Need help about a watch authenticity

Posts
10
Likes
1
Hi.I’m not sure if this is an original speedy.The movement photo is a little bit suspicious I know that but still i need some suggestions👎
Edited:
 
Posts
20,240
Likes
46,931
Hi.I’m not sure if this is an original speedy.The movement photo is a little bit suspicious but still i need some suggestions👎
Speedy?
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
Speedy?
Some users on reddit call this ref166.0285 a speedy.I don’t get it either😁
 
Posts
428
Likes
795
Strangely enough, the OP isn't wrong about that. Web search for that reference does indeed turn up a few (apparently independent?) descriptions of it as a "Speedmaster". Of course, these are the same folks that describe the size as "0.35mm"

No the watch is not a Speedmaster. Not even close. Photos aren't great but it does look like a genuine Omega watch.
 
Posts
13,371
Likes
31,512
Whatever it is it's in desperate need of a bath.
 
Posts
428
Likes
795
I guess if 6bar of water resistance is enough to make a watch a "Seamaster" these days, might as well milk the Speedmaster name too.
 
Posts
16,188
Likes
34,140
Yes, there are actually weird Speedies.

But a 166.0285 with a caliber 720?
I don't think so.

 
Posts
16,188
Likes
34,140
It could be a stainless variant of a 766.0895, which is a ladies version.

 
Posts
10
Likes
1
Thank you for all responses😀So beside of the messiness,movement looks original right?
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
I guess if 6bar of water resistance is enough to make a watch a "Seamaster" these days, might as well milk the Speedmaster name too.
Yeah same.It’s a little bit awkward😁
 
Posts
6,201
Likes
25,875
So beside of the messiness,movement looks original right?
What is the actual reference of this watch? If it is the 166.0285, please see the below comment. The ladies reference is noted as coming with the 720 movement.
But a 166.0285 with a caliber 720?
I don't think so.
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
JimInOz is right.After some quick research,I found that it was a ladies version.Thank you all😀