My Omega Reference 2576 with a Printed Omega Logo – Authenticity Discussion

Hello, all members,

In 1949, the first Omega Seamasters appeared with references 2576 and 2577. The reference 2576 features a sub-seconds complication. These early Seamaster models, across both references, can sometimes be found without the word Seamaster printed on the dial.


In this thread, I will specifically focus on Omega reference 2576. The movement used in this model is typically caliber 342 or 344 (for later production periods). Almost all examples of this reference feature the “applied” Omega logo.


First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that I am uncertain about the originality of the dial on this particular reference. Plus, I appreciate the help from the people I asked via p.m.

Today, I would like to share my “printed” Omega logo reference 2657-1 (dash-1), which has a movement number 11,512,xxx, matching with caliber 342. Based on my research, I estimate that the production year falls between late 1950 and early 1951.

My research has found fewer than 10 watches with the reference marked as “2576-1” inside the case-back.

The hour markers on my example are printed entirely in Roman numerals, a feature that my research could not find on any other reference 2657. Additionally, the rail-track minute markers, the leaf-style hour hand, and the overall handset design are uncommon for this reference. This specific hand style was typically found in the late 1940s.


Additional Dial Details


Below are close-up images of the dial, rail-track, and hour markers.


Please note how perfectly the minute hand aligns with the minute track at the end of each marker.


The sub-seconds dial exhibits a distinct circular texture.

Given the uncommon nature of this dial, I prefer to examine its reverse side. The back of the dial shows that both dial feet remain intact.

Comparing my reference 2657 with another of my 2657 with an uncommon dial pattern, I observed that both dials have a hole for the sub-seconds hand (marked by orange arrows). Additionally, the dial feet are positioned identically (indicated by red arrows).


Furthermore, most reference 2657 dials designed for the applied Omega logo have an additional hole for securing the logo (highlighted by green arrows). However, this printed version lacks such a hole, reinforcing its distinctiveness.

Regarding the Caliber 342, the following image presents the movement number attached to the dial (image credit: emmywatch.com). My watch appears identical to the example shown. The red arrows indicate the holes where the dial feet would be inserted.


Please visualize the alignment of the dial when rotated into position over these holes.


Lastly, here is a wrist shot of my watch.



I apologize for the large number of images, but I wanted to provide as much detail as possible.

Thank you, everyone, for your insights regarding the originality of this dial.

Is it possible that the printed Omega logo corresponds to the early production period of reference 2576?

Additionally, if anyone owns an Omega model from the early 1950s with a printed Omega logo, please feel free to share your examples.

If my watch was indeed redialed, it is one of the finest redials I have ever encountered. However, I am curious as to why the redialer would go to such great lengths to repaint all the minute tracks with the great skill in the sub-dial, as this feature is generally not found in this reference (as demonstrated).

Best,
Teerapat

Based on the serial number, I would say that your watch dates from 1949 to 1950. I know that I have a 1950 Omega catalog in my digital picture stash on my computer at home. I will look at the Seamaster pages there later. However, I think that the pictures shown there have a gold applied logo on the dial.

A quick internet search shows that someone has posted a video review of a 1952 Omega catalog which is in more or less the same format at my 1950 version and shows may of the same watches.. This link starts the video at 4:29, where the Ref. CK2576 is shown. Note that the "Seamaster" does not appear on the dial, even as late as 1952.


If you watch the whole video, you will see other references that are automatics, but are not part of the Seamaster line. Some of these models likely use the same cal. 342 movement, so the dial will fit the movement at least. I cannot tell whether any of these dials would also fit in a Ref. 2576 case. For example, see the CK2584 at 3:53 of the video.

I think we need to at least consider the possibility that the dial may have come from another contemporary Omega Automatic watch of similar size to the CK2576. In addition, I don't remember any Seamaster having leaf style hands. So could it be that dial and movement go together and were transplanted into a CK2576 case? Almost anything is possible with vintage Omega, and especially in this time period.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

After posting above, I noticed this picture from your original post:



Not loving the top of the 2nd "I" in "VII" bleeding into the subdial. Could possibly be a redial. If so, it is a very nice job.
gatorcpa

In all respect but IMO this is not a red flag towards redial at all - I have seen this multiple times on fully original dials, even NOS examples where there is no doubt... We had this discussion already many times.
This dial is 100% original in its condition but unsure if it left the factory on this particular watch - the possibility you mention that the dial came from a diferent reference is the most logic and realistic explanation.
I must admit I am not very familiar with these very early Seamasters, so my comment is not meant to say that a dial without applied logo is original to this watch - I simply don´t know.
But I know when a dial is in its original condition and this is.

I did say "If".
I know that the QC at Omega wasn't the greatest at that time.
gatorcpa

I am skeptical that the dial could be redial. If it is, it's certainly one of the best I've ever seen. Getting those spiral sub-dials right is very rare on non-original dials.

If it were a redial it would also beg the question – why would such a fine artist make a mistake like the one mentioned by @gatorcpa ? I agree with Erich, that it's more likely to be a small, factory misstep.

