- Posts
- 7,225
- Likes
- 24,416
Hijak
·👍 That's a nice watch Tony!🥰
Jumbo Genève 2748-6 Cal. 268
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·I love these Geneve's with sunken sub dials - as opposed to the flat surfaced sub dials, I note yours has a cal 268 movement, whilst I have see 266 in other watches and 265, and 267.
Could they have used either of these movements, or are some of them franken watches?
Ultimately what are the correct movements to be seen with the subsecond dial that is sunken in the dial.
Could they have used either of these movements, or are some of them franken watches?
Ultimately what are the correct movements to be seen with the subsecond dial that is sunken in the dial.
- Posts
- 1,656
- Likes
- 8,740
MikeMan2727
·Ollie is on a roll with his posts and replies. 7 year old thread resurrection...
Nice to see some Dablizter posts though as a throwback
Nice to see some Dablizter posts though as a throwback
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·Ollie is on a roll with his posts and replies. 7 year old thread resurrection...
Nice to see some Dablizter posts though as a throwback
I'm just so confused by this particular dial. To me, I love it, more so than the flat variety, but having googled Omega 2748 95% of the results are with the flat dials. Where they a limited run perhaps? Or are they infact from a different case number and people just used them to swap out dials interchangeably with the 2748 because they were a close match?
Not only does this confuse me as there is no clear way to define this particular version of the dial (I'm calling it the sunken sub dial version) but on all the examples I have found they all have different calibers? Again, are these all franken watches on a quest to blow my mind? Or were they simply used interchangeably when it came to this particular reference. Examples include:
Omega 2748 - Cal 265 - https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/966/966798-c653f147530b76091a3309d45bf94178.jpg
Omega 2748 - Cal 268 - The OPs watch
Omega 2748 - Cal 266 - (although this appears to have been a regular dial that was swapped out by reading the thread)
https://www.watchtalkforums.info/forums/thread65795.html
Omega 2903 - Cal 267 - https://www.catawiki.com/l/17580651-omega-geneve-2903-men-1950-1959
Seemingly the same dial, on two case references, and 4 different calibers.
PLEASE Omega forum somebody shed some lightttttttt! haha
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·Okay after more digging I believe:
1954 - 1956 (based off all of the serial numbers I collected in my research)
Sub second versions:
2754 (34mm hand wind) with 266 movement
2748 (36mm hand wind) with 266 movement
1956-1959
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 267 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 267 movement
1958-1961
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2981 (34mm automatic) with 491 movement
Centre seconds:
14702 (34mm automatic) with 552 movement
14703 (34mm automatic calendar) with 562 movement
14724 (34mm hand wind calendar) with 610 movement
2982 (34mm automatic calendar) with 503 movement
I believe based on the fact that 265 movements date to around 1949/50 these will be too early for these models as I understand they were released in 1953:
That being said this website: https://www.timeline.watch/watch/1951-omega-geneve-ref-2903-8/ contradicts me by saying they used the 265 in 1951 on the 2903 case, although I can find NO other examples of this, AND it seems very strange to jump 5 years between this example of the 2903, and those that I managed to find examples of online. So perhaps the website is wrong? I guess it could be true that there were some surplus 265 movements and in the first few runs these were used, and whilst they were released in 1953, movements made 2 years earlier could have been used? So, in conclusion I think if we are to see these calibers, it would be within the 2748 case and be a very very early example, if not a pioneering example of this model.
There are of course anomalies like the OPs Geneve which is a 2748 case with 288 movement, so perhaps they're all just used interchangeably? Or perhaps this case was brought back with this movement to house the dials with the sunken sub dials, like his?
Of course I have no authority on this subject and this is just my findings, if anyone does have a greater breadth of knowledge on this subject I would really appreciate some kind of confirmation, or correction on my findings 😀
Thank you,
Ollie 😀
1954 - 1956 (based off all of the serial numbers I collected in my research)
Sub second versions:
2754 (34mm hand wind) with 266 movement
2748 (36mm hand wind) with 266 movement
1956-1959
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 267 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 267 movement
1958-1961
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2981 (34mm automatic) with 491 movement
Centre seconds:
14702 (34mm automatic) with 552 movement
14703 (34mm automatic calendar) with 562 movement
14724 (34mm hand wind calendar) with 610 movement
2982 (34mm automatic calendar) with 503 movement
I believe based on the fact that 265 movements date to around 1949/50 these will be too early for these models as I understand they were released in 1953:
That being said this website: https://www.timeline.watch/watch/1951-omega-geneve-ref-2903-8/ contradicts me by saying they used the 265 in 1951 on the 2903 case, although I can find NO other examples of this, AND it seems very strange to jump 5 years between this example of the 2903, and those that I managed to find examples of online. So perhaps the website is wrong? I guess it could be true that there were some surplus 265 movements and in the first few runs these were used, and whilst they were released in 1953, movements made 2 years earlier could have been used? So, in conclusion I think if we are to see these calibers, it would be within the 2748 case and be a very very early example, if not a pioneering example of this model.
