to receiving it and will post photos when it arrives but in the meantime, I'd appreciate to hear fellow OF members thoughts. What do you think? Any glaring issues / observations I may have missed?
I've been on the lookout for a Genta design Seamaster 14710 for a while now with non-luminous hands and markers. During my search over the last few months I've come across the 14763 examples, which got me looking into the specifics of the case measurements between the two references. Now I definitely could be mistaken having not found any definitive proof, but based on what I've been able to find regarding case measurements and looking at how the cases were similarly finished, it go me thinking. Is 14763 is the date version of the 14710? Maybe? Is there an OF consensus on this?
Cut to the other night, scrolling through listings and I came across this 14763-1 SC.
The description noted the watch had received a full service and since at first glance the dial/case looked pretty good, now my interest is peaked. Only having being listed a couple hours before I quickly started analyzing it and comparing with other examples I had saved / could find with some google searches. Before I get into my findings though, and since all of us love a thread with photos here are more photos of the watch.
My thoughts on the condition:
Case / Crystal / Crown / Case Back:
- Looks pretty sharp with all the facets / definition lines still present so it doesn't appear that a robust polishing was ever performed
- In the photos of the sides of the case, albeit there are some dings, the factory brushing appears to still be present
- There does seam to be some gunk or tarnishing of the case side at the crown and a little at the opposite side as well (near the 10 o'clock marker side of the case). Could just be gunk / crud that could be remedied with good cleaning.
- Crystal doesn't appear to have the etched Omega mark but the angle of the photos leaves a bit to be desired in order to confirm this.
- Gunk/crud around the tope edge of the bezel near the crystal but also could hopefully be put right with a good cleaning.
- Crown appears to be correct for the reference.
- No significant gashes/scratches on the case back and the hippocampus / Seamaster logo looks to be sharp as well.
- Case back looks to have no watchmaker marks whatsoever but the stamped looked correct to other -61 models I have seen.
- Case back was also stamped "ACIER STAYBRITE" which I hadn't seen before seeing other -61 examples but after seeing the other -61 references with the same material stamp any concerns I had were eased.
Dial / Hands / Indexes:
- The sunburst dial looks to be in great, if not excellent condition IMO, and it seams to have patinated to a more champagne color which I have seen in other references. I also don't shy away from patinated dials so this one looks pretty lovely to me.
- Hands look good for this non-luminous version, with maybe a little patination on the seconds hand.
- The indices all look really good with no scuffing of the dial painted applied minute hash marks. So all good there.
Movement:
- The listing stated that the watch had just received a full servicing but there were no photos of listing receipts. That said other listings of the seller shown components mid-servicing so maybe the seller is a watchmaker.
- The 562 movement, compared to other movements I've seen it looked good, but that said I'm not a watchmaker. There did appear to be some rotor rub and the automatic rotor itself looks to have some discoloration at the outer edge.
- The case gasket though definitely looks like it needed some love, and by love I mean replacement. Which was surprising as the listed said fully serviced.
After scouring over the images provided and comparing with photos of other reference examples I found, I felt this one was a pretty great candidate to end my search, so I decided to send an offer over to the seller. We quickly came to an agreement and the watch is in process of be readied for shipment to me.
I'm looking forward to receiving it and will post photos when it arrives but in the meantime, I'd appreciate to hear fellow OF members thoughts. What do you think? Any glaring issues / observations I may have missed?
Edited:
