Hi all,

after lurking here for a while, I decided to join the board here and get in on the action.
I've been looking for a vintage Seamaster (de Ville) for a while, and this one really stood out in terms of looks for me.
It's being sold by member Fattony in his shop, and he was more than okay with me posting it here to get some more info.
What I've found so far is that it's a Cal. 503 Seamaster from around 1960 (17M serial).
I really like the look of this watch, but that dial colour and crosshairs is not something I've seen before, hence my questions:
- is this watch all original?
- did Seamasters of this time have the "Waterproof" inscription on the back?
- what would be a good price for this watch in it's current condition?

Thanks in advance!

Tim

 

That one is a re-dial of inferior quality. The case has obviously been polished. I'm not sure what's going on with those hands.

Thanks for joining the Forum.

Keep an eye out. You'll find a better example.

 

Thanks for the quick reply!
It's probably just a matter of experience and exposure to different options, but how do you tell this is a re-dial?

 

Telltale sign for me is the thickness of the crosshair lines. What did the seller tell you about it?

 

He believes the dial and hands are correct, although I understand the difficulty of (dis)proving that.
All his ads on Chrono24 have a generic statement saying all watches he sells are guaranteed authentic. Not sure if original and authentic are interchangeable in this context .
I definitely believe his good intentions, but it's hard to figure out what is original and what isn't with these vintage pieces.

Keep the advice coming please, I'm all for learning!

 

It doesn't seem like a redial to me. Hands look correct to me - most Seamasters of this reference have luminous inserts, but if they don't, I'd expect them to look like this.

The dial has some wear and damage, but I am pretty certain it is genuine.

@Timmert - you will have to either see this in real life or make up if you can live with the dial condition and polished case (and replacement crown, obviously), but nothing strikes me as being a deal breaker, originality-wise.

 

Here's one with the same markers and same type of hands:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/vintage-omega-seamaster-2849-ribbon-dial.46896/

EDIT: And this one, from Reddit of all places, is how the OP's watch would look like in better condition, incl. correct crown:

 

Thanks for posting the additional example ConElPueblo.

I was basing my opinion on the appearance of the little minute markers. They seem crudely done and misaligned with the center portion for the dial when compared with the example you provided. The markings also seem thick and somewhat "imprecise" for factory craftsmanship. It could be that the crystal is distorting things.

 

The case might be a little polished, but the markers look evenly spaced, and the Seamaster font looks good.

 

I think I see what you mean, it looks as if some of the minute markers are of different length than others.
I'll see if there's a head-on photo available, that should minimize distortion from the glass.

Thanks to the others for pitching in, the example above here looks a lot different!
I kind of dig that aged dial colour, although I don't like the little spots on it.

 

It is more likely to be the degraded condition of the dial that makes the lines become more blurred.

Especially the side-on view of the dial shows the crosshairs to be good and that's a hard part to replicate properly, as is the Seamaster font and the intersection with the same crosshairs. Placement, size and font of the "Swiss Made" is good too, another part that, apparently, is difficult to get right.

I'll add that having an additional example is by no means a sign of authenticity - if it is a fake dial/well-crafted redial there's bound to be more of them. Not being able to find a similar dial is also not a sign of redialing as there are so very, very many varieties of the fifties Seamasters, more so, IMO, than almost all other vintage Omegas.

 

The smudgy thick font of Automatic and the cross hair line was causing me pause when I first saw it but I'd defer to @ConElPueblo in any case- and will have to re-examine my own critique..

 

Morning all

Another one of my watches, firstly thanks to all for the feedback on the forum, it's always helpful and constructive and to be honest id encouraged the OP to post it on the forum for feedback.

The watch in question in my opinion is a really honest example that's 'led a life'

I'm comfortable the dial is original and although showing patina I've been taught the hard way that originality of the dial is paramount and refinished dials are best avoided.

When we bought the watch someone had tried to poorly remove engraving from the case back so it went to Sts and was lapped.

Anyway, thanks once again for your feedback, it's always great to see the debate and helps expand all of our knowledge

Tony