There are of course anomalies like the OPs Geneve which is a 2748 case with 288 movement, so perhaps they're all just used interchangeably? Or perhaps this case was brought back with this movement to house the dials with the sunken sub dials, like his?
Of course I have no authority on this subject and this is just my findings, if anyone does have a greater breadth of knowledge on this subject I would really appreciate some kind of confirmation, or correction on my findings 😀
Thank you,
Ollie 😀
- Posts
- 7,635
- Likes
- 26,446
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberThat being said this website: https://www.timeline.watch/watch/1951-omega-geneve-ref-2903-8/ contradicts me by saying they used the 265 in 1951 on the 2903 case, although I can find NO other examples of this, AND it seems very strange to jump 5 years between this example of the 2903, and those that I managed to find examples of online. So perhaps the website is wrong?
I am do not believe that the model one was even introduced until well after 1951, so yes, the website is wrong.
I guess it could be true that there were some surplus 265 movements and in the first few runs these were used, and whilst they were released in 1953, movements made 2 years earlier could have been used?
Yes, that is possible.
So, in conclusion I think if we are to see these calibers, it would be within the 2748 case and be a very very early example, if not a pioneering example of this model.
Why the 2748, and not the 2754?
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·Why the 2748, and not the 2754?
Oops, I wrote that sentence before I discovered the 2754s haha! Thank you for pointing that out.
What is your opinion on the sunken dials? I've seen these in a variety of the cases, this is a jumbo version, do you think it would be in a 2748 or 2904, or do you think these dials although rare, were interchangeable between both models?
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,086
- Likes
- 2,897
OMEGuy
·A beautiful watch... 👍
- Posts
- 7,635
- Likes
- 26,446
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberWhat is your opinion on the sunken dials? Like this one? I've seen these in a variety of the cases, this is a jumbo version, do you think it would be in a 2748 or 2904, or do you think these dials although rare, were interchangeable between both models?
First, you have shown two different versions, as the one with the cal. 265 has a smaller sub-dial. I'm not sure what to think about them, except that they are uncommon. I associate this style with the early 2748 (and have owned several). The style appears in at least two 1955 catalogues that I have seen. Also note that there is no truncated index at 6:00, which I believe was typical of the earliest Genève models.
Interestingly, and based partly on the above observation, I do have an image that suggests that the sunken dial was perhaps used on an early model. It is from a Swedish catalogue, but unfortunately I do not know the date of publication.
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·I have so far in my research only seen these sunken dials in the 2748 (36mm cases) and the 2903 (34mm cases). So perhaps they were just in these varieties.
Yes I know the one with the cal 265 is smaller subdial, I don't believe that dial is original to that case.
Thank you for the above it is really great to see an example from a catalogue! Do you have any idea what the numbers below the image mean, one says 18999 - 18k gold, shock proof antimagnetic. The second item is 999 - the same item in stainless steel. It's a shame there are no model nos. or calibre information.
Your theory on the truncated index on six would agree with the book that the screenshot in my post above shows. A 1953 example without an index. That said it describes that case as a 2903, which doesn't match with any of my research. My own 2904 pictured below has a 268 movement dating to 1957 and the trucated index at 6, the earliest one I found online was from 1956. I can't see why they would be using two of the same case references at the same time. I can't seem to see any examples of the 2904 without the index, so perhaps this could be a mistake in this book too. I would think that the example shown made 1953, like yours would be a 2748, or at least if I am to believe my own findings!
I am led to believe that variations with the truncated triangle are from those models with cal 268 movements. From my searches the majority (80%+) do have this index, whilst the majority with 266 movements do not have an index at 6.
So, I think after all this, my conclusions would be that the jumbo dials with sunken sub dial, should be paired with a 268 movement based on the fact it has a trucated index at 6. With regards to the case, I have only seen these in 2748 cases for the jumbo size, so that is what I would expect to see. It would be nice if we knew the serial number of the example owned by the OP as that would fit this criteria exactly.
First, you have shown two different versions, as the one with the cal. 265 has a smaller sub-dial. I'm not sure what to think about them, except that they are uncommon. I associate this style with the early 2748 (and have owned several). The style appears in at least two 1955 catalogues that I have seen. Also note that there is no truncated index at 6:00, which I believe was typical of the earliest Genève models.
