Hello, this forum again. So sorry for many pics.

I want to share my watch ( in my opinion it was rare watch). Omega seamaster chronometer officially certified in jumbo case (36mm) with clean dial.

I can’t find much information about this watch so I need this forum to help me discuss and show (some these dial variation).

This serial number of this watch is 1,477,xxx (indicate production year was around 1955).

Caliber of this watch is 354 , 17jewels.
The case back reference has 3 numbers as shown in pictures.

“2657-2494”
“2521-10”
“SC”
I want to share and ask about

1. Does anyone see the watch with 3 number in one caseback ? (like my watch: 2657/2494/2521)
2. Do you think is this redial or later factory replacement? (In my opinion the “serif font” look well done and original dial)
3. I concern about the short width of the word “CHRONOMETRE” . Does any one see the variation of CHRONOMETRE word that shorter than word “AUTOMATIC” like my watch. (I see very few of this dial variation but I think shorter of chronometer doesn’t mean much.
4. From my search , I found another watch that have the dial with minute marker look like my watch. This watch is from Tony C but some difference in style of “omega symbol” and also the longer length word of Chronometre like most of other watch’s.

The link was applied below.
https://omegaforums.net/threads/uni...nometer-in-18k-rose-gold.106799/#post-1399466

Also, another watch from original link of ChrisN and sold to Snowman in this link. https://omegaforums.net/threads/an-uncommon-seamaster-bumper.39381/

So sorry, my English is not so good .

Best regards,

Teerapat

 

Example of Tony’s watch.
Also, seamaster jumbo with chronometer officially certified.



Example of the watch from ChrisN and sold to Snowman.

 

1. I haven't seen that combination but, you often see more than one reference as the case back would fit different models.
2. The dial looks fine to me and here is an example of the Seamaster font on a 14.5 million watch serial. I won't post the full dial as it is a customer watch - I've seen it under the microscope and it's not a redial. It looks the same as your watch to me.

3. Perhaps someone will have seen this but, the fonts look fine to me.
4. @Tony C. might be able to help.

The dial seems almost white which would be unusual so, I'd be interested to see a picture of the whole watch head in natural light without any post processing at all (straight from the camera). Use a filtered light source (for example, close to a window but behind a partially closed blind) or take the photo as the light goes down late in the day. Put the watch dial up on a surface and rest your phone on an upturned glass to take the photo - don't hold the watch or the camera, then post the picture - no post process and you don't need to add your name (?) to the picture.

Good luck, Chris

 

Thanks ChrisN for your comment.
I just take more photo as you requested.
This pic was taken by my iPhone without any other processing program.

If anyone can discuss more , please post
Sincerely,
Teerapat

 

My initial reaction to the OP's example was that it is either an excellent redial, or a factory replacement. I thought that because of how white it is, the different (serif) font, and "S" on "Seamaster". The anomalous narrow "chronometre" was also a question mark, though the OP has found at least one other that appears original.

I do agree that the printing is of very high quality, and is more likely representative of OMEGA production (whether original or replacement) than a superior redial.

Although I have owned the very similar model shown above, I haven't studied the dial printing variations around that period, so others would likely have more educated opinions. Any of these members may have fine insights, as well as thoughts on the interesting triple reference:

@MSNWatch @gatorcpa @Bill Sohne @mac_omega

 

If that is more representative of the colour, it definitely looks like an Omega dial to me. It is almost impossible to be 100% sure unless you have the watch in hand and look under the microscope at the dial without the crystal in the way.

Good luck, Chris

 

Thanks for your comment and discussion.

 

Are you saying this is a redial? Just trying to learn here so, what's telling you that?

Regards, Chris

 

Like you, I've not seen the automatic and chronometre exact layout before but, I've seen the Seamaster font and showed that above - for me, it's a valid variation but, am always happy to be corrected. There are a lot of variations as you know.

You call redial a lot, I see 123 posts from you with "redial" in the text. Sometimes, we can't be sure and I would just quote this again.

That's my usual position with this sort of thing so, all I'm saying is that there is doubt sometimes.

Cheers, Chris

 

You are welcome. The members who I have mentioned (above) will likely have some good insights.

 

I'm not sure but my initial impression is a redial. If I had to say why, then my first thoughts would be regarding the print and specifically the serifs which to me are a little too exaggerated on some of the letters

 

In my opinion(not sure is it correct?) because of the different style of the dial. The dial that you showed is the waffle dial so it very hard into imprint than my dial.

 

So a omega dial is only genuine if you can find one that's exactly the same? I would not call that 100% correct. You have strange deviations with omega.

 

Although I have some doubts as well I dont know enough about these earlier omega's so I will leave it to the more educated. It's a nice watch despite of everything. Good luck!

Edit: For me the seamaster script raised a eyebrow. It looks so playfull, not omega like.

 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Cry redial 123 times and occasionally you might get it right. It’s a shame you’ve cried wolf so often, it means people are disinclined to listen even when you have a point.

 

With minimal effort, I have found at least two apparently original dials with the same truncated "chronometre". Here's one:

 

And another:

http://forums.watchnet.com/index.php?goto=890663&t=tree

 

And a third, seemingly from @tomvox1 :



I don't see any immediate clues to this being a redial, but I find the stark white to be quite unattractive. I would hazard a guess that it has been cleaned and to me it has lost visual appeal just as it would have by being redialed.

 

There were so many variants of these Seamaster dials that you cannot use other examples to anchor on. I frequently find a variant I’ve never seen before. It takes a lot of experience to be able to differentiate a legit one from a non-legit one.

I’ve seen several examples of Seamaster bumpers these super white dials that are seemingly legit. However, I can’t help but think they’re service dials. Either way, I would not be very concerned because I suspect it’s at least from Omega and also very attractive.

 

Where did you find that!? I want. Even with the polished case.