Stewart H
·I strikes me that he should use it for sitting on and not talking out of.
Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
Sorry but my interests are with Omega movements much earlier than would interest most of you - and I’m certainly aware of the differences in crown setting direction - but this is of course the way Omega built them (no chance of a change during a visit to a watchmaker!).
For example, two of the earliest movements made by Omega were the Cal.30’’’ (ligne) in 1894, followed by the Cal.27’’’ in 1896. The Cal 30’’’ coincided with that very first Omega (the Cal.19’’’).
To stick with the same notation used above, the Cal.30’’’ ‘sets’ anticlockwise but its sister, the Cal.27’’’, sets clockwise (as does the Cal.19’’’ and those that followed it). All my Omega wristwatches set clockwise. Things were more complicated with the Cal.59‑8D - the early (original) version set clockwise but the later jump second/SCS version set anticlockwise.
Turning to chronographs, the earliest (Cal.19’’’ and then Cal.18’’’) set clockwise - but things changed (perhaps with the arrival of Lemania) because the Cal.39 (that’s interesting!), Cals.28.9, 33.3 AND 27 were anticlockwise. Well, the Cal.27 became a 321 - which is a Speedy: anticlockwise.
Over to you Speedies.
Sorry again - but I can’t imagine anything more anoraky than the above!
Tom

Or God forbid he gets to JLC memovox where you have to turn one whole 24 cycle and then back a quarter and go forth a half from 10 to 2 in order to ch e the date.
He would get an aneurysm
Again, I am more than happy to tell any interested member over PM.
Turns out another esteemed member of the forum had an unpleasant experience as well.
I think it'd be more helpful for all if you post pictures of the watch you sold. It'd be more objective while not touching the privacy issue of the buyer. At the moment, all we have is just what you said.
Posting a picture of the watch in question is irrelevant since the issue is with the buyer stating the the movement set the hands incorrectly and that all watches set in the same clockwise crown, clockwise hands motion--a truly ridiculous claim that he quoted as gospel in the watch collecting community.
The movement in question is a Bulova 11 ALAC.
You actually mentioned the dial issue, which is obviously easier for observers to judge.
I would think it near impossible that any watchmaker could reassemble a movement in a manner that would cause the direction of the hand settings to reverse from the way it was set up originally.
We may just be dealing with ignorance at this point.
gatorcpa