Interestingly, and based partly on the above observation, I do have an image that suggests that the sunken dial was perhaps used on an early model. It is from a Swedish catalogue, but unfortunately I do not know the date of publication.
Thank you for the above it is really great to see an example from a catalogue! Do you have any idea what the numbers below the image mean, one says 18999 - 18k gold, shock proof antimagnetic. The second item is 999 - the same item in stainless steel. It's a shame there are no model nos. or calibre information.
Your theory on the truncated index on six would agree with the book that the screenshot in my post above shows. A 1953 example without an index. That said it describes that case as a 2903, which doesn't match with any of my research. My own 2904 pictured below has a 268 movement dating to 1957 and the trucated index at 6, the earliest one I found online was from 1956. I can't see why they would be using two of the same case references at the same time. I can't seem to see any examples of the 2904 without the index, so perhaps this could be a mistake in this book too. I would think that the example shown made 1953, like yours would be a 2748, or at least if I am to believe my own findings!
I am led to believe that variations with the truncated triangle are from those models with cal 268 movements. From my searches the majority (80%+) do have this index, whilst the majority with 266 movements do not have an index at 6.
So, I think after all this, my conclusions would be that the jumbo dials with sunken sub dial, should be paired with a 268 movement based on the fact it has a trucated index at 6. With regards to the case, I have only seen these in 2748 cases for the jumbo size, so that is what I would expect to see. It would be nice if we knew the serial number of the example owned by the OP as that would fit this criteria exactly.
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·Just had another thought - the article could be correct above if 2903, 2904, 2754 and 2748 co exis. There would be no logical reason for the same cases to have different names, so I suggest that maybe it could be the following:
36mm
2748 = Stainless steel 36mm case
2904 = Solid gold 36mm case
34mm
2754 = Solid gold 34mm case
2903 = Stainless steel / or gold plaque on stainless steel 34mm case
The only one not to agree with this idea is the 2903 above sold on catawiki which shows the caseback with 2903...
So I guess this is either completely wrong, or something is wrong somewhere. Why would Omega have the same watch including size with different case references?
EDIT - This theory has no grounds as I just found a 2904 in steel too haha so I’m sticking with my thoughts that the magazine incorrectly referenced the example as a 1953 2904 as I don’t think these came out to 1956 based on evidence I have found ♂️
36mm
2748 = Stainless steel 36mm case
2904 = Solid gold 36mm case
34mm
2754 = Solid gold 34mm case
2903 = Stainless steel / or gold plaque on stainless steel 34mm case
The only one not to agree with this idea is the 2903 above sold on catawiki which shows the caseback with 2903...
So I guess this is either completely wrong, or something is wrong somewhere. Why would Omega have the same watch including size with different case references?
EDIT - This theory has no grounds as I just found a 2904 in steel too haha so I’m sticking with my thoughts that the magazine incorrectly referenced the example as a 1953 2904 as I don’t think these came out to 1956 based on evidence I have found ♂️
Edited:
- Posts
- 7,635
- Likes
- 26,446
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberThank you for the above it is really great to see an example from a catalogue! Do you have any idea what the numbers below the image mean, one says 18999 - 18k gold, shock proof antimagnetic. The second item is 999 - the same item in stainless steel. It's a shame there are no model nos. or calibre information.
I believe that those were reference numbers relating to the individual markets, not worldwide Longines references. Keep in mind that customers would look at the catalogue, and order by number, so the broader numbers (e.g. 2904) would not have been as useful for the individual markets.
I can't seem to see any examples of the 2904 without the index, so perhaps this could be a mistake in this book too. I would think that the example shown made 1953, like yours would be a 2748, or at least if I am to believe my own findings!
I cannot recall having seen the smaller cased versions without an index at six, so perhaps the early 2578 was the only reference to have no index at six. I cannot recall, however, having seen a sunken sub-dial with no index at six, like the one shown in the advert.
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·I cannot recall having seen the smaller cased versions without an index at six, so perhaps the early 2578 was the only reference to have no index at six. I cannot recall, however, having seen a sunken sub-dial with no index at six, like the one shown in the advert.
Have you got your reference mixed up there? The smaller cases are the 2754 and 2903. I take it you meant 2754 not 2578? If it was what you meant, I agree that the 2754 mostly however, on these version below of the 2903 reference with onyx inserts, this can also be seen:
I have however, not seen examples without an index at 6 on 2903 models with the arrow shaped indices. Likewise, on the larger sized dials, I have not seen 2904 cases without the index at 6.
