My Early Seamaster 120 Divers. What to look for and what to avoid.

Posts
4
Likes
3
Given these shortcomings, I would rather pay a bit extra and go for a version that is complete, for instance this one: https://www.chrono24.nl/omega/seamaster-120-165027-automatic-no-date--id21587162.htm

I just came here to ask about this watch... I am looking to buy it, since I see no obvious alerts (other than the steep price, which I agree it is). So the general consensus is that it is an untouched original, right?

I also agree with Redhed18, I would skip the bracelet as well 😀
 
Posts
509
Likes
790
I just came here to ask about this watch... I am looking to buy it, since I see no obvious alerts (other than the steep price, which I agree it is). So the general consensus is that it is an untouched original, right?

I also agree with Redhed18, I would skip the bracelet as well 😀

I think it's in a fair condition, but not perfect. The bezel and the case have some marks, that for me make it a bit expensive, especially if you don't care about having the original bracelet. But then again, not everyone has the patience to wait 😀.
 
Posts
4
Likes
3
I think it's in a fair condition, but not perfect. The bezel and the case have some marks, that for me make it a bit expensive, especially if you don't care about having the original bracelet. But then again, not everyone has the patience to wait 😀.

I agree, and would have to add that I am expecting to negotiate and lower the price a bit. I don't need it to be in perfect condition, and I could live with this one as it shows. Also without it if the price doesn't go down 😉
 
Posts
2,633
Likes
3,083
I almost bought this, but glad I got overbid - I'm 90% sure a $30 caseback restoration and a balance spring donation will be enough, but wasn't looking for the 10% where someone threw this watch like a throwing star and actually dented it

 
Posts
13,156
Likes
22,847
Have you got a link. I can’t find it on eBay (presumably as it wouldn’t ship to UK)
 
Posts
670
Likes
6,560
I’ve got a 166.027 from about 1969 with the cal 563 which I think is the quick date model. They had the slender hands. I may part with it soon. Great watch.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,990
I’ve got a 166.027 from about 1969 with the cal 563 which I think is the quick date model. They had the slender hands. I may part with it soon. Great watch.
Best of luck with that.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,990
I expect to sell it for considerably less than the price above.
I would love to see you get that price. I am genuinely curious what kinds of offers people are throwing at you and if any are indeed actually sane.
You do have over 200 posts (congrats) so could post it here for a real price and avoid the eBay fees- which is like netting an additional 15%
 
Posts
499
Likes
743
I’ve got a 166.027 from about 1969 with the cal 563 which I think is the quick date model. They had the slender hands. I may part with it soon. Great watch.

Are you sure about the hands? As far as I'm aware they don't look correct
 
Posts
1,035
Likes
2,561
Are you sure about the hands? As far as I'm aware they don't look correct

I thought the same thing, but then I noticed this watch earlier on in this thread, that has the same hands, I think:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/my-...or-and-what-to-avoid.38032/page-2#post-541142


Looking at that watch and @keepsonticking 's listing, I'm pretty confident they are are not the same watch (looking at scratches to the case back and how the etching aligns with the notches). So, after seeing two examples with the same odd hands, I wouldn't feel certain saying these hands are incorrect, although they are certainly unusual.
 
Posts
1,035
Likes
2,561
This might be pretty thin to go off of, but comparing the two, I do see some identical marks on the bezel


Good eye - I think you are on to something. I was looking at the case back etching, and after doing the below experiment, it is much more consistently-aligned with the notches on both watches than I originally thought. (Edit, or should I say "in both sets of pictures?")



I guess we know what my "pretty confident" is worth now ::facepalm1::

There is also the scratch above "...R-120" that I'm not seeing clearly on keeponticking's watch, but that could be the lighting. Maybe @keepsonticking can share their thoughts since they have the watch in-hand.
Edited:
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,990
It really is funny how some watches are recognizable and we see them pop up a few times over the years. There was the early Speedy that had issues that was discussed here in ‘15ish and came up at auction a few months ago.

There was an Arnex chrono I saw on eBay last year being sold by a coin and jewelry place that looked very familiar- turns out it was the same watch a member here sold a few years earlier for half the price…how did that end up at a coin and jewelry!?

You would think that many of us look at thousands of watches a year, but each one due to age and wear can have a fingerprint that sticks in your memory.
 
Posts
6,596
Likes
26,711
Good eye - I think you are on to something. I was looking at the case back etching, and after doing the below experiment, it is much more consistently-aligned with the notches on both watches than I originally thought. (Edit, or should I say "in both sets of pictures?")



I guess we know what my "pretty confident" is worth now ::facepalm1::

There is also the scratch above "...R-120" that I'm not seeing clearly on keeponticking's watch, but that could be the lighting. Maybe @keepsonticking can share their thoughts since they have the watch in-hand.


The more I look at it, I feel pretty confident that it is the same watch. Going to the original watch from 2016 from @Fordex, which here is a link to it
https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-120-freshly-serviced.66182/

There is an image that shows the backside of the lug



Now, @keepsonticking ebays listing image


We can see the same scratch on the back side of the lug. Coincidentally, the surface the watch is photographed on appears to also have the same texture pattern… to show what I mean, here is an image from @Fordex

And image from keepsonticking
 
Posts
499
Likes
743
I was just about to say it looks like the same watch LOL
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,990
The more I look at it, I feel pretty confident that it is the same watch. Going to the original watch from 2016 from @Fordex (who I can’t seem to tag for some reason), which here is a link to it
https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-120-freshly-serviced.66182/

There is an image that shows the backside of the lug



Now, @keepsonticking ebays listing image


We can see the same scratch on the back side of the lug. Coincidentally, the surface the watch is photographed on appears to also have the same texture pattern… to show what I mean, here is an image from @Fordex

And image from keepsonticking
You should have been in forensics, Aaron.

Well, now the owner knows it was serviced by Nesbits jn 2016.
 
Posts
29,585
Likes
76,571
I'm looking at the thread and trying to figure out exactly what is being stated. So...the watch belonged to one person and now another? Is that it? What the hell is the point of that observation? I'm a little confused. I think I got the watch from chrono24 years ago. What exactly is the question you all seem to have?

The originality of the hands are in question by many, myself included.

A "second" example was found of the same hands, which would lend credibility to them being original. But after looking at all the photos and comparing marks on the bezel and case, it appears that the "second" watch is actually this watch, making the hands in question again. That's the crux of it...