I’ll post as soon as I get home from picking this ref 2279-3 up after COA today. I just couldn’t wait till next week to get it.
Only 582 apart, so pretty close. I know it’s only two examples but it’s the start of a grouping IMHO. I wonder how many (or few) of these ‘rump-end’ .004s wangled their way onto the .010 production line in order to be fitted with 564s. At some point I must get around to writing to the Omega museum as they only quote 561s for .004s in the OVDB.
So I'd say "mission accomplished" Thanks to all ! And what really makes me happy is the fact that my contribution leads to another exchange of long-time members about the diversity of omega constellations from an early period. Greetings Wuza
From what I see, OP dial has been repainted by a good redialer.(with no knowledge) Compare to an original and you will see.
Hmm, I was told once that the T would also indicate that just the hands have tritium, so no tritium on the dial itself. This watch could have originally had lumed hands but somehow got swapped with the wrong hands. Hands are the most likely things to get swapped. Dials, not so much.
Incorrect in the case of Omega, don't know if it holds true with other brands. In general it is rare, if not very rare for a watch to only have lume on the hands and not the dial too.
Thats not correct, the ones spreading that rumour was probably the same ones that did the hands/dial swapping. Watches came either lunmed both dial and hands or not att all.
I'll find out from Biel once they reopen. I think I've seen older vintage Seamasters with T with just lumed hands only.