I'm not an expert on the model, but if the dial isn't original to that watch, I'd wager that it was original to some early automatic. And it's beautiful dial, in my view.

I have added more close-up pictures of the sub-second dial.



Please note that there are grooves between each circular pattern. I wonder how the redialer can paint the minute tracks while maintaining the depth in each groove.
The craftsman is highly skilled.

The lack of Swiss or Swiss Made is unusual. That said I too lean towards original. The prescence of a star logo on both case and dial is perhaps suggestive.

The first 2576 and 2577 models appeared in 1948 according to some sources (including Omega who did a 50th Anniversary SM in 1998, the GMT). There aren’t too many with lower serials than this one. Indeed this is the earliest I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s just a very early variant which wasn’t continued.

This thread is worth a look. It concentrates on the SC 2577 but there is some crossover. Note the serial table

Thank you for sharing your thoughts @gatorcpa @mac_omega @Tony C. @bubba48 .

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @padders . According to the chart in that thread, created by the expert @MtV , the earliest movement number for this reference 2577 might be 11,571,899. My movement number is “approximately 60,000 earlier”. Could my watch be a transitional model in which the “printed” Omega logo was used?

Thank you for sharing the dial pattern, which appears nearly identical to that of my watch, @seekingseaquest . However, the movement used during that period was the Omega caliber 28.10.

From my research, I am wondering whether caliber 28.10 and caliber 342 are interchangeable. I believe that both movements share the same dimensions (28.5 mm). However, I am uncertain about differences in movement thickness, dial leg position (nearly be the same), and fitment, as well as other potential issues that might obstruct such a modification.

Perhaps @Archer can help clarify whether both the “dial and movement” from an earlier model in the late 1940s can be swapped and inserted into reference 2657.
Or what might be a possible explanation?

Also, If anyone has knowledge of a 1940s reference in which this dial is compatible with caliber 342, I would greatly appreciate your insights.

As discussed with @gatorcpa, Omega produced numerous dial variations for each reference. So, in my opinion, at the very least, please don’t forget the classic quote regarding Omega: ‘Neger says Never’.

When comparing both examples, I noticed that the printed Omega logo and the thickness of the font are not the same. Additionally, ‘SWISS MADE’ is present on reference 2402.

More importantly, as marked by the red arrows, I noted that the ‘V’ on reference 2402 is not too close to the sub-dial (as it is on mine), so the leg of the second ‘I’ in ‘VII’ does not extend into the sub-dial.



I believe I may know the answer to this, due to the “larger size” of the sub-dial on my watch. By comparing the closer gap between the center of the hands (where the hands originate) and the upper end of the sub-dial.

My research indicates that the Omega Reference 2402 with the “printed” Omega logo can be used up to movement number 11,510,934, corresponding to Caliber 342 (rather than Caliber 28.10).

https://watchvintage.co.uk/products/1948-omega-sub-seconds-tear-drop-lugs-bumper-cal-342-ref-2402-1



Furthermore, the movement number for Reference 2402 may be as high as 12,852,039; however, it is important to note that this variant features the “applied” Omega logo.

https://www.omegaenthusiastltd.com/product-page/1951-vintage-omega-watch-1

From my perspective, my watch—an early example of Omega Reference 2576 (specifically 2576-1) with movement number 11,512,xxx and an “applied” Omega logo—is highly likely to be authentic.

My conclusion is based on the fact that its movement number differs by “only approximately 1,500” from that of Reference 2402, which also features an ‘applied’ logo, and aligns with the production period of Reference 2576 in comparison to Reference 2577.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts with me.

It might be a somewhat self-serving way of thinking.

May I propose another plausible explanation? Around 1949–1950, Omega had just introduced the new reference 2657-1, featuring the caliber 342 with a movement number in the range of 11 million (my watch 11,512,xxx).

During this early period, Omega likely utilized only printed dials (with matching hand lengths for the rail-track pattern) that may have been in stock since the 1940s. Since the dials could be easily swapped and fitted onto both movements.

From the attached picture, I believe that these dials were compatible with both caliber 28.10 and caliber 342. Please note the identical positioning of the dial legs on both. Credit for the picture goes to Ranfft.



Can this practice may have been a strategic decision by Omega?

The only way to confirm this would be to request an extract from the archives?

1. Cal 28,10 and 342 were the same base movement. So dials would likely fit both outside the case.

2. Strategic decision by Omega? What would be the strategy of using almost 10 year old dials and hands that were out of style by the early 1950’s? Think you are reading way too much into it.

3. Confirm by extract? Omega generally did not confirm specific dial variants to case references with the older extracts. I think it unlikely that Omega will ever reinstate this program.

I think you are trying to stretch logic into a pretzel to justify a premise. Is it possible that your watch left the factory exactly as it looks today? Yes. Is it likely? No.
gatorcpa

Thank you @gatorcpa for your comments. 😀

In years gone by one could source all sorts of vintage omega dials from Watchco on eBay. I always marveled at how they got their pieces - some were unobtanium and some didn’t seem to fit any known reference. I suspect this is where this dial came from.