With regards to the sunken dial, like you I have not seen one without the index.
Just in case it's useful - this is a 2754 cal 266 (no index at 6) with it's original box - this is what I am hunting for - and look at that bracelet too!
- Posts
- 7,635
- Likes
- 26,446
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberYes, I meant 2754. Nice onyx insert example!
And speaking of gold Genève...
And speaking of gold Genève...
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·I love unusual patterned gold bracelets - they come up for sale so rarely too! That's a nice honeycomb one. I have a mesh one at the moment that is a good size for me, straight ends rather than curved, but it's nice. I'm not using it though as the lugs are weirdly 17.2mm so there's too big a gap on my 18mm lug Omega. Any idea what Omegas' have a 17.2mm lug width or something close? Did some Omega's have 17.4mm (or 11/16 inch) lugs?
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,502
- Likes
- 5,696
KingCrouchy
·I love unusual patterned gold bracelets - they come up for sale so rarely too! That's a nice honeycomb one. I have a mesh one at the moment that is a good size for me, straight ends rather than curved, but it's nice. I'm not using it though as the lugs are weirdly 17.2mm so there's too big a gap on my 18mm lug Omega. Any idea what Omegas' have a 17.2mm lug width or something close? Did some Omega's have 17.4mm (or 11/16 inch) lugs?
- Posts
- 2,430
- Likes
- 9,800
Rman
·@OllieOnTheRocks nice research you’ve done.
I’ve been on the lookout for a 2904 in rose gold but never seen one, only in yellow gold case.
There seem to be quite a few of the smaller cases around in rose gold so it’s a mystery to me.
I’ve been on the lookout for a 2904 in rose gold but never seen one, only in yellow gold case.
There seem to be quite a few of the smaller cases around in rose gold so it’s a mystery to me.
- Posts
- 1,279
- Likes
- 2,835
OllieOnTheRocks
·@OllieOnTheRocks nice research you’ve done.
I’ve been on the lookout for a 2904 in rose gold but never seen one, only in yellow gold case.
There seem to be quite a few of the smaller cases around in rose gold so it’s a mystery to me.
I have a rose gold one in the smaller case and to be honest for a dress watch it is a perfect size imo. Perhaps you should consider getting one of the smaller sizes!
- Posts
- 284
- Likes
- 679
Panjo
·Okay after more digging I believe:
1954 - 1956 (based off all of the serial numbers I collected in my research)
Sub second versions:
2754 (34mm hand wind) with 266 movement
2748 (36mm hand wind) with 266 movement
1956-1959
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 267 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 267 movement
1958-1961
Sub second versions:
2903 (34mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2904 (36mm hand wind) with 268 movement
2981 (34mm automatic) with 491 movement
Centre seconds:
14702 (34mm automatic) with 552 movement
14703 (34mm automatic calendar) with 562 movement
14724 (34mm hand wind calendar) with 610 movement
2982 (34mm automatic calendar) with 503 movement
I believe based on the fact that 265 movements date to around 1949/50 these will be too early for these models as I understand they were released in 1953:
That being said this website: https://www.timeline.watch/watch/1951-omega-geneve-ref-2903-8/ contradicts me by saying they used the 265 in 1951 on the 2903 case, although I can find NO other examples of this, AND it seems very strange to jump 5 years between this example of the 2903, and those that I managed to find examples of online. So perhaps the website is wrong? I guess it could be true that there were some surplus 265 movements and in the first few runs these were used, and whilst they were released in 1953, movements made 2 years earlier could have been used? So, in conclusion I think if we are to see these calibers, it would be within the 2748 case and be a very very early example, if not a pioneering example of this model.
There are of course anomalies like the OPs Geneve which is a 2748 case with 288 movement, so perhaps they're all just used interchangeably? Or perhaps this case was brought back with this movement to house the dials with the sunken sub dials, like his?
Of course I have no authority on this subject and this is just my findings, if anyone does have a greater breadth of knowledge on this subject I would really appreciate some kind of confirmation, or correction on my findings 😀
Thank you,
Ollie 😀
https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-geneve-omega-ck-14726
- Posts
- 3,133
- Likes
- 5,557
Edward53
·As a sidelight on this discussion, the early Geneves are the only model (that I've noticed) which break the hand length rule on a regular basis. I've seen numerous examples where the minute hand appears both original and "too long", including several on this thread and a 267 in my possession. Mine's in a Dennison case and I have wondered whether they and other case makers assembled the whole thing including hands without regard to hand length. Just speculation on my part; perhaps someone here knows more.
